Lecture #1 General notes on style and stylistics: Style and stylistics. Stylistics and its tasks

Lecture #11
Syntactical EMs and SDs:
1. Particular ways of combining parts of the utterance (Linkage).
2. Asyndeton.
3. Polysendeton.

1. 
   Particular ways of combining parts of the utterance (Linkage).
   

The analysis of syntactical structures, their variety, their super-linear meaning, their stylistic functions cannot be effectively maintained without a thorough investigation of the linguistic features of the means and types of connection between parts of the sentence, between sen­tences themselves, between syntactical wholes and within the paragraph.
For a long time only two types of connection have been under the observation of linguists: — c o o r d i nation a n d s u b o r-d i n a t i o n (parataxis a n d h y p o t a x i s). The language means of expressing these two types of logical connection of ideas are correspondingly divided into coordinating and subordinating conjunctions.
Thus and, bat are coordinating, when, because, since and the like are subordinating.
Now linguists, getting deeper into the essence of interconnections between parts of the utterance, have come to the conclusion that there are more than these two manners of combining ideas. The interdepend­ence between different parts of the utterance presents a far great ei diversity of relations than coordination and subordination alone, Consequently the means of connection — conjunctions .and adverbial connectives — have been discovered to possess a more varied range of grammatical meanings. It now becomes obvious that the division of connectives into two categories is no longer acceptable, especially in stylistics. Moreover the division itself does not reflect the real functions of the connectives. Let us take the following example:
"He was sitting quietly at the door of his cottage when sud­denly he heard a terrible explosion."
Subordinating conjunction when does not introduce a subordinate idea, although from the point of view of traditional grammar the clause which follows the conjunction when will introduce a subordinate clause of time. And it is assumed that what is subordinate in form must also be subordinate in matter.
Here again we are faced with the discrepancy between the logical and linguistic approaches to language facts. From a purely grammatical point of view the clause 'when he suddenly...' is subordinate; while from the logical point of view the main idea is embodied in what is formally a subordinate clause.
All this goes to show that the means of connection have become polysemantic. They may express different types of interrelation and their meanings will, as is the case with meaningful words, be realized in the given context.
On the other hand, the necessity of expressing the exact relation between the parts of the utterance in the written language ynd espe­cially in the case of larger utterances — demands new connectives.
Language provides these means to meet this requirement. Some adverbs and adverbial phrases have begun to function as connectives and are recognized as such from the morphological point of view.
There is a tendency to consider the parts of a two-member coordinate sentence as equal in rank. Therefore whenever we see the coordinating conjunctions and, but, we expect to find equality in the semantic weights of the two parts. But it is not so. Even a superfluous semantic analysis of a few coordinate sentences will prove the contrary.
Let us take the following sentence:
"The soldier's wound was carefully bandaged and in a few days he was again able to fight."
The second clause is clearly semantically dependent on the first. The relation between them is that of cause and effect, and this type of relation implies inequality of rank, which in grammatical terms would be specified as subordination. Consequently the copulative conjunc­tion and here indicates a relation which it is taken for granted that this conjunction does not express. In other words and may also be used to express subordination of ideas.
Thus it follows that the terms coordination and subordination are inadequate to convey the various forms of interrelation between the component parts of an utterance. Likewise the terms compound and complex sentences do not cover all varieties of utterances that combine two or more ideas.
Anyway for stylistic purposes, the division of types of sentences into compound and complex is inapplicable. Another classification is required, and this classification must be based on the relative impor­tance of the utterance or its parts in a larger semantic unit. This rela­tive importance is revealed by different means; for example, by means of mood, tense, word order, use of pronouns and other formal language means. Conjunctions are used not only in their direct syntactical function, but in other functions as well. Thus and in the Shakespeare Sonnet JV° 66 is used to make each following statement stand out more clearly,
On the other hand, subordination and coordination may be effec­tively expressed by means of participial phrases as, for instance, in:
'He stood at the door, listening to the hum of voices from inside, and thinking comfortably of the cold bath that would come later in the day."
The participles 'listening' and 'thinking' may also be regarded as means of subordination of ideas, although, be it repeated, this is a formal grammatical approach. According to the semantic criterion, the ideas embodied in the participial phrases in the example above are the main ideas of the utterance. After all, subordination of ideas cannot be discovered by a purely grammatical analysis of the component parts of the sentence; it is the difference in the character of the actions per­formed that counts here ('stood', "listening¹, 'thinking').
There are many grammatical forms and structures which express the interrelations of the parts of an utterance without the help of conjunctions (signals though they are pointing out these interrelations). Thus nominative absolute is a grammatical model capable of express­ing a subordinate or other relation.
The semantic approach however will always outweigh the formal one when a stylistic interpretation of the utterance is necessary. In­deed, in the sentence:
"And the first cab having been fetched from the public house, ...Mr. Pickwick and his portmanteau were thrown into the vehicle",
the relation between the parts is obvious; it is one of sequence of events. But why should sequence be regarded as a form of subordination? It would be more appropriate to consider both parts semantically equal in rank.
Let us compare this sentence with its possible transforms:
1. 'The first cab was fetched from the public house and Mr. Pickwick
and his portmanteau were thrown into the vehicle.'
or,
2. 'When the first cab was fetched from the public house, Mr. Pick­
wick and his portmanteau were thrown into the vehicle.'
or,
3. 'After the first cab had been fetched from the public house, Mr.
Pickwick and his portmanteau were thrown into the vehicle.'
Each of these variants gives a slightly different shade of meaning in regard to the interrelation between the two component parts. The first transform lays equal stress on both parts. The sequence of events is not clearly expressed. It is merely implied. The pause before and is somewhat longer than in the following transforms, thus contributing to the inner rhythm of the utterance.
The second transform stresses the more rapid sequence, almost simultaneous, of the two actions.. The when here reduces the pause between the two parts and makes the whole utterance more integrated than in the first transform.
The third transform lays strong emphasis on the sequence of events as if this sequence were of great significance to the issue in question. The adverb after and the tense form had been fetched stress completion of the first action before the commencement of the second.
Now it becomes clear that the third transform could not have been chosen by the author because too much emphasis is laid on the sequence relation. This would have shown a pedantic approach — alien to the principles of emotive prose. The second transform seems likewise to be inappropriate to the purport of the author for the same reason. Neither the simultaneousness nor the sequence of actions concern the writer.
So there remain only two variants: the one given by the author and our first transform. The choice in favour of the participial construction is apparently due to two reasons: 1) the humorous character of the whole of the "Papers", this utterance included, and 2) the aesthetic principle — to avoid the repetition of and in close succession. The first principle manifests itself in the mixture of two stylistic aspects, viz. the official atmosphere of the nominative absolute construction on the one hand and the information itself, which is far from being official, viz. the 'first cab¹, 'Mr. Pickwick and his portmanteau,' 'were thrown¹.
A comparatively wide range of relations is expressed through the nominative absolute and other participial constructions.
Infinitive constructions, being formally dependent on a part of the sentence containing a finite verb, may also be regarded as a means of subordination. In the sentence: "He was too ill to attend the lecture," the infinitive construction performs the function of a subordinate clause expressing result.
For stylistic purposes it is important to distinguish degrees of subordination between the parts of a sentence as well as the closeness of the connection between relatively independent statements. An estimation of the degree of independence will contribute to the correct interpretation of the intonation pattern of the utterance and thus help to get at the purport of the author.

