Stylistics

Treatises devoted to the study of style can be found as early as Demetrius's On Style (C.E.
100). ut most !re"t#entieth"century discussions a!!ear as secondary com!onents of rhetorical and
$rammatical analyses or in $eneral studies of literature and literary lan$ua$e. The a!!earance of
stylistics as a semiautonomous disci!line is a modern !henomenon% an on$oin$ develo!ment in
lin$uistic descri!tion that is closely tied to the similar rise of literary criticism and lin$uistics as
academic sub&ects and de!artments. 'odern stylistics% in $eneral% dra#s much of its analytical !o#er
from the analytical methods and descri!tive intentions of lin$uistics% #hile modern literary stylistics% in
!articular% dra#s u!on that area and adds to it the inter!retive $oals of modern literary criticism. (n
both cases% the use of lin$uistic methodolo$y has allo#ed stylistics to move beyond earlier normative
and !rescri!tive descri!tions of )correct) styles to a fuller analysis of lan$ua$e itself and the !ur!oses
to #hich lan$ua$e re$ularly is !ut.
*hatever the limits of !revious a!!roaches to style% or the difficulties that have arisen from the
!ractical a!!lication of lin$uistic methods to stylistic analysis% the desire to be$in #ith a set of #ell"
defined terms and !rocedures lies at the core of the initial formation of stylistics as a disci!line. *hile
all versions of literary stylistics have dedicated themselves to the study and inter!retation of literary
te+ts% it #as the $ro#in$ im!ortance of Euro!ean historical lin$uistics durin$ the mid"nineteenth
century that !roduced the most easily reco$ni,ed com!onent of early modern stylistics- a dee!ly
rooted concern #ith formal lin$uistic descri!tion of literary lan$ua$e. The methodolo$ical benefits that
stylistics $ained by unitin$ literary inter!retation and lin$uistic analysis #ere matched by institutional
$ains as #ell. .istorical and $eneral lin$uistics #ere #ell"established academic disci!lines at the turn of
the t#entieth century% and stylistics could e+!ect to benefit from that status. The use of lin$uistic
!rocedures thus offered stylistics both an affinity #ith an established disci!line and the !ossibility of
foundin$ the descri!tion and inter!retation of style u!on the bedroc/ of science.
*hile its air of scientific analysis made lin$uistics attractive% lin$uistic science #as not itself a
monolithic entity. Durin$ the latter half of the nineteenth century% lin$uistic study oscillated bet#een a
desire to define lan$ua$e throu$h efficient analytical methods (often re0uirin$ a"conte+tual
descri!tions) and another% com!etin$ desire to define lan$ua$e as a social and cultural !henomenon.
The #or/ of the neo$rammarians% /ey fi$ures in the formation of lin$uistics as a modern scientific
disci!line% dis!lays the tension #ell. 1lthou$h the neo$rammarians be$an their #or/ #ith the intention
of reintroducin$ behavior into lin$uistic descri!tion% the attractiveness of scientific method dictated the
slo# elimination of the user as a com!le+ !art of the descri!tion. The result for some lin$uists% notably
the !hilolo$ians% #as a sacrificin$ of the real heart of lin$uistics to a sterile formalism2 for many%
ho#ever% the shift #as the lo$ical result of a move into the modern scientific a$e. (t #as in terms of
these se!arate vie#s of the !ro!er role of lin$uistic descri!tion that the !redominant a!!roaches to
modern stylistics develo!ed% and because of the stron$ Continental influence of 3omance 4hilolo$y on
historical lin$uistics% modern stylistics usually is seen as havin$ be$un there.
The roots of modern stylistics can be uncovered in the #or/ of Charles ally (1567"189:) and
;eo S!it,er (155:"1860). ally's 4r<cis de stylisti0ue (1807) stresses the descri!tion and analysis of a
lan$ua$e's $enerally available stylistic !ro!erties. ;iterary te+ts% in ally's formulation% are !articular
e+am!les of lan$ua$e use% and the analysis of their style is not a central !art of the $eneral stylistics
he em!hasi,es. =evertheless% ally's #or/% and its later reali,ation in the #or/ of >ules 'arou,eau
1
(4r<cis de stylisti0ue fran?aise% 1896) and 'arcel Cressot (;e Style et ses techni0ues% 189:)% stron$ly
influenced the formation of literary stylistics. Such analytical #or/ offered literary critics a relatively
!recise methodolo$y for describin$ the com!onents and features of a te+t. (n !lace of an o!en"ended
and evaluative inter!retive !rocess% lin$uistics both under#rote the need for a more !recise analytical
attitude to#ard lan$ua$e study and !rovided s!ecific cate$ories for characteri,in$ sound% rhythm% and
eventually synta+% as #ell as !oints of com!arison and contrast bet#een re$isters% forms% and
functions #ithin $enres and literary !eriods.
