Well, vish said that when he subsituted AoA for incidence in the text, and it all made sense to him. So i didn't see a need to reply to the exact reference.
The book is talking about superstalls in the pages leading up to pg 120: comparing low-tail with high-tail planes. THe problem with high-tail planes being that in a stall the downwash of the wings would put the elevator in the turbulent airflow and thus reducing/eliminating its effectiveness and making recovery unlikely. Up until the pre-stall phase, the airplane has no pitch up tendancies (rather the nose would want to drop). Past the pre-stall phase the nose of the airplane has pitch-up tendancies. He then explains:
page 120:
"Many explanations of the super-stall invoke the term 'downwash' and suggest that chagnes in downwash on the tail have some effect on super-stall qualitites. This is not true. A change in downwash angle alone in the approach to the stall does not produce any nose up pitching tendency from the tail. ALthough the tail experiences an increasing negative incidence with increase in attitude this increase is always 'beaten' by the decreasing negative incidence due to the physical change in attitude. If this were not true than the aeroplane would be unstable in the stall approach, which it is not."
Replace references of 'incidence' with 'angle of attack' (as per the books glossary on page 4) , and it suddenly makes sense
.