Stylistics and Other Linguistic Disciplines

Introduction

Stylistics often intersects with other areas of linguistics, namely historical

linguistics, dialectology, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and many others.
All of them are different branches of language study and should be regarded
as different tools from the same set and not as rivals. To illustrate the
situation, an example discussed by N. E. Enkvist can be presented here:

The expression thou lovest taken from the language of W. Shakespeare

illustrates how uuierent fields of study use different classifications of the
same language phenomenon. In our case, the expression thou lovest will be
classified by historians as an older form of you love and by the students of
contemporary styles as a feature of a Biblical at archaic style.

Another example also points at different point of view in classification. The

expression you ain’t can be regarded as a characteristic of a social class and
thus qualified as a class matter. It also correlates with a certain range of
situations and so it can be a style marker. In a complex study of linguistic
variation, both observations may be relevant.

Stylistics and literary Study

As we have already pointed out, the study of Stylistics is (more or less)

related to the field of study of linguistics and/or Literary Study. According to
this, Stylistics can be seen as a subdepartment of linguistics when dealing
with the peculiarities of literary texts. Secondly, it can be a subdepartment of
literary study when it draws only occasionally on linguistic methods, and
thirdly, it can be regarded as an autonomous discipline when it draws freely,
and eclectically, on methods from both linguistics and literary study. Each of
these three approaches has its own virtues. We always need to consider the
task we are to complete, and consequently decide about the relevant
approach. In a particular situation one approach may be better than another.
However, we should keep in mind that to study styles as types of linguistic
variations and to describe the style of one particular text for a literary
purpose are two different activities.

linguistic versus literary Context

In his Linguistic Stylistics N. E. Enkvist (1973) refers to certain theoretical

discussions which voiced some dogmatic attitudes about the relationship
between linguistics, Stylistics and literary study. Many of them have even
acquired political overtones. In practice, such problems tend to solve
themselves pragmatically, as long as each investigator allows himself the
freedom of choosing and shaping his methods to achieve his own particular
goals. In some studies, Stylistics may be an auxiliary brought in to narrative
structure, in others, categories of narrative structure provide contexts for
stylistic analysis.

To illustrate the situation, Enkvist uses the following sample sentence from
Ibsen’s play The Doll’s House: Nora says: ”Heave the keys here.”

96
STYLISTICS AND OTHER FIELDS OF STUDY

97

This sentence can be linguistically characterised as an everyday middle-class

conversation, an expression which seems, against one contextual
background, trivial and highly predictable. From the point of view of a literary
context (that is the dramatic structure of the play) we have to see the
sentence as an expression of Nora’s determination to break with her past,
that is, the sentence is seen in the light of another contextual background.

How far we wish to go in our discussion of an utterance such as this will

depend on our purpose: if we study Ibsen’s Norwegian style, we may dismiss
Nora’s sentence as a trivial example of everyday dialogue”, if, on the
contrary, *”c study the way in which Ibsen built up to a dramatic climax, we
should carefully note the tension between a major narrative kernel and its
undramatic expression. Narrative elements and their linguistic expressions is
an apparatus developed mainly by Propp, Barthes and Todorov.

Linguistic Theories and the Study of Style

The most influential linguistic theories of the 20th century, introduced by

Ferdinand de Saussure and Noam Chomsky, have also influenced the
discussion of the study of style. The aim of this subchapter is to review the
main characteristics of the two dichotomies and to bt^ ’.vhat the rolc of
study of style within these theories was.

Where Would Style Co within the Two Presented Theories?

One of the major goals of linguistic stylistics is to define or devise linguistic

methods for the identification and adequate description of stylistic stimuli.
The desire to define the place of the study of style within the given linguistic
theories seems to be crucial to our further discussion. Accounting for the
main aspects of the presented linguistic dichotomies, several possibilities on
how to incorporate the study of style into the linguistic dichotomy of
Ferdinand de Saussure and Noam Chomsky can be considered.

One way is to identify the study of style with the linguistic concept of parole.
This i^proach seems to work well in the analysis of single texts by one
individual, however, some rrcJiodological difficulties can be pointed out. If
langue is only observable as an abstraction from parole, and if styles are only
observable as results of comparison between one sample of parole and
another, how can these two samples be compared without references to
languel In other words, we believe, that each sample reflects the same
langue and this fact makes them comparable and measurable.

Another reaction towards the distinction between langue and parole, one
which suggests to find a stylistic subsection under each of these two
concepts, seems to accommodate the aims of our study of style better.
Describing parole as non-collective, individual, and momentaneous actually
excludes the study of some other language variants, namely of non-
individual, collective, group styles. Group styles reflect the wider norms of
language communities, and, as such, should be classified and studied under
langue. From this point of view, the suggestion to provide stylistic subsections
under langue and parole seems to be an acceptable one. This approach is
reflected in the division of styles into two categories: group styles belonging
to langue, and individual styles belonging to parole. The Czech linguist,
Lubomir Dolezel, emphasised the distinction between the style of a single
utterance (close to parole), and the style of a category or type of utterance.
As L. Dolezel implies, it is possible that an individual can order certain
features in a single utterance. But to study this aspect of utterances a special
theory of discourse is needed which is not the same as stylistics. A similar
theory of divorcing individual styles from group styles was introduced by
another Czech scholar, Josef Vachek, who draws distinction between special
languages and functional styles. Another possibility is to declare that
Saussure’s dichotomy requires an overall modification to be applicable in
stylistic study. In fact, several attempts to provide supplements to Saussure’s
dichotomy can be recorded. An interesting contribution was made by the
Prague linguists who have
98

A HANDBOOK OF STYLE AND STYUSTICS

also developed a three-level approach. They claim that between the concrete
speech event and the abstract sentence pattern there intervenes an
utterance level which includes features such as functional sentence
perspective, studied mainly by Danei.

Finally, opinions suggesting that the dichotomy langue vs. parole is not
suited, for the study of style were recorded as well. As for the dichotomy of N.
Chomsky, the notion of style can only be traced in this theory with difficulties.
In iact, there is no special interest paid to the study of style. However, some
suggestions were made to supplement Chomsky’s dichotomy. The following
table offers a summary of the opinions described abc”;-

Linguistic Dichotomy of Ferdinand Saussure

Linguistic Dichotomy of Noam Chomsky

To create a stylistic subsection under langue and parole.

To equate stylistics with parole,

To add stylolinguistic use.

To ignore this theory. The most acceptable solution is a combination of the

first and third way. The notion of competence should include an apparatus
describing stylistic variations. Style should be considered within grammar, but
not within the basic grammar, where the study of style is considered less
fundamental.

University Questions

1. What is the interaction of stylistics with other branches of linguistics?

2. Discuss the linguistic concept of langue, parole, competence and

performance.

3. Discuss the dichotomy between theories on style.

11