(n contrast to the stylisti0ue of ally and his !ro!onents% ;eo S!it,er insisted u!on follo#in$ the
more !hilolo$ically based tradition of te+tual (and often literary"te+tual) analysis. Such #or/% #hile
usin$ the analytical techni0ues of modern lin$uistics% strives to unite the analytical descri!tion #ith a
critical inter!retation that relates the style to a lar$er conce!tual or situational frame (e.$.% ;in$uistics
and ;iterary .istory 1"@8). Style is seen as an e+!ression of a !articular !sycholo$ical% social% or
historical sensibility or moment rather than as a $eneral !ro!erty of a !articular lan$ua$e. (n
underta/in$ these #ider inter!retations% critics such as S!it,er did not% ho#ever% assume that they
#ere definin$ their stylistics as se!arate from% or even as a subset of% lin$uistic analysis. (n both his
etymolo$ical studies and his more s!ecifically literary"critical inter!retations (Stilstudien% 18A5% and
3omanische Stil" und ;iteraturstudien% 18@1)% S!it,er insisted that he #as !romul$atin$ a $eneral
!ro$ram of lin$uistic study% offerin$ his stylistics in o!!osition to #hat he sa# as the more reductionist
analyses of $eneral% scientific lin$uistics. S!it,er himself em!hasi,ed the s!lit until the end of his
career% re$ularly referrin$ to his #or/ as Stilforschun$ (literary% cultural inter!retation of style""
!hilolo$y in his eyes) to set it a!art from that of Stilisti/% or ally's stylisti0ue (e.$.% );es Btudes de
style et les diff<rents !ays) A@"@8). 1t the same time% he assumed""as did fello# critics of style such
as Ernst 3obert Curtius% Carl Dossler% and .elmut .at,feld""that he #as not reducin$ the scientific
as!ect of lin$uistics but only offsettin$ a false% !ositivistic tone that #as becomin$ increasin$ly
!redominant in the field. The tension in lin$uistics bet#een $eneral lin$uistic descri!tion and less
formal sociocultural inter!retation thus #as mirrored in this early se!aration in stylistics bet#een
lin$uistic stylistic descri!tion and literary stylistic inter!retation. (t is a se!aration% and a tension% that
remains at the heart of modern stylistics.
This tension% S!it,er's and ally's !osition as Continental rather than 1n$lo"1merican lin$uists%
and the !o!ularity of 4ractical Criticism and =e# Criticism in En$land and the Enited States all lay
behind the relative lac/ of an or$ani,ed% 1n$lo"1merican literary stylistics durin$ the first half of the
t#entieth century. ;iterary stylistic analyses #ere occurrin$ in En$land and in the Enited States at this
time% but they often did not contain the formal lin$uistic orientation that characteri,es the modern
disci!line of stylistics. (nstead% they dre# su!!ort and !rocedures from the basic but less analytically
structured orientation of =e# Criticism and !ractical criticism. 1nd #hile the influence of 3omance
lan$ua$e study $re# durin$ the mid"t#entieth century (due in no small !art to the !resence in
En$land and in the Enited States of many e+!atriated scholars)% the established stren$th of other%
more em!irical lin$uistic methodolo$ies reduced !ossible e+chan$es bet#een lin$uistics and literary
criticism.
