Document Sample
Flora Powered By Docstoc
					                                                      ‫اسم الدكتور: فاطمة عبد الصمد محمد الشافعي‬

                                                                             ‫اسم المادة: علم األساليب‬

                                                                                   ‫اسم الكلية: اآلداب‬

                                                                       2011/1/20:‫تاريخ االمتحان‬

                                                                                        ‫الفرقة: الثالثة‬

1.     Write to define and explain two only of the following:                (10 marks)
     a. Stylistics and the linguistic theory

          Early modern stylistics founded its roots in the mid-nineteenth century in Europe as a
          deeply rooted concern with formal linguistic study of literary language. This period
          witnessed limitations of general stylistics to exclude the analysis of the style of non-
          literary texts. Changes in the field of stylistics took place with the beginning of the
          twentieth century.
          1.Bally vs Spitzer Stylistics
          Before the 1950s only one approach to stylistic studies was adopted—applying the
          traditional formal linguistic theory to literary texts. Traditional linguistics viewed
          language as a set of rules and grammar as rules of formation. It used to derive
          descriptions from Greek and Latin. As a discipline, traditional linguistics belonged
          more to philosophy—a relation recently renewed. It concerned itself with language as
          a form,. According to this linguistics, all languages could be subjected to and have to
          conform with classical grammatical description. Only written language was described
          in terms of parts of speech and their combinations (Pearson, 1977, Bloor and Bloor,

          In 1909, Charles Bally, the father of modern stylistics, followed by his proponents
          provided an analytical methodology to text analysis, which emphasized the need for
          formal stylistics. To him, literary texts were simply examples of texts and the analysis
          of their style did not represent a main part of general linguistics (Catano, 1997).
          According to Bally:
                       “…Thought tends towards personal affective integral expression: la
                 langue can only render the most general traits of thought by depersonalizing
                 and objectifying it.” (Bally, 1925[cited in Carter, 1986:15])
Another approach to stylistic analysis started with Spitzer (1948) who insisted upon
following the philologically based tradition of textual analysis. His text analysis,
however, attempted to unite the analytical description with a critical interpretation.
Style according to Spitzer was seen as an expression of particular psychological,
social, historical moment, a distinction also made in modern stylistics.
The importance of making reference to such early roots of stylistics is to indicate, as
it will be explained further, their (Bally’s formal stylistics and Spitzer’s cultural
stylistics) connection with recent stylistics trends in a process of circular
development. The Bally-Spitzer dispute yielded two distinctive trends in stylistic
analysis. Developments in the linguistic and literary theories, methods and trends
have contributed a lot to the stylistic analysis at the mid-century as stylistics was
featured by the existence of a repeated Bally-Spitzer pattern. The two new trends
were directed one to an interest in linguistic analysis and another to an involvement
in literary structuralism.
This was followed by the publication of two works by M. Riffaterre “Criteria for
Style Analysis”(1959) and “stylistic Context” (1960) in which he shifted more to
general linguistic analysis, a move that marked the need for a formal scientific
approach to analysing texts. This triggered the emergence of an area of what is
arbitrarily called here descriptive stylistic trends. Three successive basic trends are
traceable—structural, generative and functional stylistics.

2. Structural stylistics
Structuralism is an approach to language or to any other institution or behaviour, that
views it as a system whose parts are interconnected, to a greater or lesser degree. The
rise of structural linguistics represented by Bloomfield and Fries, early in the
twentieth century, marked a change in language studies, and more specifically in the
area of stylistic analysis. Linguists and stylisticians started to see language as a set of
habits (in contrast to rules in traditional linguistics). Grammar was viewed in blocks
which combine in various structures. Structural stylisticians attempted description of
samples derived from recordings of actual spoken English (this is more or less what
corpus stylisticians are recently doing, see 6.2.2). Structural stylistics derived
explanations of language as habits from related disciplines like ethnography and
behaviourist psychology (Nelson-Francis, 1973).

