Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gabriela MIŠŠÍKOVÁ
Filozofická Fakulta
Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa
Nitra 2003
Opponents: Prof. PhDr. Tibor Žilka, DrSc.
Doc. PhDr. Pavol Kvetko
Proofreading: John Kehoe
ISBN 80-8050-595-0
CONTENTS
FOREWORD………………………………………………………………………... 8
9
7. SYNTACTIC EXPRESSIVE MEANS………………………………..…. 59
7.1 Modality of a Sentence…………………………………………………….. 59
7.1.1 Ways of Expressing Modality…………………………………….... 59
7.1.2 Stylistic Exploitation of Modality………………………………….. 59
7.1.3 Types of Sentences according to the Types of Modality………….... 60
7.2 Expressiveness in Syntax……………………………….………………….. 60
7.2.1 Expressive Syntactic Constructions………………………………... 60
7.2.2 Word-order…………………………………………………………. 64
7.2.3 Detached Constructions……………………………………………. 65
7.2.4 The Length of a Sentence and its Type…………………………….. 73
7.2.5 Syntactic Constructions Based on the Relation of Synonymy……... 73
7.2.6 Transferred Use of Structural Meaning……………………………. 75
11
LIST OF SOURCES…………………………………………………………………. 124
12
FOREWORD
13
Chapter 1:
STYLISTICS AND STYLE: A HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE AND RECENT TRENDS
In ancient Greece the use of language can be seen mainly as an effort to create
speeches. Thus we may recognise a practical function of language in political and
judicial speeches, and an aesthetic function in ceremonial ones. The art of creating
speech was called Rhetoric (from the Greek techne rhetorike) and was taught as one
of the main subjects in schools. The aim was to train speakers to create effective and
attractive 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 actual
moment of utterance. The work of Aristotle (384 – 322 B.C.) entitled Poetics is
considered to be a pioneer publication in this field. His distinction of epics, drama and
lyrics within artistic works is still applicable. The third field of language use was the
art of creating a dialogue. The study of creating and guiding a dialogue, talk or
discussion, 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 exchanging
experiences and presenting research results was introduced and supported by
Socrates. This method is still known in pedagogy as the “dialogical” or “Socrates’
method”.
The further development of Stylistics was based on the three above mentioned
sources 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:
9
CAESAR CICERO
and and
the Analogists the Anomalists
• stressed regularity and • aimed at the creation and development of
system rules ‘Ornate Dicere’ that is flowery language
• focused on facts and data • used unnatural syntactic patterns, sought
• their aim was to create for innovative often artificial sentence
simple, clear and structures
straightforward speeches • created anomalies on all language levels
• other representatives were • due to their approach, where the true
Seneca and Tacitus message and communicated content
were secondary to the form of
presentation, Rhetoric was called the
“mother of lies”
• Cicero built his theory of rhetoric on the
distinction between three styles: high,
middle and low
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 a
model way of public speaking, which means that aesthetically attractive speeches
were popular. They enabled speakers to develop their individual styles. However, the
influence of ancient India brought about a tendency to make speeches brief in the case
of a sufficient amount of data and facts being available to a speaker. This tendency to
economise the speech intentionally enhanced the distinction between the FORM and
CONTENT.
The language of science, culture and administration was very different from the
language of common people. However, it would be inappropriate to speak about
styles at this stage. It was the same language (and the same style) but, of course,
different phrases, clichés and stereotyped bookish Latin formulas were used in each
sphere. The most apparent differences occurred in terminology.
10
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 the
written 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 book L'Art poétique (1674)
written by Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux, which became the bible of French poets of the
17th 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 it
is not limited to poetics, several definitions are of a stylistic character or even more
general (e.g. ... those pieces of information which are not new should be pronounced
without any special stress or accent, expressions should not be unnecessarily
extended, borrowed and loan words should be avoided and special attention should be
paid to the selection of a title, etc.) In general, the book is based on the poetics of
Aristotle and Horatio. The three different styles are mentioned, their distinction being
based on the opposition of language and parole first mentioned by Cicero (and later
elaborated, quite independently, by Ferdinand de Saussure).
The French classical theory of styles requested the usage of a high (grand) style
in 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 were
classified 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 based
primarily 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 “Űber die
Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss...” and treated
poetry and prose (colloquial, educational and belles-letters prose) as opposites: poetry
and prose differ in the selection of expressive means, i.e. words and expressions, use
of grammatical forms, syntactic structures, emotional tones, etc. Humboldt's ideas
appeared quite intriguing, however, and since his classification of styles was not
based on and supported by any linguistic analyses of text samples, it remained
idealistic. Later on, many linguists returned to and elaborated on his ideas, among
others, the most influential were the members of the Prague Linguistic Circle (1926),
V. Mathesius, B. Havránek and F. Trávníček.
Some literary schools have also contributed towards the development of
stylistics. The French school Explication de Texte developed a method of text
analysis and interpretation which is known as close reading. This method was based
on a correlation of historical and linguistic information and on seeking connections
between aesthetic responses and specific stimuli in the text. The method became quite
popular and was used by many other schools and movements.
