Stylistics routledge English Language Introductions

phonaesthetic fallacy
. This is not to say that my feelings or intuitions about examples
(1) and (2) were in any sense wrong; it is rather that my analysis drew an uncom-
fortably direct parallel between these intuitions and the raw linguistic material of the
text. In other words, the fallacy lies in the assumption that language functions
unproblematically as a direct embodiment of the real world.
The phonaesthetic fallacy, if not articulated in precisely the same terminology 
as here, is a serious issue for stylistic analysis. Nash talks of it as something that
teachers of language and literature have come to dread when dealing with the 
interpretation of phonetic features in literary texts (Nash 1986: 130). Attridge notes
as a failing in much traditional literary criticism that it uses aspects of sound to 
evoke directly the meaning of the text: a practice evident in common critical
comments like ‘rhythmic enactment’ or ‘appropriate sound-patterns’ (Attridge 1988:
133). So let me try then to set out some basic principles about the interpretation of
sound symbolism that will help avoid the interpretive pitfall that is the phonaesthetic
fallacy.
We need first of all to make the assumption that a particular piece of language is
intended
to be performed mimetically. If this function is not understood, then we
simply do not seek out sound symbolism. The conventions of reading textbooks differ
from those governing the reading of poetry, which is why (I assume) you were not
primed to search out mimetic sound patterns in the earlier paragraph. Second, we
should never lose sight of the text immediately surrounding the particular feature of
style under consideration, the 
co-text
in other words. In the Hopkins example, for
instance, the salient items are preceded by a very different stylistic pattern, where
coordination (‘Brute beauty 
and
valour 
and
act’) suggests a perhaps more languid
precursor to the contrasting brisker and more strident delivery invited of the high-
lighted sequence. Related to this point, and echoing units A2 and B2, we need also
to think about how a relevant feature is paralleled by other levels of language. In
Hopkins, again, note how the disharmony at the phonetic level is underscored by
the mixture of grammatical forms that carry these sounds, a mixture which comprises
an uncoordinated sequence of nouns, verbs and adverbs and which is even fronted
by a nonlexical expressive particle, ‘oh’.
There are also conventions for reading sound imagery, such that certain types of
sounds are conventionally interpreted in certain ways. Moreover, onomatopoeia
works on the reader’s familiarity with the entity described which means that we need
to know that we are being told about, say, a dry brook or the flight path of a falcon,
before we can search out a correspondence in sound. Attridge adopts the useful
phrase 
heightened meaning
to explain how onomatopoeic conventions work (Attridge
1988: 150). Phonetic and semantic properties interact with one another, and in a way
that mutually reinforces and intensifies both aspects of language. Thus, the so-called
‘dry’ consonants in Spender are conventionally understood as heightening the
semantic quality of aridity. This explains why a word like ‘waterless’, which contains
‘softer’ consonants like /w/, /l/ and /s/, would not have had the same impact even
though it is semantically compatible in the context. It would simply not 
heighten
meaning in the way that the word ‘parched’ does.
11
111
11
111
I N T E R P R E T I N G P A T T E R N S O F S O U N D
69

---

We cannot cut sound symbolism adrift from its overall discourse context because
– and this is a point that extends to all stylistic practice – the linguistic system does
not embody the real world directly. Meanings are signalled only indirectly, so it is a
guiding principle of stylistic analysis to be cautious about treating any aspect of
language as if it bears an inherent relationship with a given or felt experience. Taking
these cautionary observations on board, unit C4 offers a programme for the analysis
of a short poem by Michael Longley, in which sound symbolism is one of various
levels of language explored. In the reading by Derek Attridge which supplements this
unit, the emphasis on patterns of sound is maintained, with the focus on nonlexical
as opposed to lexical onomatopoeia.
DEVELOPMENTS IN STRUCTURAL NARRATOLOGY
In unit A5, a distinction was drawn between the concepts of narrative