Significance of Academic Interpretations of Stylistics Approach - Case Study Example

Significance of Academic Interpretations of Stylistics Approach Significance of Academic Interpretations of Stylistics Approach Stylistics deal with the study and interpretation of different texts in line with their tonal and linguistic styles. Stylistics links linguistics and literal criticisms. It should be noted that stylistics can never function autonomous domain; however, it can be well applied in understanding journalism, literature, and linguistics itself. Stylistic study can be analyzed from range of sources including canonical works to popular texts among other texts including non-fiction, religious and political discourse, adverts, and copies of news among others (Fish 1980, p.68). Stylistic is a conceptual discipline that can be applied to help in explaining particular choice of words or language by individuals or social groups. For instance, in a literary production, gene reception, and in the study of register and dialects and folk art, the stylistics can be applied for literary criticism and discourse analysis. The common stylistic features include dialogue that includes idiolects or individual dialects and regional accents; grammar usage including passive and active voices, how sentence lengths are distributed, and application of particular language registers among others. Stylistics is a term that can be used in determining the connections betwixt effects and forms in a particular language variety (Fish 1980, p.69). Therefore, this essay aims at analyzing how different stylistic features have been used in particular research areas in developing such fields of research. Historically, in can be noted that the stylistic study emerged from the Romans and Greeks literary scholarships that can be traced back in the 5th century BC. These stylistics were mainly rhetoric and where dominantly art. Stylistics of this time had a set of strategies and rules that enable orators and rhetors ‘to speak well’ in that they used a fully decorated language that had all tropes and figures that brought about changes in opinions and feelings of the audience (Wimsatt & Beardsley 1954, p.483). This stylistic use made the speakers to be highly persuasive there influencing political lives and or such individuals had great effects in churches. In other words, the application of stylistic during this era was purposefully to affect or impress others emotionally. The linguistic activities of this time had acquired rhetorical significance; therefore, they were regarded as rhetorical stylistics. The effects of this stylistic are that it’s often recognized as the practical language function that Jakobson (1960) later referred to as the ‘conative function’ (Jameson 1972, p.712). The rhetorical stylistics is used to arouse certain feelings and attitudes of the targeted audience. According to Murry (1976), the rhetorical style was used in Europe to teach conception just as its being applied in the contemporary linguistic study to enable pupils to learn on expounding their arguments (Fowler, 1996; Pg. 381). The rhetorical stylistics later expanded to include other linguistic discourses that led to new dimensions including poetics whose main theory circumvented on beauty. Poetic formed a branch of rhetorical stylistics, but in different domain. Poetics were mainly concerned with ‘eloquent discourse’ what the Greek referred to techne rhetorike. Moreover, poetic rhetoric emphasized on the language’s aesthetic function. In other words, the literature language was regarded as employing aesthetics for the effective transmission of thoughts and ideas (Wimsatt & Beardsley, 1954, p.523). This made this form of stylistic to emphasize its literary efforts on elements including metaphors, diction, symbols, and images to embellish the literary works’ subject matter. Therefore, the application of the style required the user to choose and have artistic arrangement of the chosen words so that arrangement could appear as aesthetic stylistic that is ornamental in its approach. The sentence should as well assert the dogma thereby portraying a special application of the language that addresses thoughts. In the words of Ann Mirabiles, “the happiness of a poet … is … finding of the though” in his or her work (Talibv 2002, p.253). From the above contributions, it is apparently clear that the ancient practices in the stylistic linguistics perfectly achieved analyzable and deliberate fashion in language especially with its use of persuasion, dissimulation or ornamentation, as well as in giving instructions. Therefore, according to organic theory, alteration of any form of the ancient language may lead to a propositional defect in the language; however, the current stylistic examination dismisses this theory. The linguistic stylists believe that various linguistic styles can be used in different areas since they can convey the same proposition; hence, they can have two separate forms, contents, and entities (Popeb 2004, p.183). Nonetheless, the traditional eloquence perpetuated itself considerably in form and content separation effect that dominated the 18th century literary movement. The stylists of this period emphasized on the use of attractive language. The 18th century language stylistics seemed to have adopted Quintillion’s 15th and 16th Centuries’ customized stylistics that emphasized on classical