文体学课件汇总

Topics covered1. What is stylistics?A. Definition, preferred object and caveatsB. Purpose of stylisticsC. Three Rs stylistic analysis conforms to2. Developments in stylisticsA. A brief introductionB. ForegroundingC. Jakobson’s ‘poetic function’3. Is there a ‘literary language’?A. A brief introductionB. The ‘literary language’ issueC. Probing ‘literary language’StylisticsLecture One A Brief IntroductionWhat is stylistics?•Stylistics is a method of textual interpretation in which a primacy of place is assigned to language. The reason why language is so important to stylisticians is that the various forms, patterns and levels that constitute linguistic structure are an important index of the function of the text.•The preferred object:The preferred object of study in stylistics is literature•Caveats: The first is that creativity and innovation in language use should not be seen as the exclusive preserve of literary writing.The second caveat is that the techniques of stylistic analysis are as much about deriving insights about linguistic structure and function as they are about understanding literary texts.Summary: In spite of its clearly defined area, methods and object of study, there remain a number of myths about contemporary stylistics. Most of the time, confusion about the compass of stylistics is a result of confusion about the compass of language. Moreover, stylistics is interested in language as a function of texts in context. So the more complete and context-sensitive the description of language then the fuller the stylistic analysis.The purpose of stylistics•To do stylistics is to explore language, and more specifically, to explore creativity in language use. Doing stylistics thereby enriches our ways of thinking about language and exploring language offers a substantial means on our understanding of text.•But to do stylistics interest in language is always important in contemporary stylistics analysis, which is why you should never undertake to do stylistics unless you are interested in language.Three Rs Practice of Stylistics should conform to•stylistic analysis should be rigorous;•stylistic analysis should be retrievable;•stylistic analysis should be replicable.Developments in Stylistics•Important influence on Stylistics:•1) The Greeks: there is indeed a case for saying that some stylistic work is very much a latter-day embodiment of traditional rhetoric.•2) Russian Formalism and Prague School Structuralism: there is one particular field of academy inquiry, from the early twentieth century, that has had a more direct and lasting impact on the methods of contemporary stylistics. This field extends across two interrelated movements in linguistics, known as Russian Formalism and Prague School Structuralism.•Among all the key figures in these two movements, one scholar, whose work actually links both movements, is Roman Jakobson, who moved from the Moscow circle to the Prague group in 1920. Many of the central ideas of these two schools have greatly influenced contemporary stylistics and two of the more durable theoretical contributions are the focus: the notion of foregrounding and the notion of the poetic function in language.•1) Foregrounding:•Definition: Foregrounding refers to a form of textual patterning which is motivated specifically forliterary-aesthetic purposes. Capable of working at any level of language, foregrounding typically involves a stylistic distortion of some sort, either through an aspect of the text which deviates from a linguistic norm or, alternatively, where an aspect of the text is brought to the fore through repetition or parallelism. •Function of foregrounding: it should acquire salience in the act of drawing attention to itself. Furthermore, thissalience is motivated purely by literary considerations. In sum, if a particular textual pattern is not motivated for artistic purposes then it is not foregrounding.•Issues raised by theory of foregrounding:1) The most important is probably its reliance on the conce pt of a ‘norm’ in language.2) A related issue concerns what happens when a once deviant pattern becomes established in a text.Activity: Read the passage and come to the conclusion as to what is the author’s written style and what kind of foregrounding is used here.Analysis: The written style has been described by literary critics with epithets like ‘flat’, ‘dry’ ‘restrained, ‘journalistic’ and even ‘tough guy’.The language used is considered as marked non-adjectival pattern, which is foregrounded because it deviated fro our expectations about the ‘normal’ style of 20th century prose fiction.Internal foregrounding:Activity: read the following sentence in the novella Old Man and Sea and see what strikes you most. Foregrounding can be seen to work on two levels: both across and within texts. The type of foregrounding that works inside the text as a kind of deviation within a deviation is referred to as secondary foregrounding, known as internal foregrounding.Jakobson’s ‘poetic function’•J akobson’s model of language comprises six key functions (Jakobson, 1960): conative, phatic，referential, emotive, poetic and metalingual functions of language.•Alongside the referential function and the emotive function, there is one function that stands out particularly appealing to stylisticians. This is the poetic function, which Jakobson defines thus:”the poetic function projects the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination” (Jakobson, 1960).