linguistic stylistics-part1.pdf

7/31/2019 Linguistic Stylistics-part1.pdf

1/30

LINGUISTIC STYLISTICS

Gabriela MIKOV

Filozofick FakultaUniverzita Kontantna Filozofa

Nitra 2003


2/30

Opponents: Prof. PhDr. Tibor ilka, DrSc.Doc. PhDr. Pavol Kvetko

Proofreading: John Kehoe

Financovan Komisiou J. W. Fulbrighta v SR

Filozofick fakulta UKF Nitra 2003

ISBN 80-8050-595-0


3/30


4/30

8

CCOONNTTEENNTTSS

FOREWORD... 8

1. STYLISTICS AND STYLE: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ANDRECENT TRENDS.. 9

1.1Ancient Times 91.2The Middle Ages101.3The New Age 11

1.3.1 The 20th Century: Linguistic Schools and Conceptions before

Ferdinand de Saussure....12

1.4Recent Development: Stylistics in the United Kingdom13

2. MAIN CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS. 152.1The Scope of Stylistic Study. 152.2The Notion of Language and Literary Style.. 162.3Stylistic Analysis and Literary Interpretation... 172.4Definitions of Style.... 172.5Definitions of Stylistics. 182.6Attempts at Refutation of Style. 212.7Style as a Notational Term 222.8Style as a Linguistic Variation.. 22

3. STYLISTICS AND OTHER FIELDS OF STUDY.. 243.1Stylistics and Other Linguistic Disciplines... 243.2Stylistics and Literary Study.. 24


5/30

9

3.3Linguistic versus Literary Context 253.4Linguistic Theories and the Study of Style... 25

3.4.1 Where Would Style Go within the Two Presented Theories? 26

4. EXPRESSIVE MEANS AND STYLISTIC DEVICES 294.1Expressive Means.. 294.2Stylistic Devices 314.3Standard English 32

4.3.1 Standard American English... 324.3.2Differences between British and American English.. 34

4.4Varieties of Language... 35

5. LEXICAL EXPRESSIVE MEANS AND STYLISTIC DEVICES. 395.1Interaction of Different Types of Lexical Meaning.. 39

5.1.1Interaction of Dictionary and Contextual Logical Meanings.... 405.1.2Interaction of Primary and Derivative Logical Meanings.. 445.1.3Interaction of Logical and Emotive Meanings... 455.1.4Interaction of Logical and Nominal Meanings.. 46

5.2Intensification of a Certain Feature of a Thing or Phenomenon... 475.3Peculiar Use of Set Expressions.... 50

6. STYLISTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF LEXICAL EXPRESSIVEMEANS..... 53

6.1Stylistic Characteristics of Parts of Speech... 536.2Stylistic Value of Particular Parts of Words. 576.3Synonymy and Polysemy.. 57


6/30

10

7. SYNTACTIC EXPRESSIVE MEANS... 597.1Modality of a Sentence.. 59

7.1.1 Ways of Expressing Modality.... 597.1.2 Stylistic Exploitation of Modality.. 597.1.3 Types of Sentences according to the Types of Modality.... 60

7.2Expressiveness in Syntax... 607.2.1Expressive Syntactic Constructions... 607.2.2 Word-order. 647.2.3Detached Constructions. 657.2.4 The Length of a Sentence and its Type.. 737.2.5 Syntactic Constructions Based on the Relation of Synonymy... 737.2.6 Transferred Use of Structural Meaning. 75

8. THE STUDY OF THE SYNTACTIC WHOLE IN STYLISTICS.. 778.1Main Concepts... 778.2Combining Parts of an Utterance... 788.3Cohesion and Coherence... 80

9. EXTRA-LINGUISTIC EXPRESSIVE MEANS... 879.1The Notion of Paralanguage.. 879.2

Visual Expressive Means.. 909.2.1Graphetics and Graphology.... 90

9.3Kinesics.. 91

10.PHONETIC EXPRESSIVE MEANS AND STYLISTIC DEVICES...9210.1 General Notes... 9210.2 Phonetic Stylistic Devices.92

10.2.1Onomatopoeia.... 92


7/30


8/30

12

LIST OF SOURCES. 124

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1. The Analogists and Anomalists.... 10

Table 2. Style and Stylistics... 20

Table 3. Types of Linguistic Variation.. 23

Table 4. Linguistic Dichotomy of F. de Saussure and N. Chomsky.. 26

Table 5. The Study of Style within the Theories of F. de Saussure and N.

Chomsky . 28

Table 6. Reference..... 82

Table 7. Types of Lexical Cohesion... 85

Table 8. Openness in Text.. 86

Table 9. Semiosis... 88

Table 10. Stylistic Markers of Synonyms.. 101

Table 11. Main Factors in Verbal Communication. 112

Table 12. Functions of Language..... 114

Table 13. Classification of Styles..... 114

Figure 1. Semiotic Triangle in Stylistics..... 89


9/30

13

FFOORREEWWOORRDD

The aim of the presented textbook is to provide Slovak university students ofEnglish language and literature with the theory of stylistics and its practical

application in text analysis. By means of working with a wide variety of textsincluding literary (artistic) texts, stylistics can function as a bridging discipline

between literary and linguistic courses. However, our strong intention, as manifestedin the title of this textbook, is to constantly emphasise and explore the linguisticaspects of stylistic study.

The textbook is based on several theoretical sources, which were selected withregards to the needs of Slovak students who need to familiarise themselves with avariety of language usages in particular contexts and situations. Considering thedifferences between the British tradition and the concept of stylistics within Slovak

and Czech linguistics, as well as the contrasts between European and Americantraditions, the textbook aims at a study of stylistic means within a variety of texts.Influenced by the domestic (Slavonic/structuralist) tradition we use the concept ofa functional style which seems to be methodologically convenient. Many studentshave either a decent knowledge of Slovak stylistics, or, based on their everydayexperiences, can identify various language styles and their functions in particularutterances (contexts and situations).