The eventual a!!earance of modern stylistics in 1n$lo"1merican #or/ re!eated the earlier
Continental !rocess% a!!earin$ most clearly #hen united #ith an interest in lin$uistic analysis at mid"
century and #ith the related interest in literary Structuralism some#hat later. y the late 1870s% the
2
$eneral critical ambience !rovided by the rise and fall of =e# Criticism and !ractical criticism% in
combination #ith a $ro#in$ interest in com!arative literary studies and a ne# a#areness of the
increasin$ im!ortance of lin$uistic science% !rovided the needed im!etus for a stron$ a!!earance of
literary stylistics outside the Euro!ean continent. The !rocesses behind the formation of 1merican
stylistics are e+em!lified by #or/ done by 'ichael 3iffaterre on 3omance lan$ua$es. 3iffaterre's
!ublished dissertation% ;e Style des 4l<iades de Fobineau (187:)% is a self"described attem!t to blend
S!it,er's #or/ #ith that of contem!orary structural lin$uistics% #hile the later% even more formal
stylistic methodolo$y set forth in )Criteria for Style 1nalysis) (1878) and )Stylistic Conte+t) (1860)
shifts a#ay from inter!retive descri!tion and to#ard the $eneral lin$uistic analysis that #as be$innin$
to dominate academic study.
Such #or/ in stylistics reflected a lar$er trend occurrin$ #ithin literary criticism as a #hole
durin$ this !eriod. 3iffaterre's !articular interest in a systematic% formal descri!tion of literary style
mirrored a $ro#in$ a#areness amon$ literary critics in $eneral of the !ossibilities !rovided to literary
study by trends and theories available from formal lin$uistic study. The discovery of lin$uistic #or/ by
Gerdinand de Saussure% 3oman >a/obson% and structural lin$uistic theory in $eneral all formed !art of
the ra!id flo#erin$ of critical #or/ closely related to% if not directly based u!on% !articular methods of
lin$uistic analysis. (t #as not a lin/ bet#een literary stylistics and structural lin$uistic analysis that
mar/ed the real establishment of stylistics as a disci!line #ithin the Enited States% ho#ever. (t #as the
transformational"$enerative $rammar of =oam Choms/y (Syntactic Structures% 187:) that si$naled the
arrival of stylistics as a disci!line #ith inde!endent% self"defined $oals% if not yet a real autonomy from
either lin$uistic or literary"critical a!!roaches to lan$ua$e analysis.
The ra!idly established im!ortance of Choms/y's lin$uistics #ithin his o#n disci!line !rovided a
stron$ ar$ument for the im!ortance of transformational"$enerative $rammar #ithin literary stylistics
as #ell. ut beneath that academic% institutional cause lay !articular features of the theory that e+!lain
further the e+!losion of stylistic #or/ usin$ transformational"$enerative $rammar. The $rammar's
focus on synta+% its distinction bet#een dee! and surface structures% and the resultin$ dynamism in its
descri!tive !rocedures all contributed to a methodolo$y that allo#ed for a much #ider discussion of
the !ossible forms (and by im!lication styles) available to the user of lan$ua$e. 1t the same time% the
declared mentalism of Choms/y's $rammar #as seen by many as !rovidin$ literary stylistics #ith a
means of unitin$ a still lin$erin$ 3omantic sense of creativity #ith the formal lin$uistic descri!tion
needed to !rovide the analysis #ith a no#"re0uisite air of scientific study. 'any critics found not only
an im!lied lin/a$e bet#een lan$ua$e and mind #ithin Choms/y's $rammar but an actual &ustification
for tyin$ intention to structure. *hichever as!ect of Choms/y's $rammar !rovided the im!etus for a
!articular study% the $eneral influence #as hu$e% and the numerous studies that a!!eared durin$ the
years 1867":7 testify to the boost that Choms/y's thin/in$ on lan$ua$e $ave to the era% one of the
most hectic and dramatic in the formation and $ro#th of stylistics.
