Stylistic analysis is
different from literary analysis because it entails the explication of how the
words of a text generate the feelings and reactions that we get when we read
them. In line with the above position, Ahmad (online) describes stylistic
analysis as the
“identification of patterns of usage in speech and writing”. It
comments on quality and meaning in a text and endeavours to ascertain the rules
capable of explaining the particular choices made by individual and social
groups in their use of language. He adds that stylistic analysis helps us to
understand the possible meanings in a text. He cites examples with the
stylistic analysis of the opening lines of Shakespeare’s Richard III.
“Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of
York”
He explains that the
stylistic analysis of the above lines may reveal the following:
·
the play is
written in poetic blank verse
·
that is unrhymed,
iambic pentameter
·
now is the winter
of our discontent
·
the stress falls
on vowel sounds
·
the first line is
built on a metaphor
·
The condition of
England is described in terms of the season “Winter”
·
The term “our” is
a form of the royal “we”
·
The seasonal
metaphor is extended into the second line
·
Where better
conditions become summer
·
The metaphor is
extended even further by the term “sun”
·
Causing the summer
·
But “sun” is here
also a pun-on the term “son”
·
Which refers to
the son of the king “York” is a metonymic reference to the Duke of York.
Ahmad
opines that stylistic analysis entails looking at the text in great detailsand
noting what the parts are and stating what function they perform in the context
of a passage. He therefore, likens stylistic analysis to taking a car- engine
to pieces, looking at each component in detail, and then spotting its function
as the whole engine starts working.
In
his exploration of some methodologies used in stylistic analysis, Carter (2012)
maintains that the essence of stylistic methodologies is to make it possible
for analysts to expound what they are doing and how they are doing it so that
the analysts is transparent to others. Thus, this enables readers to retrieve how
the analyst came about the interpretative decisions. However, he argues that
“there is no infinite number of possible interpretations and there are no
single correct way of analysis and interpretation of the texts.” So, each
method is “a hands-on approach” meaning that each text is taken on its own
merits using what the reader knows. In support of the above opinion, Leech and
Short (1985:74) proclaim that:
All
writers and for that matter all texts have their individual qualities.
Therefore, the features which recommend themselves to the attention in one text
will not necessarily be important in another text by the same or different
authors. There is no infallible technique for selecting what is significant. We
have to make ourselves newly aware of each text…
They
maintain that despite the fact that new stylistics has brought illuminating
studies of stylistic features, of works or writer, no adequate theory of prose
style has emerged.
Again,
Ian Watt in his explanation of Henry James style in “The Ambassador” in Leech
and Short (1985:3) complains that he is “virtually helpless as far as any fully
developed and acceptable technique of elucidating prose is concerned. But they
maintain that stylistic analysis is more readily adapted to poems than to the
investigation of novels where some hitches are usually encountered in the
course of interpretation. Carter(2012) and Leech and Short (1985) then contend
that because of the complicatedness in the study of prose style, prose analysis
has suffered unevenness. Consequently, they uphold that.
A
writer’s style has all too frequently been reduced to one feature or a handful
of features. Some aspects of style such as speech presentation have been
recognized as interesting and have been intensively studied, whereas others
have been intensively neglected. And where the data are so vast and varied,
there is inevitable temptation to retreat into vague generalization
Despite the inadequacies inherent, Carter (2012) introduces
some methodologies for the stylistic analysis of literary texts.
2.5.1 Practical
Stylistics
This approach is
derived from practical criticism and the practice of making use of language to
achieve meaning of texts. This system entails close reading of verbal texture
of the texts. The basic assumptions of practical stylistics include:
·
that literature is
made from language and with language.
·
that language is
the medium of literature and
·
that beginning
with the very textuality of the text is a secure foundation for its
interpretation.
Carter
affirms that the basic and preliminary interpretation of a text is the account
of the role of verbs, and that the verb creates an atmosphere of constant
actions and movement. The main verb provides an anchor for these actions. He
gives example with the following sentence:
foot
passengers jostling one another’s umbrellas loosing their foot hold at street
corners arrived at the bank.
Carter maintains that a
sentence such as the above provides the kind of anchor for the action in the
verb ‘arrived’, which is a finite verb in the sentence. As a result, the finite
verb is a verb, which tells when something happened (past or present). But
present participles such as “lowering” “jostling”, “wheezing”, “looming” (got
from Dicken’s Bleek House)convey a feeling of continues action which
could be timeless. He argues that the only way of getting such practical
stylistic analysis is “close reading.” Practical stylistics therefore, ensures
that stylistic analysis makes it possible for others to see how the analyst
reaches the interpretative account he provides. Carter welcomes this analysis
thus:
No comments:
Post a Comment