11
1.3.1 The 20th Century: Linguistic Schools and Conceptions before Ferdinand de
Saussure
¾ distinction between the aesthetic function of poetic language and the practical,
communicative function of language;
¾ language is seen as a structure, supra-temporal and supra-spatial, given inherently
(in the sense of Saussure´s language);
¾ literary work is an independent structure related to the situation of its origin/
creation;
¾ individual parts of literary or linguistic structure are always to be understood from
the point of view of a complex structure;
¾ the analyses of particular works were based on language analysis because it was
assumed 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 of the Prague Linguistic Circle were R.
O. Jakobson, N. S. Trubeckoj, V. Mathesius, J. Mukařovský. Among others were also
B. Trnka, B. Havránek, J. Vachek, K. Hausenblas and F. X. Šalda. Another
structuralistic school originated in Copenhagen, Denmark represented by J.
Hjelmslev, and in the U.S. represented by E. Sapir and L. Bloomfield.
13
Practice of Linguistic Criticism, 1981). Fowler’s 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 and
analysis of literary works (texts) and are very close to poetics. The original American
tradition is based on practical methods of creating various texts, there is a school
subject called creative writing and composition which is very often identified with
stylistics.
The field of study of stylistics in Slovakia is understood as more independent
from poetics than the British tradition, but also very different from the American
tradition (more theoretical, academic, e.g. F. Miko, J. Mistrík, T. Žilka, etc.).
It is necessary to mention a contribution of Czech stylistics here, namely in the
field of the classification of styles. The Czech linguist, B. Havránek, one of the
representatives of the Prague Linguistic Circle, introduced the notion of functional
styles based on the classification of language functions. According to B. Havránek
the language functions are: 1. communicative, 2. practical professional, 3. theoretical
professional and 4. aesthetic function. The first three functions are informative and the
fourth one is aesthetic. This system of functions is reflected in the classification of
styles in the following way: 1. colloquial (conversational) style, 2. professional
(factual) style, 3. scientific style, 4. poetic (literary) style.
In the 1970’s larger structures of texts and networks of relations within which
they circulate were studied, and recourses to Hallidayan linguistics, register and genre
theory became influential. Typical representatives are Ronald Carter and Roger
Fowler.
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 of
stylistic studies the Indiana University of Bloomington should be mentioned (Style in
Language, 1958).
In the 1990’s two journals which map recent development have to be
mentioned: Language and Literature (first published in Great Britain, 1992) and
Social Semiotics (first published in Australia, 1991).
14
Chapter 2:
MAIN CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
“... stylistics can sometimes look like either linguistics or literary criticism,
depending upon where you are standing when looking at it. So, some of my
literary critical colleagues sometimes accuse me of being an unfeeling linguist,
saying that my analyses of poems, say, are too analytical, being too full of
linguistic jargon and leaving unsufficient room for personal preference on the
part of the reader. My linguist colleagues, on the other hand, sometimes say that
I‘m no linguist at all, but a critic in disguise, who cannot make his descriptions
of 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 I‘ve got the
mix just right, of course!”
(Short, 1996, p. 1)
15
There are many problems that have fascinated scholars working at the interface
between language and literature: What is literature? How does literary discourse differ
from other discourse types? What is style? What is the relationship between language,
literature and society? Within the last 40 years scholars have introduced various
approaches, summarised and discussed in detail in the book edited by Jean Jacques
Weber: The Stylistics Reader. From Roman Jakobson to the present (1996). These are
mainly:
• pragmatic stylistics represented by recent works of Mick Short, Mary Louise Pratt
and Peter Verdonk,
• critical stylistics represented mainly by Roger Fowler and David Birch,
• feminist stylistics 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.
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 the
main 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 French
stylistics by Ch. Bally (1909), a pupil of the structuralist, F. de Saussure, interest in
stylistics gradually spread across Europe via the work of L. Spitzer and others. It was
in 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 their functional significance for the
interpretation of the text; or to relate literary effects to linguistic causes where these
18
are felt to be relevant. Intuitions and interpretative skills are just as important in
stylistics and literary criticism; however, stylisticians want to avoid vague and
impressionistic judgements about the way formal features are manipulated. As a
result, stylistics draws on the models and terminology provided by whichever aspects
of linguistics are felt to be relevant. In the late 1960s generative grammar was
influential; in the 1970s and 1980s discourse analysis and pragmatics. Stylistics also
draws 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 of
non-literary varieties of language, or registers (D. Crystal & D. Davy in Investigating
English Style, 1969; M. M. Bakhtin in The Dialogic Imagination, 1981 and The
Problem of the Text, 1986). Because of this broad scope stylistics comes close to
work done in sociolinguistics. Indeed, there is now a subject sociostylistics which
studies, 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:
19
DEFINITIONS APPROACHES IN THE STUDY
OF OF
STYLE STYLISTICS
20
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 presented
within three groups. While the first and the second group can be seen as opposite, the
third one originated as a reaction to these two.