•Activity for illustr ation of poetic function: read the opening line of W.H Auden’s elegiac poem ‘in Memory of W.B. Yeat’ (1939) with the key verb removed and consider what sort of word would make an appropriate entry.•He __________ in the dead of winter.•Analysis: there are a pool of possible lexical entries from which a choice is made, which is what Jakobson calls ‘axis of selection’. As to why one choice is made instead of others is up to whether the choice brings about a series of resonances across the line as a whole, re ferred to as ‘axis of combination’. In sum the way Auden uses language is a good illustration of Jakobson’s poetic function at work: the particular language patterns he develops work to establish connections (a principle of equivalence) between the words he chooses from the pool of possible words (the axis of selection) and the words that are combined across the poetic line (the axis of combination).Is There A ‘Literary Language’?•Introduction: As far as most stylisticians are concerned, the short answer to this question is ‘no’. That is to say,there exists no feature or pattern of language which inherently or exclusively ‘literary’ in all contexts. This may seem a curious stance to adopt given stylistics’ close association with literary discourse. It is also the case that there have been, over the centuries, certain conventions in writing styles that mark certain literary epochs.•The ‘literary language’ issue•1) One of the most important concern in the practice of stylistics is that the language used in literary texts shouldnot be separated from its reflexes in the common resources of everyday discourse.•2) If we describe this or that piece of discourse as ‘literary language’, we immediately place a linguistic boundaryaround it. In fact it is the very freedom of linguistic possibility which is an index of creativity in language, not the presence of a fixed set of linguistic guidelines within which a writer must work.•3) A third issue raised by the literary language debate is somewhat more ideological than methodological in itsgeneral bearings.Probing ‘literary language’•Activity•Tasks:•1. How many speakers are there in the poem and how can we work this out from the text?•2. When is the poem set, and how do we know?•3. What sort of vocabulary is used in the poem? That is, is it modern or archaic, formal or conversational? •4. Can you identify a rhyme scheme in the poem? If so, what sort of scheme is it?•5. Can you spot any marked or unusual features of grammar in the poem?•Read the poem and answer the above questions:One Perfect Rose•A single flow’r he sent me, since we met.•All tenderly his messenger he chose;•Deep-hearted, pure, with scented dew still wet –•One perfect rose.•I knew the language of the floweret;•‘My fragile leaves’ it said, ‘his heart enclose.’•Love long has taken for his amulet•One perfect rose.Now read the full version of the poem:•One Perfect Rose•A single flow’r he sent me, since we met.•All tenderly his messenger he chose;•Deep-hearted, pure, with scented dew still wet –•One perfect rose.•I knew the language of the floweret;•‘My fragile leaves’ it said, ‘his heart enclose.’•Love long has taken for his amulet•One perfect rose.•Why is it no one ever sent me yet•One perfect limousine, do you suppose?•Ah, no, it’s al ways just my luck to get•One perfect rose.•Summary: A position which regards literary discourse as impervious to or resistant to linguistic analysis is utterly at odds with the rationale of modern stylistics. Stylistics is about interrogating texts, about seeing a text in the context of its other stylistic possibilities. Upholding the view that ‘literary language’ is somehow outside the boundaries of the overall language system does little to enable or facilitate the sort of textual intervention. It makes sense therefore to treat the concept of ‘literary language’ with a healthy degree of skepticism. •Homework:•Read the materials I assigned you and come to the conclusion what contributions both writers have made to Stylistics. Refer to your public mailbox: *****************Password:8821520The text by Hemingway•He knelt down and found the tuna under the stern with the gaff and drew it toward him keeping it clear of the coiled lines. Holding the line with his left shoulder again, and bracing on his left hand and arm, he took the tuna off the gaff hook and put the gaff back in place. He put one knee on the fish and cut strips of dark red meat longitudinally from the back of the head of the tail. They were wedge-shaped strips and he cur them from next to the back bone down to the edge of the belly. When he had cut six strips he spread them out on the wood of the bow, wiped his knife on his trousers, and lifted the carcass of the bonito by the tail and dropped it overboard.•‘I don’t’ think I can eat an entire one,’ he said and drew his knife across one of the strips. He could feel the steady hard pull of the line and his left hand was cramped. It drew up tight on the heavy cord and he looked at it in disgust.•‘What kind of a hand is that,’ he said. ‘Cramp then if you want. Make yourself into a claw. It will do you no good.’