Stylistics 197
analysis of specific canonical literary texts, rather than a c o m m i t -
11
Stylistics
Stylistics: a t h e o r y or a practice?
Stylistics is a critical approach which uses the methods and findings
of the science of linguistics in the analysis of literary texts. By
'lin^istics' here is meant the scientific study of language and its
structures, rather than the learning of individual languages. Stylistics
developed in the twentieth century and its aim is to show how the
technical linguistic features of a literary work, such as the grammat-
ical structure of its sentences, contribute to its overall meanings and
effects.
T h e account given below will put a good deal of emphasis on
critical practice rather than critical theory, and we should ask at the
outset whether stylistics is really a form of critical theory at all. T h e
compilers of most currently available guides to literary theory
assume that it is not, since they say nothing about it. But the grounds
for this assumption are difficult to .see. It is certainly an approach
to literature which has yielded a large amount of practical work
distinctly different in tone and method from what we are accus-
tomed to. T h i s body of practice is the product of very specific theo-
ries about literary language and how it works, and these theories are
usually taught alongside the practice.
T h e grounds for excluding stylistics, therefore, probably lie in the
nature of the theoretical outlook behind the discipline, for liberal
humanism and stylistics have a good deal in common. Firstly, both
have a strong empirical bias, that is, a bias towards detailed verbal
ment to establishing generalised theoretical positions. Secondly,
both have kept aloof from the eclecticism which has led to so
much cross-fertilisation between Marxist, feminist, structuralist,
and post-structuralist approaches. A n d thirdly, both have generally
refused to take on board the notion of the 'floating signifier' (that
is, the idea that the meanings established through language are
innately fluid, indeterminate, a n d shifting).
T h e s e similarities might lead us to expect the two to be natural
allies, but in fact stylistics and liberal humanism fought with each
other very bitterly, in the 1960s, at least a decade before the outbreak
of hostilities between liberal h u m a n i s m and theory in general.
However, stylistics also has its differences from other forms of criti-
cal theory, for it has resisted the 'relativism' which permeates most
other kinds of theoretical discourse. Everywhere outside stylistics
indeterminacy rules: all critics scrupulously avoid 'totalising claims'
and acknowledge that there can be no overviews, only viewpoints,
each of which is partial. Stylistics, by contrast, remains positivist in
outlook; that is, it maintains its faith in the accumulation of knowl-
edge by empirical investigation of external phenomena carried out
by disinterested enquirers. T h e r e are good reasons, then, for regard-
ing stylistics as different, but none, in my view, for regarding it as
untheoretical. Its advantage, too, for those who ?re just beginning
theory is that it does offer a wide range of new practical m e t h o d s for
explicating literature, many of which can be enjoyable to practise,
especially when working in class in groups.
Stylistics, it should be added, is not confined to the analysis
of literature; it can be applied equally to expository prose, political
speeches, advertisements, and so on. It thus assumes that the lan-
guage of literature is not a 'special ca.se'; on the contrary, literary
language can be analysed just like any other kind to reveal precisely
how effects are created. Hence, stylistics concedes no special myste-
rious qualities to literary language; it is not seen as sacred or revered;
it is simply the data on which the m e t h o d can be put to use. It is
true, of course, that very few literary critics of any persuasion
today would make semi-mystical claims that poetry is inspired, or
ineffable, or operates beyond reason in a realm which analysis can
 198 Beginning theory
never fully penetrate. B u t o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , n e i t h e r d o many of
t h e m p r o c l a i m t h e c o n t r a r y - that literary language never has any
t r a n s c e n d e n t d i m e n s i o n which lifts it above t h e everyday.
A brief historical a c c o u n t : f r o m rhetoric, t o philology,
t o l i n g u i s t i c s , t o stylistics, t o n e w s t y l i s t i c s
Stylistics is, in a sense, the m o d e r n version of the ancient discipline
known as ' r h e t o r i c ' , which t a u g h t its s t u d e n t s how to s t r u c t u r e an
a r g u m e n t , h o w to make effective use of figures of s p e e c h , and gen-
erally how to pattern and vary a s p e e c h or a piece of w r i t i n g so as to
p r o d u c e t h e m a x i m u m i m p a c t . R h e t o r i c in medieval times played
a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t in t r a i n i n g p e o p l e for t h e C h u r c h , t h e legal p r o -
fession, a n d political or d i p l o m a t i c life, b u t o n c e divorced f r o m this
vocational p u r p o s e it d e g e n e r a t e d i n t o a r a t h e r arid and mechanical
s t u d y of t h e m e r e surface f e a t u r e s of language which involved, for
instance, i d e n t i f y i n g and classifying figures of speech. T h e p e d a n t i c
outlook of its p r a c t i t i o n e r s (for instance, t h e i r love of i m p r e s s i v e -
s o u n d i n g labels) is f r e q u e n t l y satirised by C h a u c e r , S h a k e s p e a r e
a n d o t h e r s . T r a c e s of this d e g e n e r a t e f o r m of t h e discipline survived
in school t e a c h i n g until q u i t e recently.