grammar, rhetorical fabrics, and spelling. Therefore, the 18th century seems to be the revival of the Quintillion’s use of language that emphasized the use of syntax and word order. The 17th Century was a year of literal criticism the led to the polishing, refining, and improvement of the literary language. The criticism of the 17th century insisted on proper word selection. Other than the criticism, a restricting literary English movement demands the use of simple colloquial language in order for the language to be understood easily by the ordinary people. Dryden was the most dominant critic of this era. In his ‘essay on Dramatic Poesy’, he stated that, I have always acknowledged the wit of our predecessors (. . .) but I am sure their wit was not that of gentlemen; there was ever somewhat that was ill-bred and clownish in it and which confessed the conversation of the authors (. . .) In the age wherein these poets lived, there was less of gallantry than in ours; neither did they keep the best company of theirs (their age). . . The discourse and raillery of our comedies excel what has been written by them, (Gadamer 1989, p.181). The 18th century attitude predicated the establishment of the English language norms. Jonathan Swift was one of the pioneers of the era and he insisted on improving English language through collecting and ascertaining the English tongue (Wimsatt & Beardsley, 1956, p.637). He never attributed the use of the use of intolerable preciosity, and vulgar slanginess that were used in the English language. In his corrective measures, he often quoted that the phrase “proper words in proper place” towards emphasizing on the clarity that was to define the stylistic literary epoch. The beginning of the 19th Century saw the literary language study taking a different direction. At this point, the use of language never followed set of devices and rules as was in earlier centuries but the century made the study of stylistic language to lean towards the spontaneous powerful flow of feelings. This made every writer and user of language to express themselves without limitation to certain linguistic stylistic rules. Therefore, writers did their pieces in natural and idiosyncratic manners but in linguistic ways (Pope 2004, p.488). The 19th Century twist in linguistics led users of language to express their ideas and thoughts without limitations. The century’s linguistics advocated for the expressive use of language as opposed to the adherence to the aesthetic properties that defined the use or requirements of the earlier centuries’ use of linguistics and stylistics. Cicero’s concepts of styles of personality expression also emerged and combining the work of different linguistic stylists of the 19th century led to the entertaining literature language that was referred to individual stylistics. The developments that made each writer to have different style led writers to begin searching for their own individual techniques in literature language and stylistic linguistics. In other words, every writer wanted to have their own ways of expressing their individual ideas (Talib, 2002). Notably, this tendency of self-realization or expression stimulated linguists to different individualistic use of literary discourse in a way that a writer expressed himself in his own ways. However, every of this seemed to have changed in late 19th Century towards the beginning of the 20th Century, a period that marked the emergence of the modern linguistics. The modern linguistics flourished particularly with the work of Ferdinand de Saussure. Saussure was a Swiss linguist. He developed the modern linguistics in his “Cours de linguistique generale.” He introduced a set of opposing theories in the linguistic studies that included ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’ that makes a sign (Wimsatt & Beardsley 1954, p.723). That is, ‘synchronis’ and ‘diachronic’ approaches to the stylistic linguistic. He defined language relations with ‘paradigmatic’ and ‘syntagmatic’, and defined language with ‘parole’ and ‘langue’. These are aspects of language became effective and influential in literature language until in the modern days. The discovery of Saussure in the above categories has been significant to the stylistic analysis (Pope 2004, p.392). Furthermore, his emphasis synchronic studies applications have become significant or have contributed significantly to the literary analysis of stylistic linguistics and the same contribution is significant for the literature language studies. His distinctions between parole and langue have been significant to the stylistic studies. Saussure defined langue as the general abstract linguistic system that is shared with a homogenous speech community. On the other hand, he defined parole as a concrete and realistic manifestation of language or the utterance. Considering these definitions in application, parole is significant to stylistic since its applications are relevant to any linguistic stylistic studies especially in line with pattern and individualized use of language to the writers (Fish 1980, p.68). In other words, parole dictates the style to be used in a stylistic analysis and it defines or may be considered as the property of the total linguistic repertoire selection. Therefore, parole is a linguistic characteristic that must be exposed in a text. The above survey clearly depicts that the modern stylistic conceptualization