The structural approach to stylistic studies started to flourish in the late 1950s and the
1960s with Riffaterre’s publications (see p. 6), the work of the Swiss structural
linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1959), and the Russian structural stylistician Roman
Jakobson (1961). Saussure on the one hand, set the foundation of distinguishing
between ‘langue’ and ‘parol’, a distinction that still marks most, if not all recent
linguistic studies. He also set the foundation for semiological studies by indicating
the difference between the ‘signified’ and the ‘signifier’, a distinction that is still at
the heart of the modern science of semiotics (Derewianka, 2001).
Jakobson on the other hand, founded a scheme of analysis based on distinguishing
different parallel structures of language, a tool that was used in stylistic analysis later
in the century. This formal structural stylistics viewed elements of style, i.e. the
choice and use of words and their sounds, separate or in combination, the order of
words, the structure of clauses and sentences, the use of figures of speech and
thoughts, as features that could be separated and analyzed. In other words, “style
studies must be linked to structure studies” (Hatzfeld, 1953: 21). This trend also
concentrated on textual linguistic devices, e.g. binary opposition and metaphor or
metonomy, regardless of explaining the literary aesthetic functions achieved by these
devices. Jakobson also recognized six functions of language (‘referential’, ‘emotive’,
‘conative’, ‘phatic’, ‘poetic’, ‘metalinguistic’) which are later acknowledged by
Halliday, a functional linguist, to be the basis for his model (Leech and Short, 1986).
This structural stylistics was, however, criticized for entirely concentrating on
structure and making little, if any, reference to meaning or function. It was also
blamed for focussing on spoken language, i.e. explaining phonemic and
morphological features and neglecting other aspects of the language of the examined

3. Generative stylistics
Concurrent with European structuralism, American linguistic stylistics started to
flourish with the rise of the transformational generative paradigm after the
publication of Noam Chomsky’s (1957) Syntactic Structures which marked the
establishment of stylistics as an independent discipline. Generative stylistics, which
was considered an extension of European structural stylistics, nurtured a reunion
between the romantic sense of creativity and formal linguistic description. The
transformational generative paradigm maintained that language was characterized by
a rule-governed creativity and that grammar was an innate device in the human mind.
(Esser, 1993; Derewianka, 2001).
Stylistic analyses following this school provided descriptions derived from theories
postulated about universal principles of language in cooperation with other
disciplines like philosophy and cognitive psychology (cf. 6.0). They focussed on the
syntactic form of texts and shared more interest in relating these textual forms to
meaning. Chomskyan stylistics, therefore analysed texts, spoken or written, by
looking at the relationship between the surface structures and the deep structures of
their units, being sentences or utterances. These analyses were then interpreted as
meanings although the Chomskyan basis for the analysis developed and was
recurrently revised by Chomsky himself (Chatman, 1978; Fowler, 1975; Hatzfeld,
1975; Freeman, 1981).
Structural stylistics widely prevailed during the 1960s and 1970s. Stylistic analysis
benefited from both the European and the American schools of structural linguistics.
It proposed to undertake two jobs: (1) to differentiate between ‘literary’ and ‘non-
literary’ forms of language; and (2) to engage in objective descriptions of texts rather
than subjective evaluations (Thornborrow and Wareing, 1998). Consequently,
structural stylistic studies were merely detailed descriptions of the formal linguistic
aspects (phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, etc.) of their examined
literary texts. Stylistic analyses at that time examined style as a deviation from the
norm, a recurrence or convergence of a textual pattern, and as a particular
exploitation of a grammar of possibilities (Freeman, 1970).
This period—1960s-1980s—witnessed an increasing awareness of the importance of
linguistic science, as well as the possibilities provided to literary study from formal
linguistics. During the 1960s, both computer science and generative grammar led
many to hope for more precise ways of describing their impressions of style. This
changed in the 1970s as the stylistics field witnessed a huge number of studies with
approaches related to or opposed to Chomsky’s work (e.g. Freeman, 1970,
Mukarovsky, 1970; Jakobson, 1974; Enkvist, 1975).
Philosophical studies similar to that of Spitzer continued to appear in Italy and others
similar to that of Bally appeared as statistical analyses of texts to mark the continuity
of the split between literary and linguistic stylistics. Numerous categories have been
created to provide some order among the resulting variety of approaches to style; but
the most common and useful taxonomies were those designed around a
communication model such as that of Jakobson (1961). By the 1980s, the
transformational generative grammarians’ theory became less dominating. At that
time, stylisticians started to divert their orientation towards the gradual rise of a new
school of linguistics which was later known as Hallidayan Functionalism.