T h r o u g h o u t t h e n i n e t e e n t h century, r h e t o r i c in this medieval
sense was gradually a b s o r b e d i n t o linguistics. At this t i m e linguis-
tics was usually known as ' p h i l o l o g y ' , and was almost entirely his-
torical in e m p h a s i s . It involved s t u d y i n g t h e evolution of languages,
and the interconnections between them, and speculating about the
o r i g i n s of language itself In t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y t h e r e was a m o v e -
m e n t away f r o m this historical e m p h a s i s a n d a new c o n c e n t r a t i o n on
h o w l a n g u a g e as a system is s t r u c t u r e d , looking at s u c h a s p e c t s as
t h e way m e a n i n g s are established a n d m a i n t a i n e d , a n d t h e o p t i o n s
available ( a n d t h e i r c o n s e q u e n c e s ) in s t r u c t u r i n g sentences. T h i s is
w h e r e a k i n d of born-again f o r m of r h e t o r i c e m e r g e d , s h o r t l y b e f o r e
t h e F i r s t World War, with a n e w interest in literary style and its
e f f e c t s , a n interest seen also in t h e work of t h e Ru.ssian F o r m a l i s t s
( C h a p t e r 8, pp. 155-6) in t h e J920S, a n d in t h e work of t h e Russian
linguist R o m a n Jakobson, leader of t h e P r a g u e L i n g u i s t i c Circle
( C h a p t e r 8, p. 156), w h o lived in A m e r i c a a f t e r t h e S e c o n d World
War. A f a m o u s ' C o n f e r e n c e on S t y l e ' was held at Indiana U n i v e r s i t y
Stylistics 199
in 1958, and the p r o c e e d i n g s p u b l i s h e d in 1960 as S i y k m Language,
e d i t e d by T h o m a s S e b e o k ( T e c h n o l o g y Press of t h e Ma.ssachusetts
I n s t i t u t e of T e c h n o l o g y a n d J o h n Wiley & S o n s , N e w York). T h e
c o n f e r e n c e was notable, a m o n g o t h e r thing.s, for J a k o b s o n ' s ' C l o s i n g
if S t a t e m e n t ' , which s e e m e d to a n n o u n c e a takeover bid for l i t e r a t u r e
on t h e part of linguistics:
;
fI
I'oclics deals with problems of verbal structure: .Since linguistics is
the s;lobal scicnce of verbal structure, poctics may be regarded as an
integral pan of linguistics ['Poetics' here means the study of litera-
ture in general, not just poetry].
T h e gist of the Sebeok collection of material is to claim that linguis-
tics o f f e r s a m o r e objective way of s t u d y i n g l i t e r a t u r e , a n d t h e book
t e n d s to set u p 'a c o n f r o n t a t i o n of c a m p s ' ( R o g e r Fowler's p h r a s e )
b e t w e e n literary and l a n g u a g e studies. Fowler r e s p o n d e d to what
h e saw as this u n h e l p f u l polari.sation by e d i t i n g a collection called
Essays on Style a n d L a n g u a g e : Ltngutsiic a n d Critical Approaches to
L i t e r a r y Studies (1966), w h i c h tried to m e n d t h e d a m a g e d o n e by
what Fowler r e g a r d e d as ' a n u n n e c e s s a r y s c h i s m b e t w e e n " l a n -
g u a g e " and " l i t e r a t u r e " ' . B u t t h e result, if a n y t h i n g , was to w i d e n
t h e gap: Fowler's collection was reviewed by H e l e n V e n d l e r in t h e
j o u r n a l Essays in Criticism, 1966, pp. 4 5 7 - 6 3 . S h e s u g g e s t e d that
while linguistic s t u d y had g r e a t potential, at p r e s e n t l i n g u i s t s are
' s i m p l y u n d e r - e d u c a t e d in t h e r e a d i n g of p o e t r y ' a n d a r e t a k i n g on
' d o c u m e n t s whose p r i m a r y s e n s e a n d value t h e y a r e n o t e q u i p p e d to
a b s o r b ' (p. 460). T h i s s t u n g F o w l e r i n t o a r i p o s t e w h i c h i n a u g u r a t e d
a m u c h - c i t e d debate b e t w e e n h i m s e l f and F. W. B a t e s o n , t h e j o u r -
n a l ' s e d i t o r (see Essays in Criticism 1967, pp. 3 3 2 - 4 7 , a n d 1968,
pp. 164—82). T h e o u t c o m e o f t h i s was, again, to solidify t h e l a n g u a g e -
l i t e r a t u r e polarisation.
B u t t h e period u p to t h e 1980s saw t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of what
H e l e n Vendler had said was l a c k i n g in linguistics, n a m e l y a f o r m of
' d i s c o u r s e analysis' w h i c h w o u l d enable linguistics to c o m m e n t on
a n d analyse the s t r u c t u r e of c o m p l e t e pieces of w r i t i n g , r a t h e r than
just t h e isolated p h r a s e s a n d s e n t e n c e s to which it h a d previously
I b e e n restricted. T h i s m e a n t that n o n - l i n g u i s t s b e g a n to take s o m e
i n t e r e s t in the findings of l i n g u i s t i c essays, while, at t h e s a m e time,
l i n g u i s t s writing s u c h m a t e r i a l realised the n e e d to c o n s u l t and
200 Beginning theory
incorporate non-linguistic material. Allegedly, this resulted, during
the 1980s, in what came to be called the 'new stylistics', which had a
limited degree of eclecticism (in that it drew on the findings of other
new kinds of criticism - feminist, structuralist, post-structuralist,
and so on) and was less likely to claim that it alone studied literature
in an objective way.
In fact, however, the superiority claims from both sides continued.
