英語文體學要略

Chapter1Introduction

DefinitionofStylistics

Areasonablestartforabookofthisnatureistobrieflyexaminehowthefieldhasbeendefined.

Walesdefinesstylisticssimplyasnthestudyofstyle11(1989:437).Thisdefinitionisclearand

concise,butitdoesnottellusmuchaboutthefielduntilwehavehadagooddiscussionofwhat

styleis.Widdowsonprovidesamoreinformativedefinition:"Bystylistics,Imeanthestudyof

literarydiscoursefromalinguisticorientationandIshalltaketheviewthatwhatdistinguishes

stylisticsfromliterarycriticismontheonehandandlinguisticsontheotheristhatitisessentially

ameansoflinkingthetwo"(1975:3).Hefurtherexplainsthedefinitionfromthemorphological

make-upofthewordstylistics,pointingoutthatthe'styl'componentrelatesstylisticstoliterary

criticism,andthe'is-tics*componenttolinguistics.Leechholdsasimilarview.Hedefines

stylisticsasthe"studyoftheuseoflanguageinliterature”(1969:1),andconsidersstylisticsa

"meeting-groundoflinguisticsandliterarystudy**(1969:2).FromwhatWiddowsonandLeech

say,wecanseethatstylisticsisanareaofstudywhichstraddlestwodisciplines:literarycriticism

andlinguistics.Ittakesliterarydiscourse(text)asitsobjectofstudyanduseslinguisticsasa

meanstothatend.Thusdefined,wemayexcludetwokindsof'borderline1studies,workwhichis

insomewayslinguisticallyorientedbutnotdirectlyrelatedtoliteraryinterpretation(e.g.

computer-orientedstudyofauthorship),andworkwhichisclaimedtodealwithstylebutdoesnot

makeuseoflinguisticfactsandtheory.

EmergenceofStylisticsasanInterdisciplinaryFieldofStudy

Thedatewhenstylisticsbecameafieldofacademicinquiryisdifficulttodetermine.However,it

maybesaidthatitwasnotuntilthelate1950'sthatstylisticsbegantoadvancewithsignificant

andmeasurablestrides.In1958,thefirstconferenceonstylisticswasheldatIndianaUniversity,

U.S.A,andelevenyearslater,anotherconferencewhichattractedspecialistsfromoverten

countrieswasconvenedinBellagio,Italy.Thepaperspresentedanddiscussedatbothconferences

werecharacterizedbysystematicandobjectiveanalysisofthelanguageofliteratureandwere

laterpublished.Thisgreatlyhelpedstylisticstogainpopularityandledtoagrowinginterestinthe

subject.Consequently,anumberofmorecoherentandsystematicworksofbothatheoreticaland

apracticalnaturewerepublishedinthefield.Now,stylisticshasdevelopedintoan

interdisciplinaryareaofstudywithexplicitaimsandeffectivetechniques,andpromisestooffer

usefulinsightsintoliterarycriticismandtheteachingofliterature.

Englishstylisticshasdevelopedonthebasisoftraditionalrhetoricwhichmaybetracedback

toAristotle*stime.Nevertheless,itwasthe'threerevolutions,insocialsciences(Lott,1988)that

broughtittotherighttrackandbroughtaboutitspresentstatus.

Oneoftherevolutionsisthemodernistmovementinartandliterature,lastingfrom1890

tothebeginningofWorldWarII.Toagreatextent,therevolutionwasabreakwithtraditionin

thewaysitinfluencedboththecontentandlanguageofliterature.Fromthismovementonwards,

creativewritersexercisenorestraintsonthesortoflanguagetheyuseintheirwritings.In

modernistliterature,readerscouldfindmuchtosurprisetheminrespectofcontentaswellas

language.