The main sources for the presented textbook are Stylistics by I. R.Galperin(1977), Investigating English Style by D. Crystal and D. Davy (1969) and the most

comprehensive book on Slovak stylistics tylistikaby J. Mistrk (1985). We adoptedthe framework of the chapters on a stylistic classification of vocabulary, lexical andphonetic expressive means and devices from Galperins book, while reviewing andupdating the content and presenting the most recent examples of the subject matter.Our explanation of paralanguage, graphetics and graphology is based on the ideas ofD. Crystal and D. Davy. The book on Slovak stylistics by J. Mistrk provided us witha broader context of stylistic study, mainly historical perspectives and recentdevelopments. Some other sources were used to clarify specific concepts (see theList of Sources). As stated in the text, several summarising explanations wereadopted from A Dictionary of Stylistics by K. Wales (1990) and examples were alsosought for in the Slovak dictionary of literary terms written by T. ilka (1987). Inaddition to the works mentioned above, there are a few which I cherish as myfavourite reading. The most inspiring are the works of respected personalities in thefield, namely Ronald Carter, John Douthwaite, Mick Short and Peter Verdonk.

The presented textbook attempts to provide a comprehensive theoreticalbackground to the study of Stylistics. For a practical application of the theory see thecollection of guided tasks in stylistic analysis of literary and non-literary texts entitledWorking with Texts in Stylistics (Mikov, due out in 2003).


10/30


11/30

9

Chapter 1:

SSTTYYLLIISSTTIICCSS AANNDDSSTTYYLLEE::AAHHIISSTTOORRIICCAALLPPEERRSSPPEECCTTIIVVEE AANNDDRREECCEENNTTTTRREENNDDSS

1.1 Ancient Times

In ancient Greece the use of language can be seen mainly as an effort to createspeeches. Thus we may recognise a practical function of language in political and

judicial speeches, and an aesthetic function in ceremonial ones. The art of creatingspeech was called Rhetoric (from the Greektechne rhetorike) and was taught as one

of the main subjects in schools. The aim was to train speakers to create effective andattractive speeches. Another language activity was the creation of poetic works. The

process of artistic creation was called Poetics. Its aim was to study a piece of art, and,unlike rhetoric, it focused on the problems of expressing the ideas before the actualmoment of utterance. The work of Aristotle (384 322 B.C.) entitled Poetics isconsidered to be a pioneer publication in this field. His distinction of epics, drama andlyrics within artistic works is still applicable. The third field of language use was theart of creating a dialogue. The study of creating and guiding a dialogue, talk ordiscussion, as well as the study of methods of persuasion, was called Dialectics. The

dialogue technique as one of the most convenient and efficient form of exchangingexperiences and presenting research results was introduced and supported bySocrates. This method is still known in pedagogy as the dialogical or Socratesmethod.

The further development of Stylistics was based on the three above mentionedsources from which Poetics went its own way and created the field of study known at

present as Literary Criticism. Rhetoric and Dialectics developed into Stylistics.The development of Stylistics in ancient Rome, that is about 300 years later,

brought the distinction of two different styles in speech represented by Caesar and

Cicero. Their main characteristics are summarised in the following table:


12/30

10

CAESARand

the Analogists

CICEROand

the Anomalists stressed regularity and

system rules focused on facts and data their aim was to create

simple, clear andstraightforward speeches

other representatives wereSeneca and Tacitus

aimed at the creation and development ofOrnate Dicere that is flowery language used unnatural syntactic patterns, soughtfor innovative often artificial sentencestructures

created anomalies on all language levels due to their approach, where the true

message and communicated contentwere secondary to the form of

presentation, Rhetoric was called the

mother of lies Cicero built his theory of rhetoric on thedistinction between three styles: high,middle and low

Table 1. The Analogists and Anomalists.

1.2 The Middle Ages

Latin was exclusively used as the language of science, art and administration,and no attempts were made to deal with problems of speech. This period shows no

progress in the development of stylistics. An anomalistic rhetoric of Cicero became amodel way of public speaking, which means that aesthetically attractive speecheswere popular. They enabled speakers to develop their individual styles. However, theinfluence of ancient India brought about a tendency to make speeches brief in the caseof a sufficient amount of data and facts being available to a speaker. This tendency toeconomise the speech intentionally enhanced the distinction between the FORM andCONTENT.

The language of science, culture and administration was very different from thelanguage of common people. However, it would be inappropriate to speak aboutstyles at this stage. It was the same language (and the same style) but, of course,different phrases, clichs and stereotyped bookish Latin formulas were used in eachsphere. The most apparent differences occurred in terminology.


13/30

11

1.3 The New Age

On the one hand there were the traditions of Cicero and Aristotle, on the other,new theories of style have developed: individualist, emotionalist, formalist,functionalist, etc.

In the era of Romanticism the notion and term style referred exclusively to thewritten form of language (from Gr. stylos = a carver, an instrument for writing).Spoken language was the main subject of rhetoric.

The most impressive work from this period is the bookL'Art potique (1674)written by Nicolas Boileau-Despraux, which became the bible of French poets of the17th and 18th century. This book includes explanations of prose, poetry and drama,and is considered an unusual guidebook for poets and other artists. At the same time itis not limited to poetics, several definitions are of a stylistic character or even moregeneral (e.g. ... those pieces of information which are not new should be pronouncedwithout any special stress or accent, expressions should not be unnecessarily

extended, borrowed and loan words should be avoided and special attention should bepaid to the selection of a title, etc.) In general, the book is based on the poetics ofAristotle and Horatio. The three different styles are mentioned, their distinction being

based on the opposition oflanguage andparole first mentioned by Cicero (and laterelaborated, quite independently, by Ferdinand de Saussure).