The first group of stylisticians based their classification and analyses of style on
a personal and subjective perception of analysed texts. Regardless of how elegantly
they expressed their opinions, they were accused of being very subjective,
impressionistic and vague in their style evaluations and their attempts were charged
with 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 as
possible technical procedures, when studying the qualities of texts and formulating
definitions of style. These authors provided rigorous definitions and statements
supported with exact facts, figures and statistics. They were charged with tortuos
pedantry and of using inadequate “rough” methods for the treatment of the “gentle”
material of (literary) texts. This strong criticism is expressed metaphorically as
breaking butterflies on the wheel.
The third group is made up of a few scholars from different fields of study who
deny the existence of style completely. The opinions and theories presented by
geologists, chemists and other non-philological scholars on style (in language and
literature) are quite extraordinary. However, some ideas have been found useful and
worth considering. The approach of Benison Gray is a good and typical example.
The central question asked by Bennison Gray (1969) is Does style exist at all?
and his answer is a vigorous negative.
Gray says that style is something like the emperor’s clothes, everyone says it is
there but no one can actually see it. He tries to map all possible areas of the use of the
term 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 study
human character, personality, or individuality and thus they should say so and not
identify style with character or personality. Similarly, rhetoricians identify style with
the speaker: a man's language has a physiognomic relation to the man himself, but this
is just an assumption which has to be proved, says Gray. Philologists view style as
‘latent’ but they actually study subject matter. Literary critics were also criticised by
Gray, they view style as ‘individual’ but individuality is a matter of language, subject
matter, content, theme and referent, etc. Other scholars consider style as an ‘implicit
speaker’. However, comparing a text with an imaginary norm does not involve any
reference to the author's intentions. Finally linguists define style as a ‘choice’ but in
Gray’s opinion, ‘choice’ is not a workable concept, we can never know what
‘choices’ were available to a particular author at the time of the creation of a text.
21
Gray’s scepticism is bent on reducing terms and concepts to a minimum. We
can agree with him that it is necessary to define precisely what we mean by style, and
still insist that the term is a convenient abbreviation (as ‘yellow’ is for ‘the most
luminous primary colour occurring in the spectrum between green and orange’).
A solution is offered by the philosophy of science which differentiates between
substantive and notational terms (Enkvist, ibid., pp. 14-16):
22
• correlates with context and situation
STYLE
• is an individual variation within each register
TEMPORAL • correlates with a given period
REGIONAL • correlates with areas on a map
• correlates with the social class of its users
SOCIAL DIALECT
• also called sociolect
IDIOLECT • indicates the language of one individual
• correlates with situations
• different subtypes of language that people use in
REGISTER
different social roles (e.g. doctor’s register is different
from the teacher’s, etc.)
23
Chapter 3:
STYLISTICS AND OTHER FIELDS OF STUDY
As we have already pointed out, the study of Stylistics is (more or less) related
to the field of study of Linguistics and/or Literary Study. According to this, stylistics
can be seen as a subdepartment of linguistics when dealing with the peculiarities of
literary texts. Secondly, it can be a subdepartment of literary study when it draws only
occasionally on linguistic methods, and thirdly, it can be regarded as an autonomous
discipline when it draws freely, and eclectically, on methods from both linguistics and
literary study (ibid., p. 27). Each of these three approaches has its own virtues. We
always need to consider the task we are to complete, and consequently decide about
the relevant approach. In a particular situation one approach may be better than
another. However, we should keep in mind that to study styles as types of linguistic
variations and to describe the style of one particular text for a literary purpose are two
different activities.
24
3.3 Linguistic versus Literary Context
25
Ferdinand de Saussure Noam Chomsky
(Course in General Linguistics, 1916) (Syntactic Structures, 1957)
LANGUAGE LANGUAGE
• In the study of
language
linguistics is • does not
closer to presuppose
sociology and performance
social psychology • a linguist
than to cognitive describes the
psychology competence of • does presuppose
language competence
• a linguist is speakers
interested in the
structures of
language systems
26
3.4.1 Where Would Style Go within the Two Presented Theories?
Table 5. The Study of Style within the Theories of F. de Saussure and N. Chomsky.
28