Anotherrevolutionistheoneinliterarycriticismwhichhashadaprofoundandradical

influenceonstylistics.Inthe1930's,thecriticaltheorist,I.A.Richards,expressedhis

dissatisfactionwiththosecriticsofhisage.Inhisopinion,theyseemedtobetoomuch

preoccupiedwithliterature'sroleineducatingthereadersmorallyandemotionally.Hecalledfora

moreobjectiveapproachtoliterarytexts.Inhisfamousbook:PracticalCriticism(1929),he

establishedanapproachtopoetrywhichdependedonclosereadingofthetext.Hewasjoinedby

scholarssuchasWilliamEmpsonwhoseworkSevenTypesofAmbiguity(1930)hadawide

influenceandpromotedtheconceptofambiguityasadefininglinguisticcharacteristicofpoetry.

Theirinsistenceonclosereadingofthetextandanalysisofthelanguageofthetextcoincideswith

thestartingpointofstylistics,thusgreatlyfacilitatingitsdevelopment.

Thethirdrevolutiontookplaceinlinguisticsciencestartinginthelate1950's.Itwasinitiated

bytheworkofNoamChomskyandMichaelHallidaywhosethoughtsweredirectlyorindirectly

influencedbythelinguistictheoryofF.deSassure,thefounderofmodemlinguistics.Chomsky's

transformational-generativegrammarrevealedasystemofsurfacestructureanddeepstnicturein

Englishsyntax.Italsobroughtaboutanewawarenessofhowthehumanmindisinnatelyableto

systematizerealitybytheuseoflanguage.Halliday*ssystemicgrammarhasofferedmanyinsights

intothemethodsoftextanalysis,particularlyinrespectofcohesionbetweensentencesin

discourse.Theworkdoneinthefieldoflinguisticsinthelastthreedecadeshasprovidedthe

stylisticianswitheffectiveandcompletelynewtoolsforinvestigatinglanguageinuseinboth

literatureandothertypesofdiscourse.

Theabove-mentionedrevolutions,intheirownways,haveplayedafundamentalrolein

shapingstylisticsintotheimportantinterdisciplinaryfieldofacademicstudythatitistoday.

TwoImportantAssumptionsofStylistics

Thefirstimportantassumptionofstylisticsisthatliteratureismadeoflanguage.Thispointis

mostexplicitlymadebyHallidayinthe"Foreword"hewritesforCummingsandSimmons*book

LanguageandLiterature(1983).Hestates:"Perhapsthefirststeptowardsbecominga

stylistician...willbetorecognizethatliteratureismadeoflanguage1*(1983:vii).Halliday

observesthatthewayliteratureismadeoflanguageisnotanalogoustothewaythatarchitecture

ismadeofsteelandconcrete;steelandconcreteareformlessuntilthebuilderimposessome

patternonthem.Butlanguageisalreadymeaningfullystructuredandsystematized.Aclose

analogytothewayliteratureismadeoflanguage,accordingtoHalliday,wouldbethewaythat

dancingismadeofthemovementsofthebody.Dancingstartsfromeverydayactionslikeleaping,

balancingandreachingandthesetooarenotformless.Theyarealreadyhighlyorchestrated,

Meaningful*patternsofbodilymovement.Butoutofthesepatterns,furtherpatternscanbe

created;anditiswhenwebecomeawareofthesesecondorderpatternsthatwecometorealize

somethingwecalldancingorbodilyart.

Sinceliteratureismadeoflanguage,linguisticswhichisthescientificstudyoflanguage

shouldinprinciplebemosthelpfultousinanalyzingandinterpretingliterarytexts.

Thesecondassumptionofstylisticsisjustasbasicandimportantasthefirstone.Thatisthe

assumptionthatliteratureisatypeofcommunicativediscourse.Notmanystylisticianshavemade

thepointexplicitly,butWiddowsonhasgivenaclearstatement:"apieceoflanguageuse,literary

orotherwise,isnotonlyanexemplificationoflinguisticcategories...butisalsoapieceof

communication,adiscourseofonekindoranother"(1975:29).Thispointisnotdifficulttosee.A

studyofanyliterarytextwillrevealthatstylisticfeaturesdonotoccurrandomlyinitbutform

patterns.Inotherwords,theyhavecohesion.Theyareunderstood,therefore,notsimplywith

referencetothelinguisticsystem,butalsowithreferencetothecontextinwhichtheyappear.