The French classical theory of styles requested the usage of a high (grand) stylein all verbal works of art as an opposite to the everyday communication of common

people in which the middle and low (plain) styles were used. The styles wereclassified as 1. stylus altus (works of art), 2. stylus mediocris (the style of high

society) and 3.stylus humilis (the style of low society but could be used in comedies).This theory reflects preliminary attempts to describe the notion of style as basedprimarily on the selection of expressive means.

At the beginning of the 19th century a German linguist and philosopher,Wilhelm von Humboldt described functional styles in his book ber dieVerschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss... and treated

poetry and prose (colloquial, educational and belles-letters prose) as opposites: poetryand prose differ in the selection of expressive means, i.e. words and expressions, useof grammatical forms, syntactic structures, emotional tones, etc. Humboldt's ideas

appeared quite intriguing, however, and since his classification of styles was notbased on and supported by any linguistic analyses of text samples, it remainedidealistic. Later on, many linguists returned to and elaborated on his ideas, amongothers, the most influential were the members of the Prague Linguistic Circle (1926),V. Mathesius, B. Havrnek and F. Trvnek.

Some literary schools have also contributed towards the development ofstylistics. The French school Explication de Texte developed a method of textanalysis and interpretation which is known as close reading. This method was basedon a correlation of historical and linguistic information and on seeking connections

between aesthetic responses and specific stimuli in the text. The method became quitepopular and was used by many other schools and movements.


14/30

12

1.3.1 The 20th Century: Linguistic Schools and Conceptions before Ferdinand deSaussure

At the beginning of the 20th century a group of German linguists,B.Croce, K.Vosslerand L. Spitzer, represented the school of the New Idealists. Their approach isknown as individualistic or psychoanalytical because its main aim was to search forindividual peculiarities of language as elements of expressing a psychological state ofmind (in German Seelische Meinung). B. Croce regarded language as a creation andthus suggested viewing linguistics as a subdepartment of aesthetics. Karl Vossler wasknown for looking for clues to national cultures behind linguistic details and LeoSpitzer for tracing parallels between culture and expression. His working method

became famous as the Spitzerian circle. However, the German school of individualistsand psychoanalysts belongs to the past and there are no followers anymore.

The origin of the new era of linguistic stylistics is represented by the linguisticemotionalistic conception of the French School of Charles Bally. Ch. Bally worked

under the supervision of Ferdinand de Saussure in Geneva and after Saussures deathpublished his work: Cours de linguistique gnrale (1916). Ballys own concept ofstylistics is classified as emotionally expressive because of his strong belief that each

particular component of linguistic information combines a part of language and a partof a man who interprets or announces the information.

While at the beginning of the 20th century the Romance countries were mainlyinfluenced by Ballys expressive stylistics and Germany by Croces individualstylistics, a new linguistic and literary movement developed in Russia and becameknown as formalism. The Russian Formalists introduced a new, highly focused and

solid method of literary and linguistic analysis. Formal method used in linguistics wasbased on the analytical view of the form, the content of a literary work was seen asa sum of its stylistic methods. In this way, the formal characteristics of a literary workare seen in opposition to its content. In other words, the focus was on devices ofartistry not on content (i.e. HOW not WHAT). The formalists originated as anopposition to a synthesis introduced by the symbolists. The development follows fromsynthesis towards analysis, putting the main emphasis on the form, material, or skill.The main representative was Roman O. Jakobson; others were J. N. Tynjanov and V.V. Vinogradov. Russian formalism originated in 1916, flourished in 1920 1923, and

had practically ceased to exist by the end of the 20s. In spite of the short, about ten-year, existence of Russian formalism, many ideas were modified and furtherelaborated. They became part of structuralism, and can also be found in the works ofthe members of the Prague School ten years later.

The crucial question of the movement known as Structuralism is What islanguage and what is its organisation like? The main ideas of structuralism are

presented in its fundamental work Cours de linguistique gnrale written by F. deSaussure (1856 1913) and published posthumously by his student Ch. Bally in 1916.The ideas of Structuralism penetrated not only into linguistics and literary criticism,

but also into ethnography, folklore studies, aesthetics, history of arts, drama andtheatre studies, etc.

The program and methodology of work of the Prague Linguistic Circle(1926)were truly structuralistic. They introduced systematic application of the term


15/30

13

structuralism, which brought about new phenomena introduced into linguistics andliterary study. Its influence on stylistics was crucial. The main aspects of themovement can be summarised as follows:

distinction between the aesthetic function of poetic language and the practical,communicative function of language;

language is seen as a structure, supra-temporal and supra-spatial, given inherently(in the sense of Saussures language);

literary work is an independent structure related to the situation of its origin/creation;

individual parts of literary or linguistic structure are always to be understood fromthe point of view of a complex structure;

the analyses of particular works were based on language analysis because it wasassumed that in a literary work all components (i.e. language, content,composition) are closely inter-related and overlapping within the structure.

The founders and main representatives ofthe Prague Linguistic Circle were R.O. Jakobson, N. S. Trubeckoj, V. Mathesius, J. Mukaovsk. Among others were alsoB. Trnka, B. Havrnek, J. Vachek, K. Hausenblas and F. X. alda. Anotherstructuralistic school originated in Copenhagen, Denmark represented by J.Hjelmslev, and in the U.S. represented by E. Sapir and L. Bloomfield.