•Come on, he thought and looked down into the dark water at the slant of the line. Eat it now and it will strengthen the hand. It is not the hand’s fault and you have been many hours with the fish. But you can stay with him for ever. Eat the bonito now.•He picked up a piece and put it in his mouth and chewed it slowly. It was not unpleasant.•Chew it well, he thought, and get all the juices. It would not be bad to wat with a little lime or with lemon or withsalt.•‘How do you feel, hand? ’he asked the cramped hand that was almost as still as rigour mortis. ‘I’ll eat some more for you.’•He ate the other part of the piece that he had cut in two. He chewed it carefuylly and them spat out the skin.•‘How does it go, hand? Or it is too early to know?’•He took another full piece and chewed it.•‘It is a strong full-blooded fish,’ he thought. ‘I was lucky to get him instead of dolphin. Dolphin is too sweet. This is hardly sweet at all and all the strength is still in it.’•There is no sense in being anything but practical though, he thought. I wish I had some salt. And I do not know whether the sun will rot or dry what is left, so I had better eat it all although I am not hungry. The fish is calm and steady. I will eat it all and then I will be ready.•‘Be patient, had,’ he said. ‘I do this for you.’•I wish I could feed the fish, he thought. He is my brother. But I must kill him and keep strong to do it. Slowly and conscientiously he ate all of the wedge-shaped strips of fish.•He straightened up, wiping his hand on his trousers.•‘the purple, formalized iridescent gelatinous bladder of a Portuguese man-of-war’Assignment for lecture 1 stylisticsRead the materials I assigned you and come to the conclusion what contributions both writers have made to Stylistics The Language of Literature by Roger Fowler and F. W. BatesonLiterature and Linguistics: Roger FowlerMrs Vendler, in her review (Vendler 1966) of my Essays on Style and Language(Fowler 1966) is apparently optimistic that ‘descriptive linguistics will in the end be of immense use to literary criticism’. If, however, we were to accept her generalizations about the critical attempts of linguists, we would have to doubt whether this prediction can come true; certainly it is doubtful that she wishes it. The hostility of Mrs Vendler’s voice is depressingly familiar to those of us who have suffered from an unnecessary schism between ‘language’and ‘literature’which has so long marred English studies. Her tone betrays the fear, common among teachers of literature although perhaps less so among the great critics, that linguists may invade and ravage precious literary territory. I shall reserve my remarks on this opposition of linguists and critics until the end of this paper, commenting at the moment only that Mrs. Vendler’s open invitation of confrontation in her first paragraph is a damaging strategy. […]I hope that in these unsettled days linguists will be slow to claim too much, and literary critics for their part [will be] more patient than Mrs/ Vendler. One can agree on one level with some of her comments: ‘that is what most linguists are – beginning students’ (1966:458), ‘linguists, who are simply undereducated in the reading of poetry, tend to take on, without realizing it, documents whose primary sense and value they are not equipped to absorb’(460). In so far as this means that linguistics has only just started to attempt literary analysis, ad that linguistics has thus not yet finalized its methods, this is a just observation. But to turn it into an unkind accusation, as Mrs. Vendler does (as if ‘linguists as a species are incapable of treating literature’), is only harmful to the progress she pretends to welcome. True, sometimes linguists have approached literature with non-critical motives (e.g. Thorne 1965) and some work will probably be cited more often by linguists than by critics (Levin, 1962). I personally see no objection to a linguist deliberately advancing his linguistic research by the study of literary uses of language which really put his assumptions to the test. Critics and linguists […] should welcome the fact that we have at last turned to material which inevitably forces us out of our assurance. Although the ‘use’ of literature is really not the issue here, it needs comment because critics seem to consider that linguists doing such kinds of linguistic work with literature think it is critical work. The real allegation is that, perhaps because of their ‘scientific’ education, linguists are not equipped to know the difference between linguistic analysis and criticism, not indeed sensitive enough to be critics. This is nonsense. Many mathematicians and physical scientists are fine musicians and poets. There is no reason why a linguist should net be a humane, literate, sensitive person. He may write on literature (1) purely as a linguist for linguistic ends; (2) fro critical motives, using only a selection from his linguistic apparatus; or (3) no differently from the non-linguist, without appeal to linguistics at all. The there separate approaches are all valuable, and I would urge non-linguists to stay their conviction that a knowledge of linguistics must make only the first approach possible.The primary justification for the use of the methods of linguistics in literary study is that noted by Mrs. Vendler(1966: 458):”any information about language is useful in studying an art-form whose stuff is language. If linguistics is defined as ‘the study of language’ tout