Theassumptionthatliteratureisatypeofdiscourseallowsstylisticianstoaccountforliterary

textsnotjustintra-sententiallybutalsointer-sententially,notonlyintermsoflinguisticfactsand

theorybutalsointermsofsociolinguisticfactsandtheory.Thus,itispossibletostudyliterature

fromawiderdimension.

TheGoals,ComponentsandProcedureofStylisticInquiry

Hallidayidentifiestwopossiblegoalsofstylisticinquiry.Thefirstis"toshowwhyandhowthe

textmeanswhatitdoes**(1983:x).Thisgoal,accordingtoHalliday,ismoreimmediateand

unquestionablyattainable.Inattainingthegoalitisnecessarytodescribeandinterpretthetext,in

theprocessofwhichwemayfindthatwehavedonemorethansimplyshowwhythetextmeans

whatweknewitmeantalready.Wemayhavediscoveredfreshmeaningswehadnotpreviously

beenawareof,thoughwemayhavebeenreactingtothemunconsciously.Toattainthisgoal

meansthatweshouldbeabletosaynIcandemonstratewhythistextmeansallthatIsayitmeans"

(1983:x).

ThesecondgoalHallidayputsforwardismuchmoredifficulttoattain.Itisthatof"showing

whythetextisvaluedasitis"(1983:x).This,Hallidaysays,mightbetakenasanaimthatis

characteristicofstylistics,asdistinctfromtextanalysisingeneral.Toattainthisgoalmeansthat

oneshouldbeabletosaywhythistextisgoodandthatoneisnot,orwhythistextisbetterthan

thatone,orwhythistexthasbeenreceivedintothecanonofmajorliteraryworks.Thisisindeeda

challengingtask,sinceatthemomentweknowverylittleofhowvalueinheritsinthetext.Thisis

perhapswhyLeechandShortsaythat"itiswithinterpretationthatstylisticsismoredirectly

concerned"(1981:13).

Nowletusconsiderthecomponentsandtheprocedureofstylisticanalysis.Indiscussingthe

goalsofstylisticinquiry,wemighthaveobservedthatastylisticanalysisinvolvesdescription,

interpretationandevaluation.Whendiscussingcomponentsofliterarycriticism,Shorthaspointed

out:"thethreepartsarelogicallyordered:Description<—Interpretation<—Evaluation**(1984:15).

Descriptionislogicallypriortointerpretationbecauseareasonablyconvincinginterpretationofa

literarytextisonlyderivedfromacarefulandsystematicexaminationofitslanguage.

Interpretationisalsologicallypriortoevaluation.AsShortmosthumorouslyputsit,"itmakesno

sensetosay*1thinkXisgoodbecauseIdon'tunderstandif"(1984:15).Shorthasafurther

observation:"Indeed,anevaluationofe.g.apoemisalwaysrelativetosomeinterpretation.If,for

example,someonecomesupwithabetterinterpretationforapoeminthesensethatitexplainsthe

textmoreadequatelythanpreviousattempts,theaestheticmeritofthetextincreasestoon(1985:

15).

Indiscussingthecomponentsandprocedureofstylisticanalysis,Halliday(1983)usestheterm

'phase'insteadoftheterm'part*employedbyShort.Hementionstwophases,analyticphase

(similarinmeaningtowhatShortcallsdescription)andinterpretativephase.Evaluationphaseis

notexplicitlymentioned,butisundoubtedlyimpliedsinceHallidaysetsevaluationasagoalof

stylisticinquiry.Hepointsoutthatthesephasesareconceptuallydistinct.MAnanalysismaybe

wrong,aninterpretationisnotrightorwrong,butmoreorlessconvincing,moreorless

penetratinganddeep"(1983:x).However,Hallidaysays:"Itisnotbeingsuggestedthatanalysis

andinterpretationareseparateportionsofthetask,tobeperformedinsequencewithonestarting

onlywhentheotherhasended.Theymaybeinterleavedonewiththeother,ortheymaynoteven

bedistinguishedoperationallyatall.Insomeproblems,theyoverlap-wherethereismorethan

onepossibleanalysis,anditisnecessarytoadoptoneortheother,orperhapsboth"(1983:x).