1.4 Recent Development: Stylistics in the United Kingdom

At the time when structuralism was at its most influential in Czechoslovakia,Denmark and the USA, the school known as The New Criticism originated inCambridge, Great Britain.

The main representatives were I. A. Richards and W. Empson, who introducednew terms, mainly the method of structural analysis called close reading. Theydevoted great effort to the study of metaphor and introduced the terms tenor andvehicle which are still in use. The New Criticism represents progress in stylisticthinking and their theory is valid even today. They also have followers in the USA.

(e.g. C. Brooks, R. P. Blackmur, R. P. Warren).British stylistics is influenced by M. Halliday (1960s) and his structuralistapproach to the linguistic analysis of literary texts. British tradition has always beenthe semiotics oftext context relationships and structural analysis of text: locatingliterature into a broader social context and to other texts. British Stylistics andLinguistic Criticism reached its most influential point at the end of the 70s (Kress,Hodge:Language as Ideology, 1979; Fowler, R. et al:Language and Control, 1979,Aers, et al.: Literature, Language and Society in England 1580-1680, 1981). All three

books used transformational and systemic linguistics, an overtly structuralist andMarxist theoretical approach to the analysis of literary texts. Two years later RogerFowler published a book signalling new directions in British Stylistics and marking itstransition to Social Semiotics (Fowler, R.: Literature as Social Discourse: The


16/30

14

Practice of Linguistic Criticism, 1981). Fowlers book brings together British works(Halliday) with those of Barthes, Bakhtin and others of European traditions.

Romance, English and American stylistics are based on observation andanalysis of literary works (texts) and are very close to poetics. The original Americantradition is based on practical methods of creating various texts, there is a schoolsubject called creative writing and composition which is very often identified withstylistics.

The field of study ofstylistics in Slovakia is understood as more independentfrom poetics than the British tradition, but also very different from the Americantradition (more theoretical, academic, e.g. F. Miko, J. Mistrk, T. ilka, etc.).

It is necessary to mention a contribution of Czech stylistics here, namely in thefield of the classification of styles. The Czech linguist, B. Havrnek, one of therepresentatives of the Prague Linguistic Circle, introduced the notion of functionalstyles based on the classification of language functions.According to B. Havrnekthe language functions are: 1. communicative, 2. practical professional, 3. theoretical

professional and 4. aesthetic function. The first three functions are informative and thefourth one is aesthetic. This system of functions is reflected in the classification ofstyles in the following way: 1. colloquial (conversational) style, 2. professional(factual) style, 3. scientific style, 4. poetic (literary) style.

In the 1970s larger structures of texts and networks of relations within whichthey circulate were studied, and recourses to Hallidayan linguistics, register and genretheory became influential. Typical representatives are Ronald Carter and RogerFowler.

Among the latest tendencies there is the interesting approach of textual

Stylistics which originated in Anglo-Saxon countries (Halliday: Cohesion in English,London 1976; Turner: Stylistics, Penguin Books, 1973) and from American centres ofstylistic studies the Indiana University of Bloomington should be mentioned (Style in

Language, 1958).In the 1990s two journals which map recent development have to be

mentioned: Language and Literature (first published in Great Britain, 1992) andSocial Semiotics (first published in Australia, 1991).


17/30

15

Chapter 2:

MMAAIINNCCOONNCCEEPPTTSS AANNDDDDEEFFIINNIITTIIOONNSS

2.1 The Scope of Stylistic Study

Stylistics is traditionally regarded as a field of study where the methods ofselecting and implementing linguistic, extra-linguistic or artistic expressive means anddevices in the process of communication are studied (e.g. Mistrk, 1985). In general,we distinguish linguistic stylistics and literary (poetic) stylistics. The division betweenthe two is by no means easy or clear. In his bookExploring the Language of Poems,

Plays and Prose Mick Short comments on this problem like this:

... stylistics can sometimes look like either linguistics or literary criticism,depending upon where you are standing when looking at it. So, some of myliterary critical colleagues sometimes accuse me of being an unfeeling linguist,

saying that my analyses of poems, say, are too analytical, being too full oflinguistic jargon and leaving unsufficient room for personal preference on the

part of the reader. My linguist colleagues, on the other hand, sometimes say thatIm no linguist at all, but a critic in disguise, who cannot make his descriptionsof language precise enough to count as real linguistics. They think that I leave

too much to intuition and that I am not analytical enough. I think Ive got themix just right, of course!

(Short, 1996, p. 1)

Mick Short is a Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Modern EnglishLanguage at Lancaster University and a leading authority in the field of stylistics.The above-mentioned book provides a clear and broad ranging introduction tostylistic analysis including a comprehensive discussion of the links betweenlinguistics and literary criticism. Shorts standpoint is a linguistic one and his

analytical methods are perfectly up-to-date. He works exclusively with literary texts;texts of poetry, fiction and drama and consequently his analyses include aconsiderable amount of (literary) interpretation and discussion of literary issues. Inother words, he is interested not only in the (linguistic) forms of the analysed texts(i.e. HOW), but he also studies the meaning (i.e. WHAT) of the text in the sense of a

plot and an overall meaning/message of a story.For our purposes, it is crucial to understand that there are different traditions of

stylistic research (e.g. Slovak versus British and American traditions) which influencethe limits and ambitions of stylistic study as well as the methods used in stylistic

analysis. Of course, modern developments and tendencies towards an interdisciplinaryresearch have to be taken into account.


18/30

16

There are many problems that have fascinated scholars working at the interfacebetween language and literature: What is literature? How does literary discourse differfrom other discourse types? What is style? What is the relationship between language,literature and society? Within the last 40 years scholars have introduced variousapproaches, summarised and discussed in detail in the book edited by Jean JacquesWeber: The StylisticsReader.From Roman Jakobson to the present(1996). These aremainly:

formalist stylistics represented by Roman Jakobson, functionalist stylistics represented by Michael Halliday, affective stylistics introduced by Stanley E. Fish and Michael Toolan, pedagogical stylistics elaborated by H. G. Widowson, Ronald Carter and Paul

Simpson.