court, then its contribution is unchallengeable. But this bleak logic doesn’t allow that all specific brands of linguistics are admissible. Briefly, this means that, in the first case (1), 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. That is, the investigator must be curious about he extra-linguistic features which condition the distinctive style of a literary work. As for the applicability of different linguistics models (2), this is obviously variable., The appropriateness of the model is a concern for the individual analysts; just as important for this general discussion is that all those who engage in it realize that bland undefined accounts of ‘linguistics’ lead nowhere. There is no one linguistics except in community of certain basic and general ideals held since Saussure’s time. We cannot switch on a standardized linguistic analysis machine and stand by while it puts out a definitive breakdown of a text. Doubtless the lack of such a device has its advantages.My third prescription for a successful linguistic criticism is that it should proceed not merely from a theory of language but also from a respectful consideration of the demands and peculiarities of the many kinds of literary study. Now, the substance of this remark is addressed not only to linguists. There is no single thing ‘criticism’ any more than there is ‘linguistics’, although literary people, faced with the imagined threat of linguistics, tend to talk as if there is. (this impression is gained partly from the tendency to use ‘criticism’ and ‘critical’ as treasured value terms/ ) […] In the real world, we are dealing with , above all, teachers of literature whose pedagogical relations with their subject matter and with their students are much more vital than the role of the public critic. Most often literature teachers are involved in nothing more mythical than, at various degrees of sophistication, showing the ways to efficient reading of literature. Many a time literary study comprises historical, stylistic or openly technical investigation: genre description, stylistic tests of authorship, metrical analysis, for example, For some reason, ‘interpretation’(an exceedingly difficult term) and ‘evaluation’have come to be regarded as the only activities which are worth doing and which are actually done. Just as we need to be wary in our use of ‘linguistics’ as a term describing all procedures involving the study of language, so we should give careful scrutiny to terms like ‘criticism’, ‘interpretation’, ‘evaluation’, ‘explication’, ‘stylistics’, ensuring that we do not think that there is just one objective (of whatever kind0 in studying literature, with ‘linguistics’straightforwardly an alternative ‘technique’ for reaching that goal.Literature and Linguistics: a reply by F. W. BatesonRoger Fowler is in effect proposing --- both here and in the collection of essays he edited (Fowler 1966) which was reviewed by Mrs. Vendler--- an academic alliance between post-Saussure linguistics and post-I.A. Richards criticism. And why on earth shouldn’t he? A priori, as it were, it sounds a good idea. After all, even if a literary masterpiece is more than the sum of its words, still when the words are taken away, what is left? Blank pages! To invite the reader to look hard, really hard, at the words on the page is indeed what the modern critical doctrine of close reading amounts to, when it is reduced to its simplest terms. And, since a similar concentration is the initial premise of modern descriptive linguistics, some degree of amicable cooperation that Mr. Fowler and his colleagues are pleading for is a vain hole.[…]Descriptive linguistics is always at least headed towards total description --- a detached, objective, universally available discipline (whatever the user’s age, sex, nationality, or culture). Literature, on the other hand, has its ineradicable subjective core, which tends to define the range and effectiveness of its uses. The point of departure between the two specializations from the vulgar tongue can also be put in strictly linguistic terms. It is a mater either of breaking down the sentence into its separable parts --- or else of taking the sentence as the unit and building u[ larger units as the sentences accumulate. The close reader conscientiously intent on the words in front of him, can opt either way. If he is a natural grammarian he will divide and subdivide the verbal material; if he has been born a literary critic he will synthesize and amalgamate it/ What is it, then, in the words of literature that encourages the literary reader to amalgamate and not to subdivide? The answer to this question is a crucial one in my argument with Mr. Fowler, though to prove it as a case is proved in a court of law would require a book instead of a short article. But I can at least summarize the theoretical objections to the mating of the language of description and the language of evaluation. Grammar, for one thing, is essentially logical in its linguistic presuppositions, and as such it is governed by the principle of non-contradiction; literary criticism, on the other hand, assumes in the verbal material criticized the presence of opposite and discordant qualities whose provisionalbalance and reconciliation the common reader will agree under certain circumstances to accept. Those circumstances, considered linguistically, can