Fowler, for instance, in his 1986 book Linguistic Criticism charac-
terises linguistic criticism as 'objective description of te.xts' (p. 4),
while conventional criticism, by contrast, uses 'random descriptive
jargon' (p. 3) and is merely 'amateur commentary' using only quasi-
grammatical terms. Also, his 1980s writing repeated very similar
arguments to those he had used in the 1960s against Bateson. T h u s ,
opponents, he says in 1986, speak as if linguistics were a single
entity, whereas actually there are many different techniques in use
within it, some appropriate for literary study and some not. T h i s
is exactly the same point as he had made in the 1960s: 'there is no
one linguistics ... bland undefined accounts of "linguistics" lead
nowhere' {Essays in Criticism, 1967, p. 325). Likewise, not all stylis-
tics in the 1960s made uncompromisingly exclusive claims for the
discipline, so the more liberal attitude said to be distinctive of the
new stylistics is not something which appears only in the 1980s.
T h u s , Fowler, again, in the Bateson dispute, stressed that just being
a linguist isn't a qualification for dealing adequately with poetry. On
the contrary, 'although literature is language, and therefore open to
ordinary formal linguistic investigation ... it has, like other formally
distinctive texts, essentially distinctive contexts which the linguist
no less than the critic must study' {Essays in Criticism, 1967, p. 325).
Hence, the grounds for setting up a sequence in which stylistics
gives way to new stylistics are slender. Combative 'old' stylistics
attitudes are common today and are explicit in much recent writing
in the field. For instance, Nigel Fabb and Alan D u r a n t , describing
the difference between stylistics and literary criticism in the mid-
1980s, say that in the latter critical comment is 'often made without
any accompanying systematic, or even explicit, .scrutiny of its own
methods or assumptions' {The Linguistics of Writing: Arguments
between Language and Literature, Manchester University Press, 1987,
p. 228). T h u s , while it is t r u e to say that stylistics today tends to be
Stylistics 201
more open than before to input from those working in other areas
of intellectual enquiry, it would be exaggerating to imply the kind
of clean break with the hard-line past implied bv the term 'new
stylistics'. T h e current mood of co-operation is represented bv the
'Interface' series from Routledge (series editor Ronald Caiter),
which aims to 'build bridges between the traditionally divided dis-
ciplines of language studies and literary studies'. It should be added
that doubtless the old hard-line attitudes against stylistics still exist
too, but in recent years structuralism and post-structuralism, rather
than stylistics, have usually been seen as the major threat to tradi-
tional values in criticism, with the consequence that most liberal
humanist polemical writing has been directed at these targets.
H o w d o e s stylistics d i f f e r f r o m s t a n d a r d close r e a d i n g ? . _
Stylistic analysis a t t e m p t s to provide a c o m m e n t a r y which is objec-
tive and scientific, based on concrete quantifiable data, and applied
in a systematic way. In contrast, as we have seen, conventional 'close
reading' is often seen by the stylistician (to a greater or lesser extent)
as impressionistic, intuitive, and randomised. .All the same, the dif-
ferences between the two approaches might well seem superficial
to a casual observer, so it is worth trying to specify them. T h e spe-
cific differences between conventional close reading and stylistics
include the following;
1. Close reading emphasises differences between literarv language
and that of the general spcech community; it tends to isolate the
literary text and see it as a purely aesthetic art object, or 'verbal
icon', whose language operates according to rules of its own.
Stylistics, by contrast, emphasises connections between literarv
language and everyday language. T h i s difference of view about
literary language is actually a continuation of a very old dispute.
I'or instance, the critic^al break between Wordsworth and Coleridge
lay in the fact that Wordsworth believed that poetic language
when most effective was at its plainest and most prose-like, that
is, when it is as close as possible to the language actually used by
'men'. In contrast, Coleridge believed that poetic language
depended for its effect on the poet's heighten-ing or intensifving
202 Beginning theory
it (through patterning, compression, repetition, and so on) and
t h u s making it more specialised and taking it f u r t h e r away from
the patterns of everyday speech.
2. Stylistics uses specialised technical t e r m s a n d concepts which
derive from the science of linguistics, t e r m s like 'transitivity',
'under-lexicalisation', 'collocation', and 'cohesion' (all of which
are explained in the final section of this chapter). T e r m s like
these are part of the technical vocabulary of a particular field of
intellectual enquiry and they do not have any currency outside
this field. Unless you were 'talking s h o p ' with fellow students
you could not introduce these terms into casual conversation
without explaining what they meant and (more importantly)
what they were for. In contrast, close reading (typically) uses
lay-person's terms and concepts which may have a slightly
'bookish' air, but are nevertheless part of ordinary everyday lan-
guage; terms, for instance, like 'verbal nuance', 'irony', 'ambi-
guity', 'paradox', and 'ambivalence'. If you started to explain
the meaning of these terms in the same casual conversation, you
would probably seem rather patronising, even though the use of
these terms in criticism might be considered slightly specialised,
and each of them has its own resonance and associations within
the discipline. T h e point is, though, that these terms are clearly
not 'technical' in the way that 'under-lexicalisation' is.
3. Stylistics makes greater claims to scientific objectivity than
does close reading, stressing that its m e t h o d s and procedures
can be learned and applied by all. Hence, its aim is partly the
'demystification' of both literature and criticism. Thu.s, in rela-
tion to literature it aims to show, as we saw above, the continuity
between Hterary language and other forms of written com-
munication. In the case of criticism, it aims to provide a set of
procedures which are openly accessible to all, in contrast to the
tendency within close reading to stress the need for the critic to
develop 'tact' and 'sensitivity' towards the literary text and
avoid spelling out a method or procedure to be followed. Hence,
for instance, the notorious reluctance of F. R. Leavis to describe
or set out in detail his critical methods. Likewise, readers often
express the feeling that the language of literature achieves
its effects in ways which may prove inherently inaccessible to
Stylistics 203
analysis, so that at the core of literature is a kind of mvsterious
impenetrable essence. If, as many believe, the sentiments
expressed in a poem are uniquely embodied in the form of
words chosen by the poet, then it must follow that there are
strict limits to what can be added by critical enquiry.