4. Functional stylistics
Another trend—functional stylistics—was founded on the basic principles of the
British school of functional linguistics established by M.A.K. Halliday, most
specifically in his work of (1970, 1973, 1976, 1977, 1978). This school of
linguistics described language as a system of meanings and grammar as a resource for
making meaning in social contexts. Functional descriptions of language were derived
from observation and analysis of what people do through language within
frameworks derived from linguistics and other disciplines like sociology and
anthropology. Halliday’s work defined the relations between the form of language on
one hand and language functions, most specifically its ‘ideational’, ‘interpersonal’
and ‘textual’ functions on the other hand. Functional linguistics perceived language
systems as varying according to context (D’haen, 1986; Burns and Coffin, 2001).
A functional approach to stylistic analysis interprets text as “interaction of multiple
principles in all aspects of the organization of language (Beaugrande, 1997:198).
Functional stylisticians analysed spoken and written language. The unit of analysis
was text, clause, group, word or phoneme (Enkvist, 1986). A representative example
of this trend is given in Halliday’s stylistic analysis of William Golding’s ‘The
Inheritors’ in which he discusses ‘point of view’ and maintains that in Golding’s
clause patterns “subjects are not people” but “parts of the body of innate objects”, the
effect is “an stmosphere of ineffectual activity and helplessness” (Halliday, 1973:
       123). Halliday also discusses Golding’s work as a system of interactional processes
       and a system of symbolism.
       Few studies, however, have worked from analyses of form to interpretation of
       function attempting to adequately theorize with the social semiotic perspective
       developed in systemic linguistics. For example Gordon’s (2001) analysis of
       ‘relevance’ in Alexander Pope’s ‘The Rape of the Lock’ moves from the level of
       form to challenging recent assumptions about linguistic form, style and function.
       Functional stylistic analyses are still being undertaken by stylisticians as functional
       linguistics still lends them potentialities for producing insightful descriptions of
       literary and non-literary texts. It is, however, necessary to note that this, like all other
       stylistic trends, is not working in isolation. In other words, functional stylistic
       analyses combine principles of linguistic functionalism with other contemporary
       ideas driven from philosophical, cultural and literary theories. This interaction with
       non-linguistic movements produced what is arbitrarily referred to in this article as
       reflective stylistics.

b.     Pragmastylistics
     Pragmatic stylistics or pragmastylistics, also known as speech act
     stylistics, applies propositions of the Speech Act Theory put forward by
     Austin (1962) and developed by Searle (1969), and pragmatic principles
     proposed by Grice (1975), Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1987)
     to literary and non-literary texts. Speech Act Theory provides stylisticians
     with tools to analyse, contextualize, compare, contrast and comment on
     literary texts basing their investigation on pragmalinguistic forms and
     sociopragmatic functions of various linguistic elements. The topics and
     notions exposed include for instance pragmatic markers of persuasion
     (Östman, 1987); modes of rationality through a speech-act model
     (Meyersohn, 1991); pragmatic aspects of narrative fragments (Östman
     and Warvik, 1994); ideology and speech-act theory in literary texts (Pratt,
     1996); and directive speech acts in Shakespearean plays (Jarbou, 2002).