LetusnowsumupthepointsShortandHallidaymake.Bothofthemsuggestexplicitlyor

implicitlythreecomponentpartsofstylisticinquiry,andthatthesecomponentpartsbe

distinguishedinsomeway.However,Hallidaymakesafurtherpoint,i.e.theproposedcomponent

partsofstylisticsshouldnotbetakenasformingarigidprocedureofstylisticanalysis.Thislast

pointofHalliday*sisofgreatimportancetostudentstylisticians,sincetheyareapttoseeka

hard-and-fastprocedureortechnologyofstylisticanalysiswhichsimplydoesnotexistandwillbe

hardlypossibletodevelop.Thenaiveandmistakenconceptionthatthereisafixedprocedureof

analysisistheoreticallyruledoutbySpitzefsimageofphilologicalcircle*(1970:30).Spitzer

arguesthatthetaskoflinguistic-literaryexplanationproceedsbythemovementtoandfrofrom

linguisticdetailstotheliterary'centre'ofaworkorawork*sart.Thereisacyclicmotionwhereby

linguisticobservationstimulatesormodifiesliteraryinsight,andliteraryinsightinturnstimulates

furtherlinguisticobservation.Widdowsonalsorejectstheideaofformingafixedprocedureof

stylisticanalysis.Hesays:"Thereisnorigidprocedure;thetechniqueistopickonfeaturesinthe

textwhichappeartofirstimpressionsasunusualorstrikinginsomewayandthenexploretheir

ramifications"(1975:210).Widdowsonherehastouchedonaverycontroversialissue,i.e.the

questionofwhatstyleis.Hisremarksimplythatonlyunusualorstrikingfeaturesarestylistically

relevant.Butsomeotherstylisticiansholddifferentviews.Thisissuewillbediscussedinthenext

chapter.Nowletusturntoanexaminationofthenatureofstylisticanalysis.

TheNatureofStylisticAnalysis

Stylisticanalysisisgenerallyconcernedwiththeuniquenessofatext;thatis,whatitisthatis

peculiartotheusesoflanguageinaliterarytextfordeliveringthemessage.Thisnaturally

involvescomparisonsofthelanguageofthetextwiththatusedinconventionaltypesofdiscourse.

Forexample,ifwewanttoascertainwhethertheuseofthedefinitearticle'the'inaliterarytextis

uniqueandthereforeexpressesaspecialmeaning,weneedtoknowhowthedefinitearticleis

usedineverydaycommunicativediscourse.

Stylisticiansmayalsowishtocharacterizethestyleofaliterarytextbysystematically

comparingthelanguageusesinthattextwiththoseinanother.Hallidaypointsout,nThetextmay

beseenas'this'incontrastwith'that*,withanotherpoemoranothernovel;stylisticstudiesare

essentiallycomparativeinnature...”(1971:341).Onthispoint,Widdowsonisofthesame

opinionasHalliday.Hesays:nAllliteraryappreciationiscomparative,asindeedisarecognition

ofstylesingeneral"(1975:84).Thus,wemayconcludethatstylisticanalysisisanactivitywhich

ishighlycomparativeinnature.

Exercises

1.Howdoyoudefinestylistics?

2.Whatfactorscontributetotheshapingofstylisticsintoaninter-disciplinaryfieldof

academicinquiry?

3.Nameandexplaintheassumptionsofstylistics.

4.Specifythegoalsofstylisticinquiry.Doyouthinkthatitisequallyeasytoattainthetwo

goalsputforwardbyHalliday?Why(orwhynot)?

5.BothHallidayandShorthavementionedthreecomponentsofstylisticinquiry.Whatare

thesecomponents?Whatarethepossiblerelationsbetweenthethreecomponentparts?

6.Doyouthinkitispossibletohaveafixedprocedureofstylisticanalysis?Why(orwhynot)?

WhattechniqueofstylisticanalysisdoesWiddowsonsuggestinthetext?