Other currents in contemporary stylistics are different types of contextualizedstylistics, for instance:

pragmaticstylistics represented by recent works of Mick Short, Mary Louise Prattand Peter Verdonk,

critical stylistics represented mainly by Roger Fowler and David Birch, feministstylistics introduced by Deirdre Burton and Sara Mills, and cognitive stylistics represented by Donald C. Freeman, Dan Sperber, Deirdre

Burton and others.

We shall discuss some of the most influential approaches later on in this chapter.

2.2 The Notion of Language and Literary Style

According to J. Mistrk (1985) stylistics can be defined as the study of choiceand the types of use of linguistic, extra-linguistic and aesthetic mean, as well as

particular techniques used in communication. Considering the generally accepteddifferentiation between linguistic and literary stylistics, J. Mistrk suggests that we

carefully distinguish between the language style, belles-lettres and literary style (ibid.,p. 30):

The language style is a way of speech and/or a kind of utterance which isformed by means of conscious and intentional selection, systematic patterning andimplementation of linguistic and extra-linguistic means with respect to the topic,situation, function, author's intention and content of an utterance.

The Belles-Letters style (artistic, aesthetic, in Slovak umeleck tl) is one ofthe language styles which fulfils, in addition to its general informative function, aspecific aesthetic function.

The Literary Style is the style of literary works implemented in all componentsof a literary work, i.e. on the level of language, ideas, plot, etc. All these componentsare subordinated to aesthetic norms. (Thus Literary style is an extra-linguistic


19/30

17

category while the language and belles-letters styles are language categories.) We canrecognise the style of a literary school, group or generation and also an individualstyle of an author (i.e. idiolect). This means that on the one hand we can name the so-called individual styles and on the other the inter-individual (functional) styles.

Traditionally recognised functional styles are 1. rhetoric (persuasive function),2. publicistic (informative function to announce things) and 3. scientific(educational function). Functional styles can be classified as subjective (colloquialand aesthetic) and objective (administrative and scientific). We shall discuss moredetails on particular styles and their classification in Chapter 12 (Mistrk, ibid., p. 31).

2.3 Stylistic Analysis and Literary Interpretation

In his work on (Slovak) stylistics J. Mistrk draws clear boundaries betweenstylistic analysis and literary interpretation (ibid., p. 31):

He definesstylistic ortext analysis as a procedure which aims at the linguisticmeans and devices of a given text, the message, topic and content of analysed textsare not the focus. The method of stylistic analysis can be equally applied to the studyof language use in literary as well as non-literary texts.

From this point of view literary interpretation is a process which appliesexclusively to literary texts, it aims at understanding and interpreting the topic,content and the message of a literary work, its literary qualities and the so calleddecodingof the author's signals by the recipient.

2.4 Definitions of Style

The understanding of the term style influences the characteristics given toStylistics as one of several linguistic disciplines. The following are the most commoncharacteristics of style as listed by K. Wales in her respected workA Dictionary ofStylistics (1990):

Although the term style is used very frequently in Literary Criticism andespecially Stylistics, it is very difficult to define. There are several broad areas in

which it is used:(1) At its simplest, style refers to the manner of expression in writing andspeaking, just as there is a manner of doing things, like playing squash or painting.We might talk of someone writing in an ornate style, or speaking in a comic style. Forsome people style has evaluative connotations: style can be good or bad.

(2) One obvious implication of (1) is that there are different styles in differentsituations (e.g. comic vs. turgid); also that the same activity can produce stylisticvariation (no two people will have the same style in playing squash or writing anessay). So style can be seen as variation in language use, whether literary or non-literary. The term register is commonly used for those systemic variations in linguisticfeatures common to particular non-literary situations, e.g. advertising, legal language,sports commentary.

Style may vary not only from situation to situation but according to medium and


20/30

18

degree offormality: what is sometimes termedstyle-shifting. On a larger scale it mayvary, in literary language, from one genre to another, or from one period to another(e.g. we may talk of the style of Augustan poetry, etc.) Style is thus seen against a

background of larger or smaller domains or contexts.(3) In each case, style is seen as distinctive: in essence, the set or sum of

linguisticfeatures that seem to be characteristic: whether of register, genre or period,etc. Style is very commonly defined in this way, especially at the level of text: e.g. thestyle of Keats Ode to aNightingale, or of Jane AustensEmma.

Stylistic features are basically features of language, so style is in one sensesynonymous with language (i.e. we can speak equally of the language of Ode toa Nightingale). What is implied, however, is that the language is in some waydistinctive, significant for the design of a theme, for example. When applied to thedomain of an author, style is the set of features peculiar to, or characteristic of anauthor: his or her language habits or idiolect. So we speak of Miltonic style, orJohnsonese.

(4) Clearly each author draws upon the general stock of the language in anygiven period; what makes style distinctive is the choice of items, and theirdistribution and patterning. A definition of style in terms of choice is very popular, theselection of features partly determined by the demands of genre, form, theme, etc. Allutterances have a style, even when they might seem relatively plain or unmarked: a

plain style is itself a style.(5) Another differential approach to style is to compare one set of features with

another in terms of a deviation from a norm, a common approach in the 1960s. Itwould be wrong to imply that style itself is deviant in the sense of abnormal, even

though there are marked poetic idiolects. Rather, we match any text or piece oflanguage against the linguistic norms of its genre, or its period, and the common coreof the language as a whole. Different texts will reveal different patterns of dominantor foregrounded features.