be summed up in the word ‘style’ --- a term that includes the whole armoury of rhetorical devices, phonetic and semantic, with their larger structural extensions such as tragedy and comedy. The function of style is to unify --- or at least encourage the reader to attempt to unity --- literature’s disparate linguistic parts. As such it is the exact opposite of grammar, whose function is not primarily to unite but to divide. (A sentence is grammat6ical when it separate parts have been found subject to classification, the ‘parsing’ process, and then shown to cohere.) Although some grammaticalness certainly survives in literature, it is as it were accidentally and incidentally, a left-over of logic from the common speech of which the language of literature is one derivative. The reader is scarcely aware of it. What he is aware of – especially in poetry but also in prose with any literary pretensions --- is the style (in the wider sense already indicated). If my attention is drawn to breaches of grammar in a work of literature, I can always invoke the magic word ‘ellipsis’ --- a term apparently invented to save grammar’s face when we really ignore it.May I offer Mr. Fowler a definition of literature? A work of literature is successful linguistically, the best words in the best order, when appropriate stylistic devices co-operate to unify humane value judgments, implicit or explicit, on some aspect of life as it is lived in the writer’s own society. As for the reader of such a work, he will only be successful if he registers, consciously or at least semiconsciously, the unifying stylistic devices that enable him to respond to the human situation available to him in it. In a word, the role played by grammar in description is comparable to that of style in evaluation. But if comparable they are also mutually incompatible, because grammar is primarily analytic in its methods and premises, whereas style is essentially synthetic.To Mr. Fowler’s op0timistic escape-clause that, because ‘some mathematicians and physical scientists are fine musicians and poets’, therefore a linguistic training will sometimes be useful for the literary critic, the answer is simple and obvious: musical physicists do not improve as physicists by learning to play the piano. I am not sure who Mr. Fowler’s mathematicians and physicists are who are what are also fine poets, but these ambidextrous geniuses certainly don’t grow on blackberry bushes. I can’t think of one/ On the other hand, it is common knowledge that most structural linguists don’t write particularly good English prose. Why indeed should they as long as they are intelligible? The temperamental predisposition that results in Smith becoming an eminent grammarian is normally very different from that which turns Brown into a good critic. Let us agree to be different. Stylistic discrimination is the one indispensable prerequisite for the aesthetic appreciation of great literature. That some knowledge of linguistics, historical and descriptive, has certain minor uses in literary studies is not to be denied, but for the native speaker of English this additional knowledge is, as it were, supplementary either in eking out one’ birthright by the help available in the OED for an unusual word or idiom, or in saving one from incidental errors outside on e’s immediate range of linguistic experience. Such information may be compared to the odds and ends of social and political history with which the scholar-critic will also have to equip himself. A little learning of this kind will go a long way, though with none at all the reader’s fingers can sometimes be badly burnt. But for the literary beginner the best way to acquire such information --- including the sign-posts to the topic’s more sophisticated levels --- is ad hoc; in other words, by consulting a glossary or an editor’s notes only when he needs them. What he naturally resets is the traditional compulsory spoon-feeding with grammar or history most which he will never need. Of course, if he is interested in either descriptive linguistics or the history of the language or social history for its own sake, that is another matter. My real quarrel with Mr. Fowler --- or rather with the cause for which he is pleading --- is that he is presenting the study of language as a necessary concomitant to the study of literature. For the native speaker, except occasionally and superficially, this is simply not true. It is not even for the reading of Chaucer.This has been a fighting retort and I hope the words I have used will not seems unnecessarily offensive. But pace Mr Fowler, the things I have said do need to be said.Language and literature: Roger FowlerMr Bateson’s attempt to disquality linguistics as a discipline of relevance to literature comprises a very cunning and apparently substantial argument interwoven with a misleading line of polemic. In his usual masterly fashion, he has constructed a case against which it is very difficult to argue in an organized way. I will try to show that his argument (1) rests on premises which cannot provide an adequate aesthetic for literature, (2) is ineffective as a disqualification of linguistics because of misconceptions about the nature of linguistics, (3 is motivated by a set of prejudices which inhibit constructive discussion of the present issue. […](1)Mr bateson’s case is basically