The a m b i t i o n s of stylistics
1. Stylisticians try to provide 'hard' data to support existing 'intuitions'
tilwut a literary work. Stylistics is not always just about the
interpreting of individual literary works, but when it is engaged
in straight textual interpretation it often tries to back up the
(as they would see them) impressionistic hunches of common
readers with hard linguistic data. T h u s , we might, in reading
a Hemingway short story, register an impression something
like 'Hemingway has a plain style which is very distinctive'.
Stylisticians would try to be much more specific: their question
might he 'what do we mean, exactly, by "plain". 1 ' Well, perhaps
we need no linguistic training to realise that Hemingway gener-
ally avoids descriptive words like adverbs and adjectives: where
another writer might say something like 'Smith ran purpose-
fully through the heavy rain' Hemingway would omit the adverb
'purposefully' and the adjective 'heavy'. H e would want these
things to emerge implicitly, which would actually, in his view,
given them greater impact. So the sentence would be, simplv,
'Smith ran through the rain'. T h e stylistician might calculate
Hemingway's usage in a given tale, in a statement like 'seventv-
three per cent of the n o u n s and verbs used by Hemingway in ...
are without adjectival or adverbial qualification'. T h e r e might
be a comparision with work by other writers generally perceived
as having a less plain style, perhaps resulting in the claim that
these writers have only thirty per cent of n o u n s a n d verbs
unqualified. Of course, the calculating would be applied to a
section of the work only, perhaps to a tale by each of the writers
concerned which would be intuitively felt to be typical of each.
T h e result is not to give us new information, exactly, about
Hemingway, since every reader realises very quickly that his
sparse, plain style is one of his most distinctive qualities. But it
204 Beginning theory
will have told us a good deal about precisely how, in linguistic
terms, the plainness is achieved and maintained.
2. Stylisticians suggest new interpretations of literary works based on
linguistic evidence. Stylistics brings a special expertise to bear on
the linguistic features of a text, and therefore sees a dimension
of the material which the ordinary reader would be unaware of
T h i s dimension may well contain material which could alter
our interpretation of the work. For instance, Colin M a c C a b e
argues in an essay on stylistics that Faistaff in Shakespeare's
history plays has an element of sexual ambiguity. H e frequently
refers, for example, to his large stomach, and how it makes
bravery very difficult, but the word he uses is not ' s t o m a c h ' but
' w o m b ' ( ' M y womb, my womb, my womb undoes me'). At the
time the play was written, says MacCabe, the word ' w o m b ' was
in a state of semantic transition. T h a t is to say, its meaning
was gradually changing from an older sense to a newer one: in
its old sense it was a general word for ' s t o m a c h ' and was used
interchangeably of both m e n and women. But it was also then
acquiring its m o r e specialised m o d e r n meaning, where it is
gender-specific and designates a particular part of female
anatomy. Since b o t h senses of the word were possible while it
was in the transition stage f r o m one sense to the other, Faistaff's
use of t h e word suggests a corresponding sexual ambivalence
in himself. Only t h e reader in possession of this specialised
knowledge about semantic change would realise this: other read-
ers would at first be puzzled by the word, would then perhaps
look it u p in a glossary, and would finally conclude that t h e '
word is simply being used in an obsolete sense, and hence had
no bearing u p o n questions of characterisation or interpretation.
T h e r e are, I think, problems in accepting M a c C a b e ' s account
of this example: he assumes that words which are in process
of semantic change have traces of both meanings present in
every usage, but it seems m o r e likely that in these cases a word
can have either meaning, but not both. For example, the word
'disinterested' today is in process of semantic change, but every
given usage signifies either 'impartial' or else 'not interested',
and never a combination of these meanings. A more general
problem is to decide the status of evidence which is below the
Stylistics 205
threshold of perception of all readers except professional
linguists. How, for instance, did such m e a n i n g s get into the
text.' Deliberately planted by t h e author. 5 Presumably not. A^nd
in what sense are they ' t h e r e ' at all if normally imperceptible
except to a g r o u p of readers whose existence, except in the case
of present-day texts, could not have been predicted. 5 .Ml t h e
same, the general point is clear: linguists use their specialised
knowledge not just to support existing readings but to establish
new ones.
Stylisticians attempt to establish general points about how literary
meanings are made. T h e point here is that, like all the other new
approaches to literature, stylistics is interested not just in the
individual literary work, but also in m u c h m o r e general q u e s -
tions about how literature works. For instance, linguists a r g u e
that a literary effect is created simultaneously in t e r m s of b o t h
f o r m and c o n t e n t . In H a r d y ' s Tess of the D'Lirbervtlles,. Tess's
subjection to t h e social and physical superiority of Alec is
expressed both in t e r m s of what is said, and in t e r m s of the
grammatical s t r u c t u r e of the ' s e d u c t i o n ' (or ' r a p e ' scene), for
his having power is reinforced subliminally by Alec (or s o m e
HE attribute of h i m ) frequently b e i n g the subject of sentences,
m while Tess's lack of power is r e i n f o r c e d by her frequently being
the g r a m m a t i c a l object: t h u s s e n t e n c e s have patterns like:
he [subject] touched her [object]; his fingers [subject] sank into her
[object], and so o n . T h i s kind of a r g u m e n t , if accepted, has
i: implications a b o u t how literary e f f e c t s are created and hovt' thcv
operate. T h e implication is that t h e powerful literary effect is
' o v e r d e t e r m i n e d ' , that is, it c o m e s f r o m different factors c o m -
bining, so that content is subtly reinforced by grammatical
s t r u c t u r e , overall 'discourse s t r u c t u r e ' , word choice, imagerv,
and so on. L i t e r a r y meaning, this suggests, goes down to the
very roots of language and is reflected at the level of g r a m m a r
and sentence s t r u c t u r e . Hence, n o aspect of language is neutral;
the patterns of g r a m m a r and syntax, m o r p h e m e s , and p h o n e m e s
are all implicated in literary meaning. Again, I think there are
difficulties with this as a general a r g u m e n t : for i.nstance, it seems
to make a u t h o r s into intuitive g e n i u s figures who instinctively
'know' the c o n t e n t of m o d e r n linguistics. All the same, the .main
206 Beginning theory
point is clear; stylistics tries to establish things which arc gener-
ally true about the way literature works.