7.Whatisthenatureofstylisticanalysis?

Chapter2ThreeViewsonStyle

Tocarryoutastylisticanalysis,itisnecessarytofirstofallbeclearaboutwhatitisinaliterary

textthatshouldbedescribed.However,thisquestionofwhatstyleisanissuethathascaused

heateddisputeamongstylistictheoristsandgreatconfusionamongstudentsofliterature.Liu

Shisheng(1998)speaksofthedifficultiesindefiningstyleandlists31definitions.Belowarea

dozenofthesedefinitions:

1)Styleasform(Aristotle)

2)Styleaseloquence(Cicero)

3)Styleistheman(Lestyle,c'estThommememe)(Buffon)

4)Styleaspersonalidiosyncrasy(Murry)

5)Sayingtherightthinginthemosteffectiveway(Enkvist)

6)Styleasthechoicebetweenalternativeexpressions(Enkvist)

7)Styleasequivalence(Jakobson)

8)Styleasforegrounding(LeechandShort,Mukarovsky)

9)Styleasdeviation(Mukarovsky&Spitzer)

10)Styleasprominence(Halliday)

11)Styleastheselectionoffeaturespartlydeterminedbythedemandsofgenre,form,theme,

etc.(TraugottandPratt)

12)Styleasthelinguisticfeaturesthatcommunicateemotionsandthought(Enkvist)

(Liu,1998:9?10)

Theabove-listeddefinitionsexpressimportantviewsonstyle,thoughthereissomeoverlap

amongthem.Inthefollowingsections,wewillconsiderthreeoftheseviews,namelystyleas

deviance,styleaschoice,andstyleasforegrounding.

StyleasDeviance

OneoftheviewsisimpliedinWiddowson*sremarksquotedpreviouslyinSection1.4.Thatis,

thedistinctivenessofaliterarytextresidesinitsdeparturefromthecharacteristicsofwhatis

communicativelynormal.Thishasledtoapproachestostyleasdeviance.Oneofthechief

proponentsoftheconceptofstyleasdeviancewasJanMukarovsky,aleadinglinguistandliterary

criticofthePragueSchoolinthe1930's.HisfamousessaynStandardlanguageandpoetic

language"hasbeenregardedasaclassicinstylistics.Inthisessay,hespeaksofstyleas

"foregrounding",statingthat"theviolationofthenormofstandard,itssystematicviolationis

whatmakespossiblethepoeticutilizationoflanguage;withoutthispossibilitytherewouldbeno

poetryn(1970:42).AccordingtoMukarovsky,normalusesoflanguagenautomatize"languageto

suchanextentthatitsspeakersnolongerseeitsexpressiveoraestheticpower;poetrymust

"de-automatizenor"foreground"languagebybreakingtherulesofeverydaylanguage.

TodemonstratewhatMukarovsky'sstatementsmean,letusfirstquoteaclassicexample,the

phrasenagriefago"fromapoemofthatnamebyDylanThomas.Thephraseviolatestworulesof

English:a)theindefinitearticleaclashessyntacticallywiththeuncountablenoungrief,becauseit

normallymodifiesacountableone;b)thepostmodifyingadverbagoclashessemanticallywiththe

headwordgrief,foritusuallyisabletomodifyanountodowithtime.Butgriefisawordwhich

expressesemotion.Thehighlydeviantnatureofthephraseattractsmuchattentionfromthereader

toitself;andthusmakesitpossiblefbrthepoettoexpresswhatcannotbeexpressedthroughthe

normaluseoflanguage.Thomashereseemstobemeasuringtimeintermsofemotion.Itisnot

unreasonable,therefore,tosuggestthatthespeakerofthepoemmayhaveexperiencedgrief

repeatedlysothathecanmeasuretimeintennsofit.