2.5 Definitions of Stylistics

Stylistics is the study of style. Just as style can be viewed in several ways, so

there are several different stylistic approaches. This variety in stylistics is due to themain influences of Linguistics and Literary Criticism.Stylistics in the twentieth century replaces and expands on the earlier discipline

known as rhetoric. Following the publication of a two-volume treatise on Frenchstylistics by Ch. Bally (1909), a pupil of the structuralist, F. de Saussure, interest instylistics gradually spread across Europe via the work of L. Spitzer and others. It wasin the 1960s that it really began to flourish in Britain and the United States.Traditional literary critics were suspicious of an objective approach to literary texts.

In many respects, stylistics is close to literary criticism and practical criticism.By far the most common kind of material studied is literary, and attention is text-centred. The goal of most stylistic studies is not simply to describe the formal

features of texts for their own sake, but to show theirfunctional significance for theinterpretation of the text; or to relate literary effects to linguistic causes where these


21/30

19

are felt to be relevant. Intuitions and interpretative skills are just as important instylistics and literary criticism; however, stylisticians want to avoid vague andimpressionistic judgements about the way formal features are manipulated. As aresult, stylistics draws on the models and terminology provided by whichever aspectsof linguistics are felt to be relevant. In the late 1960s generative grammar wasinfluential; in the 1970s and 1980s discourse analysis and pragmatics. Stylistics alsodraws eclectically on trends in literary theory, or parallel developments in this field.So the 1970s saw a shift away from the reader and his or her responses to the text (e.g.affective stylistics, reception theory).

Stylistics or general stylistics can be used as a cover term for the analysis ofnon-literary varieties of language, or registers (D. Crystal & D. Davy in Investigating

English Style, 1969; M. M. Bakhtin in The Dialogic Imagination, 1981 and TheProblem of the Text, 1986). Because of this broad scope stylistics comes close towork done in sociolinguistics. Indeed, there is now a subject sociostylistics whichstudies, for instance, the language of writers considered as social groups (e.g. the

Elizabethan university wits); or fashions in language.The following table offers a summary of the most common definitions of style

and the most influential approaches in stylistic studies:


22/30

20

DEFINITIONSOF

STYLE

APPROACHES IN THE STUDYOF

STYLISTICS

Style can be seen as

the mannerof expression inwriting and speaking

from the point of view oflanguage in use as a variation,i.e. speakers use different stylesin differentsituations, literary v

non-literary (register - systemicvariations in non-literarysituations: advertising, legallanguage, sports commentary,etc.). Styles may vary alsoaccording to medium(spoken,written) and degree of formality (termed alsostyle-shifting)

the set orsum of linguisticfeatures

a choice of items deviation from a norm (e.g.

marked poetic idiolects, commonapproach in the 1960s)

In the 19th

century Rhetoric was replaced by

Linguistic/emotionally expressivestylistics in the Romance countries (Ch.Bally)

Individualistic, neo-idealistic, psycho-analytical approach in Germany (Croce,Vossler, Spitzer)

Formalism in Russia (1920-1923) Structuralism in Czechoslovakia (The

Prague Linguistic Circle, 1926), Denmark(J. Hjelmslev), USA (E. Sapir, L.Bloomfield)

The New Criticism in Great Britain(Cambridge University, Richards,Empson) and USA (Brooks, Blackmur,Warren).

Functionalists:Generative Grammar 1960sDiscourse Analysis 1970sPragmatics and Social Semiotics1980s

British Stylistics and LinguisticCriticism reached its most influential

point at the end of the 70s.New directions in British Stylistics and its

transition to Social Semiotics (Fowler,R.:Literature as Social Discourse: The

Practice of Linguistic Criticism, 1981). General stylistics (non-literary varieties) Sociostylistics (close to sociolinguistics)

Table 2. Style and Stylistics.


23/30

21

2.6 Attempts at Refutation of Style

Our discussion has shown that the notion of style covers a large semantic field.In the past, the multiple application of the term caused many disputes about its use.As N. E. Enkvist points out (1973), others, mainly scholars with a non-philological

background, emphasised the fact that the notion of style is vague and hard to define.Consequently, the opinions on style expressed in the 20th century can be presentedwithin three groups. While the first and the second group can be seen as opposite, thethird one originated as a reaction to these two.

The first group of stylisticians based their classification and analyses of style ona personal and subjective perception of analysed texts. Regardless of how elegantlythey expressed their opinions, they were accused of being very subjective,impressionistic and vague in their style evaluations and their attempts were chargedwith conceptual looseness.

The second group of stylisticians tried to remain on the very objective and

strictly scientific bases, making use of mathematics, statistics and other as precise aspossible technical procedures, when studying the qualities of texts and formulatingdefinitions of style. These authors provided rigorous definitions and statementssupported with exact facts, figures and statistics. They were charged with tortuos

pedantry and of using inadequate rough methods for the treatment of the gentlematerial of (literary) texts. This strong criticism is expressed metaphorically asbreaking butterflies on the wheel.

The third group is made up of a few scholars from different fields of study whodeny the existence of style completely. The opinions and theories presented by

geologists, chemists and other non-philological scholars on style (in language andliterature) are quite extraordinary. However, some ideas have been found useful andworth considering. The approach of Benison Gray is a good and typical example.

The central question asked byBennison Gray (1969) is Does style exist at all?and his answer is a vigorous negative.