STOP a n d THINK
T h e linguistic t e r m i n o l o g y used in stylistics may s e e m d a u n t i n g
if you h a v e n e v e r b e e n t a u g h t a n y f o r m a l g r a m m a r , b u t it is
p r o b a b l y u n w i s e t o try t o learn f o r m a l g r a m m a r as a p r e l u d e t o
s a m p l i n g stylistics. A b e t t e r w a y is t o m a k e use of a f e w basic
r e f e r e n c e t o o l s a n d h a v e t h e s e by y o u f o r consultation as you
r e a d s o m e of t h e i t e m s listed a t t h e e n d of this section. 1 w o u l d
s u g g e s t you use A Dictionary o f Stylistics, Katie Wales (Longman,
1989) a n d a g o o d u p t o d a t e c o m p e n d i u m of English g r a m m a r .
I h a v e f o u n d t h e kind i n t e n d e d f o r a d v a n c e d learners of English
m o r e u s e f u l t h a n o t h e r s . A g o o d e x a m p l e is Michael Swann's
Practical English Usage, Oxford University Press, 1980.
A p r o b l e m t o f o c u s o n as y o u b e g i n y o u r involvement w i t h
this t o p i c is t h e o n e h i g h l i g h t e d by Stanley Fish in his essay
' W h a t is Stylistics a n d Why are t h e y Saying such Terrible Things
A b o u t It?' Fish says t h a t t h e r e Is always a g a p b e t w e e n t h e
linguistic f e a t u r e s identified in t h e t e x t a n d t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of t h e m o f f e r e d by t h e stylistician. W e m i g h t call this p r o b l e m
t h e h e r m e n e u t i c g a p ( ' h e r m e n e u t i c ' m e a n s c o n c e r n e d with t h e
act of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) .
For instance, it m a y be said t h a t a n u t t e r a n c e uses a large
n u m b e r of passive v e r b s - t h o s e p a t t e r n e d 'I h a v e b e e n i n f o r m e d
t h a t ...': this is t h e linguistic f e a t u r e . T h e s e passives, w e m a y
t h e n be told, indicate a d e g r e e of evasiveness in t h e text: this is
the interpretation.
The difficulty is k n o w i n g h o w w e can b e sure t h a t t h e r e is a
link b e t w e e n t h e u s e of t h e passive a n d evasiveness. Can w e b e
s u r e t h a t t h e user of t h e passive is usually b e i n g evasive in s o m e
way, f o r instance, trying t o conceal t h e identity of t h e i n f o r m a n t ,
a n d , so t o speak, t o conceal t h a t c o n c e a l m e n t ? (Was I b e i n g
evasive w h e n I used passives in t h e p r e v i o u s p a r a g r a p h ? ) If t h e
passive is only s o m e t i m e s evasive, w h a t a r e t h e circumstances
which m a k e it so?
Stylistics 207
In your r e a d i n g of t h e f o l l o w i n g examples, t h e n , a n d of s o m e
of t h e items listed a t t h e e n d of t h e section, try t o i d e n t i f y t h e
m o m e n t w h e n t h e critic passes f r o m describing linguistic d a t a
t o i n t e r p r e t i n g it - t h e m o m e n t w h e n t h e ' h e r m e n e u t i c g a p '
o p e n s u p - a n d c o n s i d e r h o w convincingly, or o t h e r w i s e , it is
bridged.
W h a t stylistic critics d o
1. T h e y describe technical aspects of the language of a text - such as
grammatical structures - and then use this data in interpretadon.
2. T h e purpose of doing this is sometimes simply to provide
objective linguistic data to support existing readings or i n t u -
itions about a literary work.
3. At other times the p u r p o s e is to establish a new reading, which
may be based only, or mainly, on this linguistic data, and may
challenge or counter existing readings.
4. T h e s e technical accounts of how meanings are made in litera-
ture are part of an overall project which involves showing that
literature has no ineffable, mystical core which is beyond analy-
sis: rather, it is part of a c o m m o n 'universe of discourse'
and uses the same techniques and resources as other kinds of
language use.
5. To this end, stylistics does not confine itself to the analysis
of literature and often juxtaposes literary and other kinds of
discourse, for instance, comparing the linguistic devices used
in poetry with those of advertising.
6. Stylistics moves bexond 'sentence g r a m m a r ' to 'text g r a m m a r ' ,
considering how the text works as a whole to achieve (or not) its
purposes (for instance, to amuse, to create suspense, or to per-
suade) and examining the linguistic features which contribute
to these ends.