2. Asyndeton.

Asyndeton, that is, connection between parts of a sentence or between sentences without any formal sign, becomes a stylistic device if there is a deliberate omission of the connective where it is generally expected to be according to the norms of the literary language. Here is an example:
"Soames turned away; he had an utter disinclination for talk, like one standing before an open grave, watching a coffin slowly lowered." (Galsworthy)
The deliberate omission of the subordinate conjunction because or for makes the sentence 'he had an utter...' almost entirely independ­ent. It might be perceived as a characteristic feature of Soames in general, but for the comparison, beginning with tike, which shows that Soames's mood was temporary.
Here a reminder is necessary that there is an essential difference between the ordinary norms of language, both literary and colloquial, and stylistic devices which are skilfully wrought for special informa­tive and aesthetic purposes. In the sentence:
"Bicket did not answer his throat felt too dry." (Galsworthy) the absence of the conjunction and a punctuation mark may be regarded as a deliberate introduction of the norms of colloquial speech into the literary language. Such structures make the utterance sound like one syntactical unit to be pronounced in one breath group. This determines the intonation pattern.
It is interesting to compare the preceding two utterances from the point of view of the length of the pause between the constituent parts. In the first utterance (Soames...), there is a semicolon which, being the indication of a longish pause, breaks the utterance into two parts. In the second utterance (Bicket...), no pause should be made and the whole of the utterance pronounced as one syntagm.
The crucial problem in ascertaining the true intonation pattern of a sentence composed of two or more parts lies in a deeper analysis of the functions of the connectives on the one hand, and a more detailed investigation of graphical means — the signals indicating the correct interpretation of the utterance — on the other.

3. Polysendeton.