The foundin$ of the field's ma&or 1n$lo"1merican &ournals""Style (186:) and ;an$ua$e and
Style (1865)""!rovides one convenient benchmar/ for the full arrival of stylistics as an academic
disci!line in ritain and the Enited States% #hile a !lethora of studies and editions from 18:0 and later
!rovides another% more #ide"ran$in$ vie#. 3e!resentative te+ts% #hich dis!lay not only a sense of the
myriad volumes available on the t#o continents but also a sam!lin$ of other methods either related or
o!!osed to Choms/y's #or/% include Donald Greeman% ed.% ;in$uistics and ;iterary Style (18:0)2 4ierre
3
Fuiraud% Essais de stylisti0ue (18:0)2 Fuiraud and 4ierre Cuent,% eds.% ;a Stylisti0ue- ;ectures
(18:0)2 Seymour Chatman% ed.% ;iterary Style- 1 Sym!osium (18:1)2 3o$er Go#ler% ed.% Style and
Structure in ;iterature- Essays in the =e# Stylistics (18:7)2 .elmut .at,feld% ed.% 3omanistische
Stilforschun$ (18:7)2 and Greeman% ed.% Essays in 'odern Stylistics (1851). The last te+t in this list%
Greeman's second collection% ar$ued for the $radual cementin$ of transformational"$enerative
$rammar's !osition #ithin much of 1merican stylistics% an ar$ument made clear by com!arin$ this
collection's announced focus on transformational"$enerative $rammar #ith the eclecticism of
Greeman's first te+t. ut the !osition of transformational"$enerative $rammar had become decidedly
less dominatin$ by 1850% as the rest of the collections demonstrate.
The differin$ models and methodolo$ies found in a te+t such as Chatman and Samuel 3. ;evin's
Essays on the ;an$ua$e of ;iterature (186:)% #hich is not devoted to stylistics alone% serve to
demonstrate that other methods #ere e0ually !o!ular else#here% even before the ea$er !ursuit of
Choms/y's lin$uistics had faded. (n En$land% interest in describin$ not only the structure of lan$ua$e
but also the !ro!erties of discourse and its functions $athered around the #or/ of >. 3. Girth% in
$eneral% and in the union bet#een lin$uistics and literary criticism that a!!ears in the #or/ of '. 1. C.
.alliday% in !articular% #hile the #or/ of Ste!hen Ellman !rovided yet another e+am!le of stylistic
analysis brou$ht to fruition by an e+!atriated Continental 3omance scholar. 1t the same time%
!hilolo$ically oriented #or/ similar to that of S!it,er continued to be available% es!ecially in (taly% #hile
other #or/% such as that of 3ichard *. ailey and ;ubomHr Dole,el in statistical analysis% ar$ued for yet
another method #ithin #hat #as already a very eclectic field. (n fact% #hile lin$uistic formalism a!!lied
to literary lan$ua$e remained the basis of modern stylistic !rocedure% the field continued to build u!on
#hat #as historically a lar$e variety of !ossible stylistic a!!roaches.
=umerous descri!tive cate$ories have been created to !rovide some order amon$ the resultin$
variety of a!!roaches to style% but the most common and useful ta+onomies are those desi$ned
around a communication model such as that of >a/obson ();in$uistics and 4oetics%) in Sebeo/). Some
a!!roaches are essentially concerned #ith describin$ style as a habitual form of e+!ression !articular
to an author or authorial !syche% #hile other formats be$in #ith style as an affective res!onse
$enerated in the reader. Similar to these alternatively e+!ressive and rece!tive a!!roaches are
definitions that see style as indicative of a lar$er conte+t- a cultural sensibility% a historical !eriod% or a
national feelin$. 'ore te+tually focused a!!roaches define style in terms of a !articular $enre% or in
relation to other lin$uistic re$isters% or sim!ly as a #eb of relations bet#een the elements of the te+t
itself. (n all this #or/% #hatever its variety% the main attraction for stylistics remains that of formal
descri!tive !o#er.
That interest eventually be$an to come under increasin$ censure for #hat #as !erceived as its
sacrificin$ of inter!retive com!le+ity for scientific efficiency. The s#in$in$ bac/ of the critical !endulum
is most clearly a!!arent in Stanley Gish's !ointed attac/% )*hat (s Stylistics and *hy 1re They Sayin$
Such Terrible Thin$s about (tI) issued in t#o !arts% in 18:@ and 1850. The main thrust of such
ar$uments #as not sim!ly that stylistic analyses #ere mis$uided or misinter!retive but that the very
foundation of scientific analysis on #hich stylistics based itself #as inherently fla#ed. (n essence% the
ar$uments stated that there #as no #ay to lin/ the em!irically defined features of the te+t #ith the
rest of the critical analysis e+ce!t throu$h the sub&ective% inter!retive frame#or/ of the critic. (n fact%
4
the ar$uments declared% even the stylistic features described in the analysis #ere themselves sub&ect
to the inter!retive choices of the readerJcritic.