Stylistics: e x a m p l e s
Rather than considering a single example in detail, 1 will refer m o r e
briefly to three, each of which uses some technical aspect of language
208 Beginning theory Stylistics 209

in critical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h e first m a k e s u s e of t h e linguistic t e r m s tree. They took the flag out, and they were hitting. T h e n they put the
'transitivity' and 'under-lexicalisation'. W h a t d o these mean. T h e ? flag back and they went to the table, and he hit and the other hit.
f o r m e r r e f e r s t o t h e d i f f e r e n t s e n t e n c e p a t t e r n s in which v e r b s can
Fowler writes:
occur. Traditionally a v e r b is said to b e transitive when t h e action it
designates has a stated 'goal' or ' r e c i p i e n t ' or 'object'. T h u s , in t h e T h e r e is a consistent oddity in transitivity: there are almost no tran-
s e n t e n c e ' S h e s h u t t h e d o o r ' t h e action of s h u t t i n g is ' r e c e i v e d ' or sitive verbs with objects, a preponderence of intransitives ('coming',
' s u f f e r e d ' by t h e door. H e n c e t h e v e r b ' s h u t ' is said to be ' t r a n s i t i v e ' , 'went', 'hunting', etc.) and one transitive ('hit') used repeatedly
which roughly m e a n s 'passing t h r o u g h ' , in t h e sense that t h e action without an object, ungrammatically.
'passes t h r o u g h ' to t h e door. ' D o o r ' is said to b e the object of this
T h i s c o n s t i t u t e s the lingusitic d a t a . F'owlcr now takes t h e s t e p f r o m
verb in the s e n t e n c e just cited. By c o n t r a s t , in t h e s e n t e n c e ' S h e
d e s c r i p t i o n to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : t h i s ' o d d i t y of t r a n s i t i v i t y ' (such as
vanished' t h e v e r b is said to be ' i n t r a n s i t i v e ' , since t h e action
u s i n g t h e w o r d ' h i t ' w i t h o u t saying what was hit) i m p l i e s that ' B e n j y
does not 'pass t h r o u g h ' to any stated object - it just h a p p e n s , and is,
has little sense of actions and t h e i r e f f e c t s on objects'. T h i s i.s, I t h i n k ,
so to speak, self-sufficient. T h e s e t w o examples, t h e n , r e p r e s e n t d i f -
a little over-specific, b u t clearly w e notice, as we r e a d , that t h e r e is
ferent transitivity p a t t e r n s , and while t h e grammatical categories
s o m e t h i n g s t r a n g e about B c n j y ' s l a n g u a g e and we r e g i s t e r this as
'transitive' and 'intransitive' are derived f r o m traditional g r a m m a r ,
i n d i c a t i n g that there is s o m e t h i n g s t r a n g e a b o u t h i s m i n d . T h e
as originally devised to describe the s t r u c t u r e s of the Latin language,
' s o m e t h i n g s t r a n g e ' about t h e l a n g u a g e c o n c e r n s t h e transitivity
the abstract n o t i o n of 'transitivity', designating the r a n g e of
p a t t e r n . Implicitly, Fowler's point is that t h e a u t h o r ' s c h o o s i n g this
p a t t e r n s possible for verbs, derives f r o m the workof t h e linguist
linguistic f e a t u r e to d i s t u r b is s i g n i f i c a n t , for, of c o u r s e , a d i s t u r b e d
M . A. K . Halliday in t h e 1960s a n d 1970s. Halliday m a d e use
state of m i n d could, in theory, be conveyed by d i s r u p t i n g a n y language
of t h e concept in analysing fiction, and Roger Fowler follows h i m in
f e a t u r e at all. Secondly, B c n j y ' s u n d e r - l e x i c a l i s a t i o n is seen in the
this.
way h e o f t e n uses d e s c r i p t i v e c i r c u m l o c u t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n t h e right
' U n d e r - l e x i c a l i s a t i o n ' , finally, is a t e r m invented by Fowler: it
w o r d s for things: t h u s , he never u s e s t h e word ' g o l f for what he is
refers to cases w h e r e there is a 'lack of an a d e q u a t e set of w o r d s to
w a t c h i n g , and he calls a b u s h a 'llower t r e e ' . T h i s , again, is t h e data.
express .specific c o n c e p t s ' (K. Wales). T h u s , we might not k n o w
I n t e r p r e t i n g it involves the s u g g e s t i o n t h a t d o i n g this i n d i c a t e s the
the word for a particular i m p l e m e n t a n d instead call it a ' t h i n g y ' or
c h a r a c t e r ' s inability to perceive t h e w o r l d in socially a c c e p t a b l e
a 'wotsit'; or we m i g h t forget t h e w o r d for a particular object ( t h e
ways, as m o s t o t h e r p e o p l e do. T h u s , t h e stylistician explains t h e
word ' h a n d l e ' , say) and use a vague descriptive s u b s t i t u t e instead
e x t e n t of t h e c h a r a c t e r ' s isolation by a stylistic analysis o f a s p e c t s of
( s u c h as ' t h e h o l d i n g t h i n g ' ) . T h e s e w o u l d be examples of slightly
t h e l a n g u a g e associated with h i m .
d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of under-lexicalisation.