a somewhat complicated version of ideas he has offered linguists andmedievalists for at least the last ten years. He compounds (a) Coleridge’s‘homely definition’ of poetry as ‘the best words in the best order’; (b) I.A. Richards’ distinction between langue and parole. Theses formulae are jumbled together to support an assertion of a unique and exclusive aesthetic so constructed as apparently to make literature inaccessible to objective study […](a)‘The best words in the best order’ is, except in Mr Bateson’s first book, an empty catch-phrase. Coleridgeused it to distinguish verse from prose, and his requirement that ‘the words, the media, must be beautiful, and ought to attract your notice’ becomes impertinent when the phrase is employed to mark off literature from non-literature, as Mr Bateson uses it currently. It is obviously at best incomplete when applied to most kinds of poetry, and quite wrong for narrative verse ad for drama and the novel. […](b)I. A. Richards’distinction between emotive and scientific language is generally agreed to be withoutreasonable foundation: it is much too simple to serve as a linguistic theory or to provide a isolation of the characteristics of ‘literary language’. […](c)I do not think the reference to de Saussure is merely a sop to the linguists. Unfortunately, taken as aserious proposal it doesn’t make sense. Langue and parole together, according to de Saussure, make up the faculte du langage. Langue is the abstract system of rules which enables a speaker to communicate with others. Parole is a particular concrete act of speech, or a corpus collected from many such acts.Chomsky has recently revived and adapted the distinction using the terms competence and performance.Mt Bateson, like de Saussre ad Chomsky, sayd that linguists study langue, which is true in so far as linguists write grammars of languages and enquire into the linguistic mental capabilities of speakers. But, Mr Bateson says, […] the study of literature is the study of parole– or rather, the study of a special kind of parole of which the langue but ‘style’ […] This is an illegitimate and meaningless adaptation of de Saussure. It is illegitimate because the original scheme works only if it applied in the same way for all uses of language; it is meaningless because of the poverty of Mr. Bateson’s definition of the linguistic components of style and because of his misunderstanding of the interests and procedures of grammatical study in relation to langue and parole.(2)[…] we should not regard the linguistic description of a text as the discovery of structure. A linguist ought onlyto claim to make articulate what a native speaker tacitly knows about a text he understands. In this way, linguistic description is a representation of 9part of0 the process of understanding: it shows how a native speaker encounters and interprets sentences generated by the grammar (langue) that he knows. The ‘linguistic analysis’of literature is an attempt to make explicit part of the process of reading by the use of terms and concepts which have psychological reality (are humane even if they are scientific) through being appropriate to the reader’s individually internalized yet culturally shared grammar of the language. Some such description is necessarily because speakers do not know about their language anything like as efficiently as they know it. I see no reason derived from either the supposed opposition of science and literature, or the theoretical potential of linguistics (as distinct from the claims of many linguist and some linguist critics), why such a linguistics should be intrinsically alien to certain parts of literary study.(3)The ‘misleading line of polemic’derives from Mt. Bateson’s feelings about the old and disgraceful‘language-literature controversy’. There are still large numbers of people in English departments who, for reasons of academic politics, feel obliged to parcel the world into two intractably opposed groups. This is not the proper place to make a fuss about that issue, since only by association does it affect the dispute between Mr.Bateson and me. Modern linguistics is only accidentally the ‘successor’ of the old philological medievalism.Linguistics lays fair claim to be an autonomous discipline in its central concern, the theory of langue; it provides a theoretical status for parole, bur needs augmenting by other disciplines in the study of parole. In places where parole is studied (e.g. English departments) linguistics has obvious uses. But its value cannot be appreciated while people’s words and votes are governed by oversimplified and historically irrelevant ‘sets’towards imagined opponents. Reciprocal ignorance about literary criticism and linguistics is also, as I have several times argued deeply inhibiting.We can now attempt to rebuild the theory of style. I will argue that linguistic theory provides a definition for a level of language which we may call ‘style’. Since no workable theory has ever been constructed which uniquely isolates a category of language ‘literature’, there seems no good reason why the concept of style should be exclusively literary. (Whether or not a particular text Is regarded by its readers as being literature is an important cultural fact, but an irrelevant fact from our point of view) The linguistic theory which provided a definition of style by the same。