(n attac/in$ this as!ect of stylistic analysis% these discussions #ere ta/in$ aim at one of the
s!ecific reasons for the rise of stylistics as an academic disci!line durin$ the t#entieth century. The
de!th and co$ency of ar$uments such as those !ut forth by Gish% arbara .errnstein Smith% and others
#ere a clear si$nal of shiftin$ trends in literary criticism""and in its attitude to#ard lin$uistic analysis.
y 1850 it #as im!ossible to ar$ue for any stylistic model #ithout addressin$ these trends% althou$h
by then the issue already had been !artially settled by an increasin$ concern #ith discourse in the field
of lin$uistics. S!eech"act theory #as !rovidin$ co$ent ar$uments in favor of a return to the s!eech
situation and the conte+t of !roduction% and those discussions mer$ed nicely in literary circles #ith an
increased interest in historical and conte+tual analysis. The 0uestion for stylistics became one of ho#
to blend this increased desire for social% cultural% and conte+tual critical analyses #ith the disci!line's
foundation in formal lin$uistics. (See Discourse and S!eech 1cts.)
1lthou$h the !roblem came to the forefront of stylistics by 1850% it had been loomin$ on the
hori,on for a #hile. The value of efficient descri!tion be$an to fade before a rene#ed desire for social
and conte+tual analysis in the study of lan$ua$e and of its situation of !roduction and rece!tion% and
the basic movement under #ay in lin$uistics dis!layed itself in a variety of #ays and #or/s in literary
stylistics. 3o$er Go#ler% for e+am!le% issued Essays on Style and ;an$ua$e (1866) and Style and
Structure in ;iterature (18:7) but shifted to ;iterature as Social Discourse (1851). .alliday% #ho also
had been #or/in$ on discourse issues for some time in Freat ritain% !roduced ;an$ua$e as Social
Semiotic (18:5)% #hile the !ositive rece!tion $iven to 'ary ;ouise 4ratt's To#ard a S!eech 1ct Theory
of ;iterary Discourse (18::) demonstrated the de$ree to #hich such concerns #ere ta/in$ root in
critical discussions #ithin the Enited States. Ginally% the $ro#in$ influence of feminism and
!sychoanalysis on lin$uistics and literary criticism% e+em!lified by 3obin ;a/off's ;an$ua$e and
*oman's 4lace (18:7)% Cheris Cramarae's *omen and 'en S!ea/in$ (1851)% Deborah Cameron's
Geminism and ;in$uistic Theory (1857)% and >ohn Gorrester's ;an$ua$e and the Ori$ins of
4sychoanalysis (1850)% reinforced the need to ado!t a ne# stance to#ard conte+tually rooted
discussions in both stylistics and lin$uistics. The resultin$ shift a#ay from strict formalism and to#ard
a $reater concern #ith function and conte+t% to$ether #ith a rebirth of interest in inter!retive as #ell
as descri!tive analysis% once a$ain forcefully brou$ht for#ard the issue of #hat constituted the !ro!er
de$ree (or non"de$ree) of methodolo$ical ri$or in stylistics.
1t the turn of the t#entieth century% alle$iance to lin$uistic !rocedures #as the !rimary
definin$ element of stylistics as a disci!line% and it remains so in the last 0uarter of the century. The
ma&or 0uestion facin$ stylistics is #hether movement a#ay from that definin$ characteristic% no matter
ho# sli$ht% #ill result not only in a loss of self"definition but also in a shiftin$ bac/ of the entire field
into the related disci!lines of literary criticism% lin$uistics% or more !robably 3hetoric% #hich is en&oyin$
a stron$ rebirth. (n addressin$ that 0uestion% stylistics continues to face its status as a disci!line
o!eratin$ amon$ all these disci!lines% from #hich it historically has dra#n both its $oals and its
methods. *or/ bein$ done in the last 0uarter of the century on historical and conte+tual readin$s of
literary and nonliterary te+ts su$$ests that stylistic models can be e+!anded sufficiently to allo# the
disci!line to continue to dra# u!on all related fields ade0uately for its o#n !ur!oses #hile maintainin$
its o#n autonomy.
5