A n o t h e r example of t h e kind of linguistic data u s e d by stylisticians
L e t ' s now look at h o w a critic u s e s these t e r m s in d i s c u s s i n g
is seen in R o n a l d C a r t e r ' s analysis of W. H . A u d e n ' s p o e m ' C a p i t a l ' in
t h e o p e n i n g of William F a u l k n e r ' s novel The Sound a n d the F u r y
C a r t e r a n d B u r t o n , eds. L i t e r a r y Text a n d Language S t u d y , E d w a r d
(in t h e essay by Roger Fowler f r o m t h e collection Essays on Style a n d
A r n o l d , 1982. C a r t e r m a k e s use of t h e n o t i o n o f ' c o l l o c a t i o n ' , a t e r m
Language, 1966, already r e f e r r e d to). T h e o p e n i n g is n a r r a t e d f r o m
w h i c h ' r e f e r s to the habitual o r e x p e c t e d c o - o c c u r r e n c e of w o r d s '
t h e point of view of Benjy, w h o is a t h i r t y - t h r e e - y e a r - o l d m a n w i t h
(Wales). T h i s is a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e fact t h a t words f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r in
the m i n d of a y o u n g child. B e n j y is w a t c h i n g a game of golf:
g r o u p i n g s which have a d e g r e e of predictability, even w h e n t h e y fall
Through the fence, between the curling flower spaces, 1 could see s h o r t of b e i n g set p h r a s e s which invariably have t h e s a m e p a t t e r n .
them hitting. They were coming towards where the flag was and ( T h i s aspect of language used to b e exploited in t h e B r i t i s h T V g a m e
1 went along the fence. Luster was hunting in the grass by the flower s h o w ' B l a n k e t y - B l a n k ' . ) T o d e m o n s t r a t e what I m e a n , let m e ask you
 210 Beginning theory
to c o m p l e t e each of the following p h r a s e s with a single word (a differ-
e n t word in cach case, and in each case p u t t i n g in the w o r d which first
o c c u r s to you):
A box o f . . , A black . . . An uninvited . . .
T h e n o t e on p. 211 indicates the w o r d s 1 think you are likely to have
u s e d t o fill these gaps. T h e s e p h r a s e s are not fixed cliches (like ' H e
w e n t as w h i t e as a sheet'), b u t s i m p l y a p r o d u c t of the way each word
in an u t t e r a n c e progressively n a r r o w s d o w n the range of possibili-
ties for t h e words which succeed it. T h u s , if I say ' I t ' s a fine . . .' you
can p r e d i c t that t h e next w o r d will be ' d a y ' or ' a f t e r n o o n ' , or s o m e
s u c h . T h e s e n t e n c e could b e c o m p l e t e d with the words 'way to cal-
culate t h e height of a steeple', b u t it is very unlikely that any given
o c c u r r e n c e of t h e o p e n i n g ' I t ' s a fine . . . ' w o u l d be c o m p l e t e d in this
way. Now, a c o m m o n feature of p o e t r y is to break habitual colloca-
tion p a t t e r n s , so that w o r d s n o t usually seen t o g e t h e r s u d d e n l y
occur. P o e t s divorce w o r d s f r o m t h e i r usual p a r t n e r s a n d p r o v i d e
unlikely n e w p a r t n e r s h i p s b e t w e e n w o r d s which we would never
have i m a g i n e d getting together. T h u s C a r t e r shows how A u d e n , at
o n e p o i n t in t h e p o e m , avoids an e x p e c t e d collocation like saying
that p e o p l e are 'waiting p a t i e n t l y ' , and instead says of t h e idle rich
in big cities that they are ' w a i t i n g expensively for miracles to h a p p e n '
(my italics). A u d e n also m e n t i o n s a p a r t of t h e city in which political
exiles live (and where t h e y m e e t to p l a n t h e i r eventual r e t u r n to
power in t h e i r own countries) as a ' m a l i c i o u s village'. A m o r e usual
collocatioir for 'village' would c o m b i n e it with a p p r o v i n g adjectives
to give p h r a s e s like 'friendly village' o r ' p i c t u r e s q u e village' or 'sleepy
village'. C a r t e r ' s overall p o i n t is that 'collocational b r e a k s ' of this
k i n d signal p a r t s of the p o e m which a r e ' t h e m a t i c a l l y - c h a r g e d ' and
will h e n c e repay f u r t h e r investigation.
A final kind of linguistic data used by t h e stylistician c o n c e r n s
' c o h e s i o n ' . Cohesion is a b o u t 'lexical i t e m s ' ( w o r d s ) which cross
t h e b o u n d a r i e s between s e n t e n c e s , b i n d i n g t h e m into a single c o n -
t i n u o u s u t t e r a n c e , even t h o u g h they are grammatically s e p a r a t e
s e n t e n c e s . W i t h o u t cohesion a text has t h e awkward s t a r t - s t o p q u a l -
ity of a c h i l d ' s old-fashioned early reader, like this:
T h i s is Mandy. Mandy is my friend. Mandy and I go to the pictures
together.
Stylistics 211
T h e stop-start q u a l i t y can b e r e m o v e d a n d cohesion a c h i e v e d by
what linguists call ' p r o n o m i n a l i s a t i o n ' (using p r o n o u n s ) , t h u s :
Phis is Mandy. S h e is my friend. We go to the pictures together.
N o t i c e that a l t h o u g h t h e s e are still grammatically s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c e s
they now flow as a single c o n n e c t e d utterance, since t h e p r o n o u n s
' S h e ' and ' W e ' refer back to p e o p l e already n a m e d . M o d e r n writers
have been interested in t h e e f f e c t s of d i s t o r t i n g p a t t e r n s of cohesion,
and an awareness of this c o n c e p t helps to a p p r e c i a t e what is going
on in s o m e t h i n g like t h e t'ollowing, which is the start of a s h o r t story
by t h e American w r i t e r D o n a l d B a r t h e l m e :
Edward looked at his red beard in the table-knife. T h e n Edward and
Pia [not 'he and Pia] went to Sweden, to (he farm. In the mailbox Pia
found a cheque for Willie from the government of Sweden, It was (or
twenty three hundred crowns and had a rained-on look, Pia [not
'she'] put the cheque in the pocket of her brown coat. Pia [not 'She']
was pregnant. In London she had been sick everyday.