AnotherfrequentlyquotedexampleisE.E.Cummings*poemanyonelivedinaprettyhow

town.Thispoemshowsnotonlytheextremityofruleviolationsinpoetry,butalsothe

systematicityofviolations.Hereispartofthepoem:

(1)anyonelivedinaprettyhowtown

(withupsofloatingmanybellsdown)

springsummerautumnwinter

hesanghisdidn'thedancedhisdid

Womenandmen(bothlittleandsmall)

caredfbranyonenotatall

theysowedtheirisn'ttheyreapedtheirsame

sunmoonstarsrain

Toavoidcomplicationsletuslimitourdiscussionhereonlytotheuseofauxiliariesinthe

poemfragment.Therearethreeauxiliariesinthispartofthepoem:didn't,didandisn't.Theyare

allusedinpositionswherewenormallyemploycommonnounsand,therefore,theyobviously

violateasyntacticrule.Eachoftheseauxiliariesonitsown,wemayfind,doesnotseemtomake

muchsense.However,becausetheyareusedsystematically,i.e.inthesameway,weareableto

imposesomekindofinterpretationuponthem.Heredidn'tanddidcanbetakenasantonyms.A

possibleinterpretationwecouldconstructforthelasttwolinesofthefirststanza,therefore,may

goasfollows:alltheyearround,hegreetedwithequalhappinessthings,actsoractionsof

oppositeconsequencesthatcametohim.

Theapproachofstyleasdevianceasintroducedabovehastheadvantageofhelpingustosee

andkeepinmindthatthereisadifferencebetweeneverydaylanguageandthelanguageof

literature.Italsohelpsusrealizethatdeviantfeaturesprovideimportantcluesforinterpretation.

However,thisapproachalsohasanumberofdisadvantages.Thechiefdisadvantage,whichisa

muchdebatedproblem,isthatitisdifficulttodefinethenatureandthestatusofthenormfrom

whichstyleofatextdeviates.Bloch,fbrexample,considersthebasisofnormtobestatistical.He

definesstyleas"themessagecarriedbythefrequencydistributionsandtransitionalprobabilities

oflinguisticfeatures,especiallyastheydifferfromthoseofthesamefeatureinthelanguageasa

whole**(1953:42).Butthispositionhasbeenchallenged.Freemanpointsout:"The'frequency

distributionsandtransitionalprobabilities*arenotknown,andneverwillbe,andevenifthey

couldbeascertained,theywouldconstitutenoparticularlyrevealinginsightintoeithernatural

languageorstyle*1(1971:5?6).

Anotherdisadvantageofthisapproach,asTraugottandPrattpointout,isthatof"encouraging

thelinguisttolookatthelanguageofgrammaticallyhighlydeviantauthorslikeE.E.Cummings

attheexpenseoftherelativelynon-deviantonessuchasT.S.EliotandWallaceStevens.More

generallyittendstoundervalueallnon-deviantlanguage,bothwithinliteratureandwithout1*

(1980:33).Thetheoreticalassumptionthataestheticeffectscanonlybeachievedthrough

devianceneedstobequestioned.

StyleasChoice

Bystyleaschoiceismeantthatstyle"resultsfromatendencyofaspeakerorwriterto

consistentlychoosecertainstructuresoverothersavailableinthelanguage"(TraugottandPratt,

1980:29).nWiththisview”，TraugottandPrattsay,"wecandistinguishbetween'style'and

'language'bysayingthatlanguageisthesumtotalofthestructuresavailabletothespeaker,while

styleconcernsthecharacteristicchoicesinagivencontext1*(1980:29).

Tosaythatstyleischoiceisnotthesameassayingthatitisalwaysconsciouschoice.The

effectofconsciouschoice-makingisnodoubtmoreapparentinliteraturethaninothertypesof

discourse,yetasenseofthe'bestwayofputtingsomething*inanytypeofdiscoursecanbepurely

intuitiveorevenhabitual.Ifawriterhadtomakechoiceconsciouslyallthetimeatdifferent

linguisticlevels,itisnotdifficulttoimaginehowlongitwouldtaketoproduceanythingatalland,

consequently,howlittleliteraturewewouldhaveintoday'sliteraturestorehouse.

