Stylistics routledge English Language Introductions

personae
. Now the critical controls to be applied to prevent any misreading of this
or that particular passage or work are the 
inter-subjective phenomena of style
. Whatever
Coleridge may or may not have meant by his ‘homely definition’, the study of liter-
ature written in one’s native language reduces itself to a recognition that the words
with which the reader is confronted are (or are not) 
really
, in their context, approx-
imately the best words in the best order. In the case of the author a style precedes
the words. He knows more or less what he wants to say and how he proposes to say
it 
before
the final verbal formulation on paper. The reader, on the other hand, finds
the process reversed, beginning with the specific individual words and working his
way through them, as it were, to reach the style. And it is only via the style that 
he becomes capable of a proper literary response to what he is reading.
[. . .] Mr Fowler finds it difficult to pass from the linguistic to the stylistic phase,
as I have described them. And as a consequence the full aesthetic response is appar-
ently denied to him. Other linguists, of course, remain solidly stuck at the level of
langue
. Ultimately it is, I suggest, because of this verbal immobility, this failure to
recognise that in literature language is for the reader a mere preliminary to style –
as style itself is a preliminary to the literary response in its fullest sense – that the
critic finds so little nourishment in modern linguistics in any of its forms. 
Not here,
O Apollo, are haunts meet for thee
.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER
Roger Fowler’s contributions articulate much that has theoretical currency in
contemporary stylistics. He raises the ‘literary language’ issue (see C1), making the
point that ‘. . . no workable theory has ever been constructed which uniquely isolates
156
E X T E N S I O N

---

a category of language “literature”’. Nor, according to Fowler, is there any good
reason why ‘the concept of style should be exclusively literary’. For Fowler, the ‘false
norm of non-literary language’ is being invoked by Bateson ‘to provide background
for a spurious category ‘literary language’’. Whereas this position might appear to
reflect the side with which stylisticians would naturally concur, it is worth observing
as you develop your own reading the extent to which Fowler’s approach is embodied
in more contemporary stylistic work. Do 
all
stylisticians agree with Fowler’s position?
Or is the current situation rather more complicated?
F. W. Bateson’s contributions are interesting on a number of levels. For a start,
his position is archetypally that of the ‘liberal humanist’ tradition in literary study.
This tradition is defined on the understanding that the critic as social subject is
untrammelled by political or cultural constraints, and that critical response, by impu-
tation, arises out of the free interplay of individuals in society. This ‘liberal’
conception of the critic’s position is also supplemented by a ‘humanist’ doctrine
which treats literature as a valid index of the human experience; a doctrine which
even suggests that the sensitive reading of 
good
literature can make you a better
person. Notice how Bateson frames this perspective in certain key remarks.
Dismissing social and political history, he suggests that good literature is measured
by ‘humane value judgments’. Following from this, Bateson argues that one is 
either a ‘natural grammarian’ or one is ‘born a literary critic’. This position has 
implications for the stylistician, not least because it assumes that there is a 
‘natural’ distinction between the two disciplines which no amount of sensitive styl-
istic analysis can bridge. In this respect, think about which of these two skills is 
your
natural predisposition.
More suggestions follow:
❏
In the course of his first reply to Fowler, Bateson offers an interesting definition
of literature. He claims that ‘a work of literature is successful linguistically’. How
might we measure linguistic success? Do you know of any works of literature
that are 
not
successful linguistically? Is the idea of linguistic success (such as it
is) a prerequisite for literary success?
❏
What prospect does Bateson’s programme afford the non-native speaker of
English? If English is not your first language, how do/would you approach the
critical study of English literature? Does your approach correspond to Bateson’s
model for literary study or is Fowler’s model more appealing? Or are more suit-
able approaches to be found elsewhere?
❏
Fowler’s contributions place constant emphasis on the importance of 
grammar
in stylistic analysis. To what extent is this weighting towards ‘the culturally shared
grammar of the language’ a true reflection, as far as you can tell, of current
methods of stylistics? Is it really all about grammar?
❏
Bateson’s comment that ‘our two disciplines do not overlap’ suggests that there
is little hope of agreement or compromise between the literary critics and the
stylisticians. Going by your own experience (eg. of the academic institution where
you study), is this still the case today? Has there been a meeting of minds? Or
is the literary–linguistic divide as marked as it ever was?
11
111
11
111
L A N G U A G E A N D L I T E R A T U R E
157