T h e r e are many o t h e r linguistic e f f e c t s h e r e apart f r o m - t h e d i s t o r -
t i o n s in the expected c o h e s i o n p a t t e r n which I have i n d i c a t e d . Partly,
t h e effect c o m e s f r o m t h e s e n s e o f i n c o n g r u i t y w h i c h arises w'hen a
grammatically continuous discourse frames content which isJogi-
cally, conceptually, a n d e m o t i o n a l l y distorted and f r a g m e n t e d . Also,
t h e s i m p l e language a n d s h o r t s e n t e n c e s give t h e t o n e o f a c h i l d ' s
reader, again, but t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r is very i n c o n g r u o u s with this
tone, being particularly a d u l t a n d t raumat i c. T h r o u g h a p a r t i c u l a r
way of using language, t h e n , a certain literary ctTect is c r e a t e d , and
in t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e we can legitimately use linguistic t e c h n i q u e s
in o u r exploration.
Note
1 h a \ c used these s a m e e x a m p l e s several t i m e s with classes lo
d e m o n s t r a t e the p r i n c i p l e of collocation. T h e p h r a s e s have to be
c o m p l e t e d v\ithout c o n f e r r i n K a n d without p r o l o n g e d d e l i b e r a t i o n .
•Most people w rite \ \ box of chocolaics' or \ \ box of matches". A few
u r:tc \ \ box ol hankies' or \ \ box of tricks'. T h e s e four usually account
for all the choices m a d e h\ a g r o u p o f t w c n t v '.\ black" is usualK
c o m p l e t e d by "cat" or "box . 'An uninvited' is always c o m p l e t e d
212 Beginning theory Stylistics 213

by ' g u e s t ' . It is an absolute c e r t a i n t y that these p h r a s e s will never be lambling, Jeremy, IVhal is Literary Language? (Open Universitv Press,
c o m p l e t e d in anything like t w e n t y d i f f e r e n t ways by t w e n t y d i f f e r - 1988).
ent people. Has a useful appendix on 'Critical and rhetorical terms'.
Toolan, Michael, L a n g u a g e in L i t e r a t u r e (Arnold, 1998).
\ very useful introduction and workbook in stylistics.
Selected reading Foolan, Michael, ed. L a n g u a g e , Text a n d C o n t e x t : E s s a y s in Stylistics
(Routledge, 1992).
Birch, David, Language, L i t e r a t u r e , a n d C r i t i c a l P r a c t i c e : IVays o f A n a l y s i n g
Text (Routledge, 1989). .'\n interesting collection representative of recent trends in stylistics, par-
Bradford, Richard, Stylistics (Routledge, New Critical Idiom series, 1997). ticularly the strong emphasis on context. For an essay which questions
the adequacy of this contextualising see Sara Mills's chapter 'Knowing
A very useful and up-to-date account.
your place; a Marxist feminist stylistic analysis'.
Butler, Lance St John, Registering the D i f f e r e n c e : R e a d i n g L i t e r a t u r e T h r o u g h
(Manchester University Press, 1999). Toolan, Michael, N a r r a t i v e : A C r i t i c a l L i n g u i s t i c I n t r o d u c t i o n (Routledge,
2nd edn, 2001).
A lively and user-friendly linguistics-based approach to literature from
Covers literary and non-literary texts, including film, internet, and TV.
slightly outside the mainstream.
Carter, Ronald, ed. L a n g u a g e a n d L i t e r a t u r e : A n I n t r o d u c t o r y R e a d e r in Widdowson, H . G., Stylistics a n d t h e Teaching o f L i t e r a t u r e (Longman,
1975).
Stylistics (Allen & Unwin, 1982).
•A brief and simple guide.
Chapter five is on Hemingway's 'Cat in the Rain'.
Carter, Ronald and Simpson, Paul, eds. L a n g u a g e , Discourse a n d L i t e r a t u r e :
A n I n t r o d u c t o r y R e a d e r in Discourse Stylistics (Routledge, 1988).
Carter, Ronald and Burton, Deirdre, eds. L i t e r a r y Text a n d L a n g u a g e S t u d y
(Edward Arnold, 1982).
Chapter two, 'Responses to language in poetry'.
Chapman, Raymond, Linguistics a n d L i t e r a t u r e : A n I n t r o d u c t i o n to L i t e r a r y
Stylistics (Edward Arnold, 1974).
Basic and short.
Cluysenaar, Anne, A n I n t r o d u c t i o n to L i t e r a r y Stylistics (Batsford, 1976).
Thorough and basic.
Fabb, Nigel, el al., eds. T h e Linguistics o f IVniing: A r g u m e n t s Retipeen
L a n g u a g e a n d L i t e r a t u r e (Manchester University Press, 1987).
Useful material. See especially the introduction, and the chapters by
Marie Louise Pratt, Maurice Halle and Henry Widdnwson.
Fish, Stanley, Is There a Text tn This Class? (Harvard University Press,
1980).
See chapters two and ten, the tv,'o parts of the famous essay called 'What
is Stylistics and Why are they Saying Such Terrible Things About it?'
Fowler, Roger, Linguistic Criticism (Oxford Paperbacks, new edn, 1996).
A good general introduction.
McRae, John, T h e L a n g u a g e o f P o e t r y (Routledge, 1998).
A brief and very helpful book in the 'Intertext' series.