Styleaschoiceisoftenconsideredtobeamatterofformorexpression,i.e.aschoiceamong

differentwaysofexpressingapredeterminedcontent.However,itonlytakesamomentortwoto

reflectthatwritersalsochoosecontent.InthediscussionofEnkvisfspaper,*Ontheplaceofstyle

insomelinguistictheories*,itispointedoutthat"Hemingwayelectstowriteaboutmenofaction-

bullfighters,deep-seafishermen,soldiers,big-gamehunters-isasmuchastylisticfactashis

habitofwritinginshort,simplesentences,preferringthe'dramatic'tothe'interiormonologue*

pointofviewinnarration,etc.”(Chatman,1971:64).

Theevidenceofchoice-makingcanbefoundinauthors*manuscripts.Herewewillcitean

interestingcasewhichwasonceconsideredbyShort(1984).InwritingTheEveofSt.Agnes,

Keatsfirstproducedtheline,*Asthougharoseshouldcloseandbeabudagain*.Butwhenhe

re-readtheline,hesubstitutedthewordshutforclose:'Asthougharoseshouldshutandbeabud

again*.Onafirstcasualreadingwemaygettheimpressionthatsincecloseandshutaresynonyms,

thereplacementofonewiththeotherdoesnotmakemuchdifference,andisthereforenot

necessary.Butwhenwescrutinizethetwoversions,wemaydecidethatshutisamuchbetter

choice.Thewordcloseinthefirstversionconnectsbackwardstorosetoformaninternalrhyme,

whichaddssomepoeticqualitytotheline,sinceinternalrhymeisoneofthosefeaturesassociated

traditionallyandtypicallywithpoetry.However,thisconnectionismadeonlywithinthefirstpart

oftheline.Furthermore,theconnectiondoesnotinanywayreinforcethemeaningofthe

connectedwords,norindeedthatoftheentireline.Therefore,wemaysaythatitisrhymefor

rhyme'ssake.

Incontrastwithclose,thechoiceofshutismoreappropriateandsignificantinthreerespects:

a)Itconnectsforwardphoneticallyandsupraclausallytobud,thusformingasemi-rhymeor

assonance.Italsoconnectsbackwardtoshouldphoneticallyandvisuallyandtorosewithwhichit

formsthenextimmediateconstituent.Becausetheaboveconnectionsrunacrossbothpartsofthe

lineinsteadofjustone,theunityofthelineisgreatlystrengthened,b)Thephoneticconnectionit

formswithbudunderliesthesemanticconnectionbetweenthetwowords,forshutsemantically

relatestobudintermsoftheshapeoftheflower,whileclosedoesnothavethisrelation,c)When

wecomparethechoiceofshutwiththechoiceofclosephonetically,thereisanotherinteresting

pointtobemade.Noticethatthevowel/a/beforeavoicelessconsonant/t/inthewordshuttakesa

muchshorterdurationtoproducethanthediphthong/au/beforeavoicedconsonant/z/inthe

wordclose.Noticealsothattheconsonant/t/isaplosivewhichisproducedwitharapidreleaseof

compressedairleadingtoshortandsharpexplosion,whiletheconsonant/z/isasibilantwhichis

producedwiththebladeofthetonguemakingalmostcompletecontactwiththealveolarridgebut

leavinganarrowgroovealongitsmedianline.Therefore,theproductionofthewordshutmay

produceasenseof'suddenness*and'abruptness'incontrastwiththeproductionofthewordclose.

Thisgreatlyreinforcesthemeaningoftheline.

Theviewthatstyleischoiceisabroaderview.Itmayinsomewaysubsumetheviewofstyle

asdeviance,fordevianceisonlyoneaspectofthelanguageofliterature(TraugottandPratt,1980).

However,liketheviewofstyleasdeviance,italsohaslimitations.Forexample,itimpliesthat

everylinguisticelementinatextisachoiceofthewriterandthereforeshouldbeincludedina

discussionofthestyleofthetextitisin.Butthisisobviouslynotthecase.Ourexperienceand

intuitiontellusthatininterpretingatext,onlyacertainnumberofelementsareinterestingand

relevanttotheinterpretation.Thestylisticianmustselectthosefeatures