Gray says that style is something like the emperors clothes, everyone says it isthere but no one can actually see it. He tries to map all possible areas of the use of theterm style and refutes one approach after another. It has to be said at the very

beginning that we do not agree fully with his arguments but still, quite a few

interesting points were highlighted and thus it is worth discussing his approach here.Gray says that, for example, psychologists talk about style as behaviour. They studyhuman character, personality, or individuality and thus they should say so and notidentify style with character or personality. Similarly, rhetoricians identify style withthe speaker: a man's language has a physiognomic relation to the man himself, but thisis just an assumption which has to be proved, says Gray. Philologists view style aslatent but they actually study subject matter. Literary critics were also criticised byGray, they view style as individual but individuality is a matter of language, subjectmatter, content, theme and referent, etc. Other scholars consider style as an implicitspeaker. However, comparing a text with an imaginary norm does not involve anyreference to the author's intentions. Finally linguists define style as a choice but inGrays opinion, choice is not a workable concept, we can never know whatchoices were available to a particular author at the time of the creation of a text.


24/30

22

Grays scepticism is bent on reducing terms and concepts to a minimum. Wecan agree with him that it is necessary to define precisely what we mean by style, andstill insist that the term is a convenient abbreviation (as yellow is for the mostluminous primary colour occurring in the spectrum between green and orange).A solution is offered by the philosophy of science which differentiates betweensubstantive and notational terms (Enkvist, ibid., pp. 14-16):

2.7 Style as a Notational Term

The definition of style seen as a notational term can be based on a number ofprinciples. The first one is the complexity of the relationships between thespeaker/writer and the text (the personality and environment of the people who havegenerated the text). The second one is represented by the relationship between the textand the listener/reader (recipients responses), and the third one is the attempt to

objectify the approach and to eliminate references to the communicants at either endof the communication process (i.e. description of the text, not appeals to

personalities).Another dimension will offer three fundamentally different views. In this way,

we can define style as a departure from a set of patterns which have been labelled asa norm. In this case stylistic analysis becomes a comparison between features in thetext whose style we analyse and the text that we consider as a norm. Secondly, thestyle can be seen as an addition of certain stylistic traits to a neutral, stylelessexpression, here the stylistic analysis becomes a stripping process. The third view sees

style as connotation, whereby each linguistic feature acquires its stylistic value fromthe textual and situational environment. Stylistic analysis then becomes a study of therelationship between specific linguistic units and their environment. As we willexperience later, when working with texts, all these approaches should be seen ascomplementary rather than as contradictory or mutually exclusive.

2.8 Style as a Linguistic Variation

N. E. Enkvist (ibid., pp. 16-17) describes linguistics as a branch of learningwhich builds models of texts and languages on the basis of theories of language.Consequently, he says, linguistic stylistics tries to set up inventories and descriptionsof stylistic stimuli with the aid of linguistic concepts. By this definition linguistsshould be interested in all kinds of linguistic variation and style is only one of manytypes. The table below is based on the relevant passage from the above quotedEnkvists book on Linguistic Stylistics and presents the classification of linguisticvariations according their correlation towards context, situation and others:


25/30

23

STYLE correlates with context and situation is an individual variation within each register

TEMPORAL correlates with a given periodREGIONAL correlates with areas on a map

SOCIAL DIALECT

correlates with the social class of its users also called sociolect

IDIOLECT indicates the language of one individual

REGISTER

correlates with situations different subtypes of language that people use in

differentsocial roles (e.g. doctors register is differentfrom the teachers, etc.)

Table 3. Types of Linguistic Variation.


26/30

24

Chapter 3:

SSTTYYLLIISSTTIICCSS AANNDDOOTTHHEERRFFIIEELLDDSS OOFFSSTTUUDDYY

3.1 Stylistics and Other Linguistic Disciplines

Stylistics often intersects with other areas of linguistics, namely historicallinguistics, dialectology, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and many others. All ofthem are different branches of language study and should be regarded as differenttools from the same set and not as rivals. To illustrate the situation, an examplediscussed by N. E. Enkvist (ibid., p. 19) can be presented here:

The expression thou lovest taken from the language of W. Shakespeareillustrates how different fields of study use different classifications of the samelanguage phenomenon. In our case, the expression thou lovest will be classified byhistorians as an older form ofyou love and by the students of contemporary styles as afeature of aBiblicalorarchaic style.

Another example also points at different point of view in classification. Theexpression you aint can be regarded as a characteristic of a social class and thusqualified as a class marker. It also correlates with a certain range ofsituations and soit can be a style marker. In a complex study of linguistic variation, both observationsmay be relevant.

3.2 Stylistics and Literary Study

As we have already pointed out, the study of Stylistics is (more or less) relatedto the field of study of Linguistics and/or Literary Study. According to this, stylisticscan be seen as a subdepartment of linguistics when dealing with the peculiarities ofliterary texts. Secondly, it can be a subdepartment of literary study when it draws onlyoccasionally on linguistic methods, and thirdly, it can be regarded as an autonomous

discipline when it draws freely, and eclectically, on methods from both linguistics andliterary study (ibid., p. 27). Each of these three approaches has its own virtues. Wealways need to consider the task we are to complete, and consequently decide aboutthe relevant approach. In a particular situation one approach may be better thananother. However, we should keep in mind that to study styles as types of linguisticvariations and to describe the style of one particular text for a literary purpose are twodifferent activities.


27/30

25

3.3 Linguistic versus Literary Context

In his Linguistic Stylistics N. E. Enkvist (1973) refers to certain theoreticaldiscussions which voiced some dogmatic attitudes about the relationship betweenlinguistics, stylistics and literary study. Many of them have even acquired politicalovertones. In practice, such problems tend to solve themselves pragmatically, as longas each investigator allows himself the freedom of choosing and shaping his methodsto achieve his own particular goals (ibid., p. 33). In some studies, stylistics may be anauxiliary brought in to narrative structure, in others, categories of narrative structure

provide contexts for stylistic analysis.To illustrate the situation, Enkvist uses the following sample sentence from

Ibsens play The Dolls House:

Nora says: I leave the keys here.