c.      Text linguistic stylistics
     Text linguistic stylistics examines the language user’s choice of words and recurrent
     structures and sentence connectives. It studies the particular aspects of texts to
     reveal properties of different text types (Enkvist, 1981, Sandig and Selting, 1997). Text
     stylisticians attempt reconnecting the examined text with the discourse participants’
     knowledge of the world and society (Beaugrande, 1996a). They developed the
     concept of textuality as “a human achievement in making connections wherever
     communicative events occur”. As subdivisions to textuality, text stylisticians discuss
not only the make-up of words as functional cohesion, concepts relations as
functional coherence, but they also discuss pragmatic intentionality, and
communicative acceptability. They also engage in the discursive newness of the text
content or informativity, situationality and intertextuality (Beaugrande and Dressler,
1981; Beaugrande, 1996b). Early text stylisticians tried, unsuccessfully however, to
chain up to their formal linguistics fathers by attempting to put a fragmentary theory of
‘texteme’. They, nevertheless, overshadow a linkage with the early formalistic
approach generally to linguistics and particularly to stylisitcs.
Lexical stylistics
This recent approach to studying stylistics works with text and the
relationship between the parts that make up a text (the words). The main
assumption in lexical stylistic studies is that the relationship between these
text parts and the text as a whole on one hand and the relationship between
the same parts and the extralinguistic components (context) on the other
hand are extraordinarily complex. Consequently, lexical stylisticians come
to the conclusion that jumping to concluding interpretations of a text
without explaining how words affect each others and affect the whole
content of a text and without making distinctions between meaning and
function of words and larger structures can hardly be validated.
Lexical stylistics, is then concerned with investigating the stylistic and
semantic value of lexical items in an attempt to answer questions on word
relations. It is also concerned with establishing rules of meaning potential
and connotative association in stylistic dimensions. Lexical stylisticians
believe that descriptive relations on the style level should, therefore, be
lexicalized (Cassirer, 1997; Rothwell, 1998).
Closely connected with this area of language analysis is phrase studies or
what came to be known as ‘phraseology’ (Gläser,1986). This newly
established science in concerned with analysing and describing
‘phraseological units’, ‘word combinations’ and ‘phrasal lexemes’ (Lipka,
1991; Cowie, 1994, 1998). Stylistic phraseology aim at describing the
expressive resources of the phrasal lexicon in a variety of literary and non-
literary texts (Gläser, 1998, Howarth, 1998) and provide comparative
analyses of word combinations in the writing of native speakers foreign
learners of English (Granger, 1998; Howarth, 1998).
Other applied stylistic phraseological studies give insights into problems
of translating idioms and collocations into a foreign language
concentrating on their cultural peculiarities (Gibbs, 1980; Cowie, 1981).
They also discuss phraseological units in text genres (Swales, 1990).
Theoretical and descriptive studies propose “treatment to a range of
propositional (i.e. sentence length) including proverbs, maxims, slogans,
and quotations. Phraseologists use effective procedures, e.g. the
substitution test, the phrasal test and the deletion tests for identifying the
stylistic effect of phraseological units.

  2. Read the following passage and provide a stylistic analysis explaining how the
     writer uses certain stylistic devices (e.g. topicalization, anaphora, cataphora,
     metaphor, euphemism, irony, litotes, hyperbole, simile) to convey his message to
     the reader.                (10 marks)

  Cataphora:          She is terribly sensible, this Flora,

                      as the pronoun precedes the referent

  End-focus principle: this flora,

  Metaphor : win her approval as approval is represented as a prize to win. Similarly,
             “Let your part in this great and perilous drama rest upon conviction, and
             not on a hurried, and probably a temporary feeling." Is a metaphor as a part
             in drama or role is represented as can possibly rest on something. The
             object “conviction” is another metaphor as well as “a hurried, temporary

        Topicalization: Consult ... as the verb expressing action is placed in the
                     theme position. Similarly “let..... is topicalization for the same

        Hyperbole: too abstractedly immersed in learned and military discussions
                   As much exaggeration is involved. Similarly, “She was too
                    young and too inexperienced to estimate the full force of the
                   constant attention which she paid to him” is hyperbolic for the
                   same reason.

        Apposition: little too formidable
        Irony: the writer is being clearly ironical in “She was too young and too
                inexperienced to estimate the full force of the constant attention which
                  she paid to him” as he means the opposite of the meaning given in his

           The writer also uses hedges connecting the different parts of the text as in
           probably, only because, perhaps, at any rate, which also function as litotes.
           Other connectives are also used, e.g. “moreover” for addition, “when” which
           functions as conditional in the first paragraph.
           A student may also find other stylistic devices that may relate to rhetoric or to
           the structure of the writer’s sentences and paragraphs and that are not
           mentioned in exemplified in the question. S/he can also explain the effect of
           using each of the stylistic devices on the neighbouring parts or on the whole


Shared By:
langkunxg langkunxg http://