英语文体学Chapter-2-Three-Views-on-Style

Chapter2ThreeViewsonStyleTocarryoutastylisticanalysis,itisnecessarytofirstofallbeclearaboutwhatitisinaliterarytextthatshouldbedescribed.However,thisquestionofwhatstyleisanissuethathascausedheateddisputeamongstylistictheoristsandgreatconfusionamongstudentsofliterature.LiuShisheng(1998)speaksofthedifficultiesindefiningstyleandlists31definitions.Belowareadozenofthesedefinitions:1)Styleasform(Aristotle)2)Styleaseloquence(Cicero)3)Styleistheman(Lestyle,c'estl'hommememe)(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,thoughthereissomeoverlapamongthem.Inthefollowingsections,wewillconsiderthreeoftheseviews,namelystyleasdeviance,styleaschoice,andstyleasforegrounding.2.1StyleasDevianceOneoftheviewsisimpliedinWiddowson'sremarksquotedpreviouslyinSection1.4.Thatis,thedistinctivenessofaliterarytextresidesinitsdeparturefromthecharacteristicsofwhatiscommunicativelynormal.Thishasledtoapproachestostyleasdeviance.OneofthechiefproponentsoftheconceptofstyleasdeviancewasJanMukarovsky,aleadinglinguistandliterarycriticofthePragueSchoolinthe1930's.HisfamousessayStandardlanguageandpoeticlanguagehasbeenregardedasaclassicinstylistics.Inthisessay,hespeaksofstyleasforegrounding,statingthattheviolationofthenormofstandard,itssystematicviolationiswhatmakespossiblethepoeticutilizationoflanguage;withoutthispossibilitytherewouldbenopoetry(1970:42).AccordingtoMukarovsky,normalusesoflanguageautomatizelanguagetosuchanextentthatitsspeakersnolongerseeitsexpressiveoraestheticpower;poetrymustde-automatizeorforegroundlanguagebybreakingtherulesofeverydaylanguage.TodemonstratewhatMukarovsky'sstatementsmean,letusfirstquoteaclassicexample,thephraseagriefagofromapoemofthatnamebyDylanThomas.ThephraseviolatestworulesofEnglish:a)theindefinitearticleaclashessyntacticallywiththeuncountablenoungrief,becauseitnormallymodifiesacountableone;b)thepostmodifyingadverbagoclashessemanticallywiththeheadwordgrief,foritusuallyisabletomodifyanountodowithtime.Butgriefisawordwhichexpressesemotion.Thehighlydeviantnatureofthephraseattractsmuchattentionfromthereadertoitself,andthusmakesitpossibleforthepoettoexpresswhatcannotbeexpressedthroughthenormaluseoflanguage.Thomashereseemstobemeasuringtimeintermsofemotion.Itisnotunreasonable,therefore,tosuggestthatthespeakerofthepoemmayhaveexperiencedgriefrepeatedlysothathecanmeasuretimeintermsofit.AnotherfrequentlyquotedexampleisE.E.Cummings'poemanyonelivedinaprettyhowtown.Thispoemshowsnotonlytheextremityofruleviolationsinpoetry,butalsothesystematicityofviolations.Hereispartofthepoem:(1)anyonelivedinaprettyhowtown(withupsofloatingmanybellsdown)springsummerautumnwinterhesanghisdidn'thedancedhisdidWomenandmen(bothlittleandsmall)caredforanyonenotatalltheysowedtheirisn'ttheyreapedtheirsamesunmoonstarsrainToavoidcomplicationsletuslimitourdiscussionhereonlytotheuseofauxiliariesinthepoemfragment.Therearethreeauxiliariesinthispartofthepoem:didn't,didandisn't.Theyareallusedinpositionswherewenormallyemploycommonnounsand,therefore,theyobviouslyviolateasyntacticrule.Eachoftheseauxiliariesonitsown,wemayfind,doesnotseemtomakemuchsense.However,becausetheyareusedsystematically,i.e.inthesameway,weareabletoimposesomekindofinterpretationuponthem.Heredidn'tanddidcanbetakenasantonyms.Apossibleinterpretationwecouldconstructforthelasttwolinesofthefirststanza,therefore,maygoasfollows:alltheyearround,hegreetedwithequalhappinessthings,actsoractionsofoppositeconsequencesthatcametohim.Theapproachofstyleasdevianceasintroducedabovehastheadvantageofhelpingustoseeandkeepinmindthatthereisadifferencebetweeneverydaylanguageandthelanguageofliterature.Italsohelpsusrealizethatdeviantfeaturesprovideimportantcluesforinterpretation.However,thisapproachalsohasanumberofdisadvantages.Thechiefdisadvantage,whichisamuchdebatedproblem,isthatitisdifficulttodefinethenatureandthestatusofthenormfromwhichstyleofatextdeviates.Bloch,forexample,considersthebasisofnormtobestatistical.Hedefinesstyleasthemessagecarriedbythefrequencydistributionsandtransitionalprobabilitiesoflinguisticfeatures,especiallyastheydifferfromthoseofthesamefeatureinthelanguageasawhole(1953:42).Butthispositionhasbeenchallenged.Freemanpointsout:The'frequencydistributionsandtransitionalprobabilities'arenotknown,andneverwillbe,andeveniftheycouldbeascertained,theywouldconstitutenoparticularlyrevealinginsightintoeithernaturallanguageorstyle(1971:5～6).Anotherdisadvantageofthisapproach,asTraugottandPrattpointout,isthatofencouragingthelinguisttolookatthelanguageofgrammaticallyhighlydeviantauthorslikeE.E.Cummingsattheexpenseoftherelativelynon-de