This sentence can be linguistically characterised as an everyday middle-classconversation, an expression which seems, against one contextual background, trivialand highly predictable. From the point of view of a literary context (that is thedramatic structure of the play) we have to see the sentence as an expression of Norasdetermination to break with her past, that is, the sentence is seen in the light ofanother contextual background.

How far we wish to go in our discussion of an utterance such as this willdepend on our purpose: if we study Ibsens Norwegian style, we may dismiss Norassentence as a trivial example of everyday dialogue, if, on the contrary, we study the

way in which Ibsen built up to a dramatic climax, we should carefully note the tensionbetween a major narrative kernel and its undramatic expression. Narrative elementsand their linguistic expressions is an apparatus developed mainly by Propp, Barthesand Todorov (ibid., p. 34).

3.4 Linguistic Theories and the Study of Style

The most influential linguistic theories of the 20 th century, introduced by

Ferdinand de Saussure and Noam Chomsky, have also influenced the discussion ofthe study of style. The aim of this subchapter is to review the main characteristics ofthe two dichotomies and to see what the role of study of style within these theorieswas.


28/30

26

Ferdinand de Saussure Noam Chomsky(Course in General Linguistics, 1916) (Syntactic Structures, 1957)

LANGUAGE LANGUAGE

LANGUE PAROLE COMPETENCE PERFORMANCE

any particularlanguage that is thecommonpossessionof allmembers of agiven languagecommunity

language as a system

socialphenomenonpurely abstractsocial orinstitutionalcharacter

In the study oflanguagelinguistics iscloser to

sociology andsocial psychologythan to cognitive

psychology

a linguist isinterested in thestructures oflanguage systems

language behaviourof individualmembers of thelanguage community

language behaviourwhich is actualisedon particular occasion

actualindividual

a linguistdescribes thecompetence oflanguagespeakers

the ability toengage in this

particular kind ofbehaviour

the typicalspeakersknowledge of thelanguage system

ones linguisticcompetence isones knowledge ofa particularlanguage

does notpresuppose

performance

kind of behaviourthe speakerhabitually oroccasionallyengages in

does presupposecompetence

Table 4.Linguistic dichotomy of F. de Saussure and N. Chomsky.


29/30

27

3.4.1 Where Would Style Go within the Two Presented Theories?

One of the major goals of linguistic stylistics is to define or devise linguisticmethods for the identification and adequate description of stylistic stimuli. The desireto define the place of the study of style within the given linguistic theories seems to becrucial to our further discussion. Accounting for the main aspects of the presentedlinguistic dichotomies, several possibilities on how to incorporate the study of styleinto the linguistic dichotomy of Ferdinand de Saussure and Noam Chomsky can beconsidered.

One way is to identify the study of style with the linguistic concept ofparole.This approach seems to work well in the analysis of single texts by one individual,however, some methodological difficulties can be pointed out. If langue is onlyobservable as an abstraction from parole, and if styles are only observable as resultsof comparison between one sample ofparole and another, how can these two samples

be compared without references to langue? In other words, we believe, that each

sample reflects the same langue and this fact makes them comparable and measurable(see Enkvist, ibid., p. 37).

Another reaction towards the distinction between langue andparole, one whichsuggests to find a stylistic subsection under each of these two concepts, seems toaccommodate the aims of our study of style better. Describing parole as non-collective, individual, and momentaneous actually excludes the study of some otherlanguage variants, namely of non-individual, collective, group styles. Group stylesreflect the wider norms of language communities, and, as such, should be classifiedand studied underlangue. From this point of view, the suggestion to provide stylistic

subsections underlangue andparole seems to be an acceptable one.This approach is reflected in the division of styles into two categories: groupstyles belonging to langue, and individual styles belonging to parole. The Czechlinguist, Lubomir Doleel, emphasised the distinction between the style of a singleutterance (close to parole), and the style of a category or type of utterance. As L.Doleel implies, it is possible that an individual can order certain features in a singleutterance. But to study this aspect of utterances a special theory of discourse is neededwhich is not the same as stylistics. A similar theory of divorcing individual stylesfrom group styles was introduced by another Czech scholar, Josef Vachek, who draws

distinction betweenspecial languages andfunctional styles (ibid., pp. 38-39).Another possibility is to declare that Saussures dichotomy requires an overallmodification to be applicable in stylistic study. In fact, several attempts to providesupplements to Saussures dichotomy can be recorded. An interesting contributionwas made by the Prague linguists who have also developed a three-level approach.They claim that between the concrete speech event and the abstract sentence patternthere intervenes an utterance levelwhich includes features such as functional sentence

perspective, studied mainly by Dane (ibid., p. 40).Finally, opinions suggesting that the dichotomy langue vs.parole is not suited

for the study of style were recorded as well.As for the dichotomy of N. Chomsky, the notion of style can only be traced in

this theory with difficulties. In fact, there is no special interest paid to the study ofstyle. However, some suggestions were made to supplement Chomskys dichotomy.


30/30

The following table offers a summary of the opinions described above:

Linguistic Dichotomyof

Ferdinand de Saussure

Linguistic Dichotomyof

Noam Chomsky

To create a stylistic subsectionunderlangue andparole.

To equate stylistics withparole. To add stylolinguistic use. To ignore this theory.The most acceptable solution is acombination of the first and thirdway.

The notion ofcompetence should includean apparatus describing stylisticvariations.

Style should be consideredwithingrammar, but not within the basicgrammar, where the study of style isconsidered less fundamental.

Table 5. The Study of Style within the Theories of F. de Saussure and N. Chomsky.

linguistic stylistics-part1.pdf

Documents