is rooted or defined by somewhat three related linguistic disciplines including literary criticism, rhetoric, and linguistics. However, the linguistic usually have three area of concern including formalism (formulated by the Russian formalistic theory and the New Criticism), the structuralism (formulated by expressive theory by Bally, affective theory, and Jakobsonian theory), and functionalism (formulated by contextual and discourse theories as well as Systemic theory of Halliday (Halliday, 1973). In the beginning of the 20th Century, the study of language led to the introduction of a new discipline that directly opposed that approaches the regards literature as an extrinsic historical properties with cultural and biographical factors. However, Charles Bally’s work known as the Geneva linguist whose linguistic stylistics developed Saussurian thoughts there by giving stylistic studies a systematic consideration. His contribution to the linguistic stylistic developments or advancements is recorded in his Traite de Stylistique publication of 1980 (Ingarden 1973, p.207). In his contribution, Bally stressed the expressiveness’ role in language and further addressed the functions of language in interaction since language is tasked to communicating thoughts. According to Bally, language has a significant role of integrating feelings and thoughts; thus, he noted, any linguistic element or fact must combine thought and language. Subsequently, he expected speakers or writers of a language to write and give subjective ideas or thoughts that form linguistic reality. Bally believed that, “Stylistics studies the elements of a language organized from the point of view of their affective content; that is, the expression of emotion by language as well as the effect of language on the emotions” (Selden 1984, p.123). From the above Bally’s emphasis, it can be noted that the primary elements of language are motive and expressive; however, these elements must draw attention to ‘choice’ that form Bally’s central approach to his ideas. In other words, Bally noted that despite language being a means of expressing motives, it personal choice to express his motives. Therefore, the effectiveness and quality of expression lies in the judicious choice of syntax that possesses form and identity. However, according to Taylor, stylistic approach of Bally is questionable especially on how it links particular communication features of expressiveness with content as opposed to linking it to the meaning (Talib 2002, p.189). Nonetheless, Bally’s stylistic principle is fundamental to: The language structure that he relates to teleological structure imposed on the communication requirements. Every though has two elements including conceptual and non-conceptual aspects. The non-conceptual is proponent of convention while the conceptual originates from personal experience and emotions. The linguistic stylistics focus on conceptual language functional sources. Therefore, stylistics should take its subject matter as the source of the effective function of a language. In other words, language stylistics should be explaining the language adapt to the stylistic, and how the stylistic application makes the communication possible or effective. Effective stylistic model should be able to discover its structural source particularly on the non-conceptual aspects of communication. The same should be able to help in examining the relationship between language elements form different points of views but relative to potential non conceptual communication aspects of thought. Generally, it can be noted that, Bally only believed on nature of thought. According to him, thoughts should be either objective or subjective in character. Moreover, he is believed that intellectual factors should determine the verbal communication without neglecting its affective dominance. Bally’s attribution la langue to style or expressiveness in language. Bally’s application and linguistic principles and application does not the use of literary language; however, it explains the central functions of stylistics (Ingarden 1973, p.401). According to Bally, the poetic effects or literary effects originate from the spontaneous and ordinary use of language. Hence, it worth noting that Bally’s school of thought emphasizes that significance of individuality, subjectivity, and emotion as essential elements in formulating thoughts and he terms the understanding as expressive stylistics. Therefore, it is worth stating that Bally’s work contributed largely to the contemporary stylistics in the literature language. Leo Spitzer was inspired by Bally’s work and he decided to pursue a new and different stylistic enquiries. It should be noted that Spitzer is modern stylistic practitioner. In his new stylistic approach, Spitzer accounts for habitual use as well as choices made by authors in their use of language. Spitzer’s approach on stylistics has helped in establishing great correlation between literary stylistic work and author’s psyche. Additionally, his stylistic properties seem to be have acceptance globally especially among authors. He attributes reading and rereading as the only way of discovering the inner traits including confidence and patience that authors endeavor to become (Fish 1980, p.68). He also notes that these character traits of authors are also subject to the influence of their immediate environment. He notes that authors may use only one line to depict a character. However, he notes that authors can only achieve this degree of perfection when they the ‘philological circles’: What he must be asked to do, however, is, I believe, to work from the surface to the “inward life-center” of the work of art: first observing details about the superficial appearance of the particular work . . . then, grouping these details and seeking to integrate them into a creative principle which may have been present in the soul of the artist; and, finally, making the return trip to all other groups of observations in order to find whatever the “inward form” one has tentatively constructed gives an account of the whole (Spitzer 1748, p.19). Spitzer’s theory at some point was viewed to be an extension on the 19th century stylistic work; however, it later emerged that Spitzer’s work is of different and new approach to stylistics. Spitzer’s work promoted structural approach as opposed to the earlier biographical fallacy. In the structural approach, the stylistic analysis emphasizes on the analysis of text as opposed to earlier analysis of objects (Ingarden 1973, p.174). This has made the understanding of the contemporary stylistic study to emphasis the author’s thought and ideas in realistic manner or in relation to their environment of writing as opposed to recourse to psychology as was the case in earlier literature work. In the same 20th Century, Russian formalism emerged. The stylistic study revolutionized against the use of traditional linguistic stylistics that encompassed romantic trends in literature studies (Pope 2004, p.281). In other words, the theory became more distrustful of previous language theories by stating that all studies of language should be confined in the application of formal linguistic features that form the literary text. This theory placed poetic texts as objects under inquiries; hence, only text should be considered for analysis of the literature works as opposed to objects carrying the texts. It should be noted that this theory engulfed all fields of literature including historical, social, biographical, and ideological approach. The central part of this theory emphasized not on sorting authors and readers’ psyche but concentrating in their work. According to Harkins (Halliday 1973, p.178), the formalist movement was: Dissatisfied with the hegemony of the neogrammarian approach in linguistics and with prevailing eclecticism in literary theory. Such eclecticism had led to the study of literature by a number of different disciplines, philosophy, psychology, sociology, philology, cultural history, etc., each of which imposing its methods on literary scholarships, had found that literature was only a reflection of its own content (Halliday 1973, p.179). Different contributions and contributors in line with the linguistic stylistic did their parts in the best ways they could. Notably, the criticisms of each other’s contribution in this field led to great development of the stylistics in literature. In fact, the current emphasis of formalist on the dogmatic has increased the dynamic nature of understanding and analyzing stylistics used in language. It considers poetry as verbal art that needs to be analyzed text wise but not pegging the entire stylistic analysis on objects used in composing the work. Additionally, developments in the analysis of the literature stylistics led to the current theory that emphasizes on the independence of literary language whereby every aspect that is not analyzed is to be analyzed within the context on the texts used without relating with certain historical use. This kind of analysis helps in understanding the contribution of each other and their traits in relation to the environment that they did their work without pegging their work to some people to whom one may think they share their literature works. Therefore, the evolution of stylistic study through analysis and criticism is vital in the study and understanding each literature independently. List of References Fish, S. (1980). ‘What is stylistics and why are they saying such terrible things about it?’ in Is There a Text in this Class?The Authority of Interpretative Communities, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, pp.68-96. Fowler, R. (1996). Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gadamer, H. G. (1989).Truth and method. (Trans. J. Weinsheimer and D.G. Marshall). New York: Crossroad Press [original work published 1965]. Halliday, M.A.K. (1973).Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Arnold. Ingarden, R. (1973).The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation on the Borderlines of Ontology, Logic, and Theory of Literature (trans. G. Grabowicz). Evanston: Northwestern University Press [original work published 1931]. Jameson, F. (1972). The Prison-House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pope, R. (2004).Creativity: Theory, History, Practice. Routledge: London. Selden, R. (1984).Criticism and Objectivity. London: Allen and Unwin. Spitzer, L. (1948).Linguistics and Literary History: Essays in Stylistics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Talib, I. (2002).The Language of Postcolonial Literatures. London: Routledge. Wimsatt, W.K. & Beardsley, M.C. (1954). ‘The intentional fallacy’, in W.K. Wimsatt (ed.) The Verbal Icon, Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, pp. 3-18. Read More