Makerere university

MAKERERE

UNIVERSITY

NAME:	KITOOKE AMONI
REGISTRATION NUMBER:	11/U/14016/EVE
STUDENT NUMBER:	211009195
COURSE UNIT:	ENGLISH STYLISTICS
COURSE CODE:	ELS3212
SEMESTER	TWO
ACADEMIC YEAR:	2013/2014
PROFESSOR:	DR. MOSES LUKWAGO

QUESTION
In view of the various approaches to styles, which one in your opinion is most convincing? With examples from English, give reasons to support your answer.
ANSWER
Word-Web e-Dictionary defines style severally, but I choose one that most concerns language:
2. (music) a way of expressing something (in language or art or music etc.) that is characteristic of a particular person or group of people or period
"all the reporters were expected to adopt the style of the newspaper"
Scholars have also defined style differently, and among their different definitions, they mention that style is summarily some or all of the linguistic characteristics special to a particular:

1. 
   Individual language user
   
2. 
   Group of language users at a particular time or over a period of time
   
3. 
   Situation, judging from the mode of expression used, and its effectiveness (Saying the right thing, the right way and in the right situation)
   
4. 
   Literary work of art or the way a particular writer writes.
   

An approach is a school of thought which postulates how we can analyse the style of a given oral or written text in any of the four senses above: that of the individual, group, literary work or packaging for effective communication. There are at least six provisions at disposal as the approaches, which summarily include the following:

1. 
   Analysing style by trying to infer the central thought behind the utterances and expressions.
   
2. 
   Considering style as a choice from all possible alternatives.
   
3. 
   Looking at style as individual attributes of the speaker/writer.
   
4. 
   Analysing style depending on the context in which it appears.
   
5. 
   Analysing style as special usage of language, in contrast to the general usage.
   
6. 
   Analysing style as a set of collective characteristics of the text.
   

In my opinion, approach number vi) (analysing style as a set of collective characteristics of the text) appears more convincing than any of the rest, because generally, it encircles all of them, and beyond. In this essay, I argue that a close comparison between this approach and any of the rest reveals its convincing complexity, hence itself more convincing. As we shall see below, each of the approaches foregrounds certain characteristics (attributes of the text) that we need to focus on when analysing style. As such, an approach that summarily gives room for looking at every characteristic takes it all, because each of the rest is just a subset of this broader one. Let us try to juxtapose this broad approach with its counterparts to make sure that it caters for all of them, and thus justify our argument.
When we analyse style approaching it from the dimension of trying to establish the relationship between the thought and the way it is presented, we are actually looking at one of the characteristics of the text at hand, whether oral or written. The central thought being the message, and therefore intention of communication, is one of the elements of communication in addition to the sender, receiver and medium of communication. Therefore, this pre-linguistic characteristic of style (the thought) is one of the characteristics of the text, or at least governs other attributes of the text – the style in which the text will be presented. And besides, I strongly disagree with the idea that by merely looking at an utterance, written or oral, we can infer the thought behind it. Rather, I believe that thought works with many other factors – of which the writer/speaker may be conscious or unconscious – to culminate into the manner in which it is expressed.
For example, if we consider that one wants to communicate that someone has died (let us take this as his thought), he/she does it differently in different situations, and before different audiences. He might choose to report with an ecstatic tone to a person who he considers was enemies with the deceased. You should have listened to the triumphant speeches the War on Terror agents of the United States of America, reporting and commenting about the death of the infamous terrorist Osama bin Laden. An ideal Newspaper title might have read: “NOTORIOUS TERRORIST, OSAMA BIN LADEN, FINALLY GUNNED DOWN!” On the other hand, reporting the death of a father to his loving son takes a tender, heartbroken tone, so that the son feels pitied and console. Think about a hospital experience where a patient dies in the operating theatre, and the doctors have to report to an eagerly waiting relative. The doctor might sombrely say: “WE TRIED ALL WE COULD. BUT GOD DID NOT ACCEPT THAT YOUR FATHER GETS WELL AGAIN.”
These two different modes of delivery of the same message (thought) constitute style, which can only be arrived at by analysing not just the thought but also other factors at play.
Considering the second approach (choosing from possible alternative utterances), we face yet another characteristic of the style in question. The choice that the speaker makes depends on a number of considerations. I would like to illustrate with the pragmatic choice which considers context – what is ideal in one context and not the other. I want to look at it in light of the fact that the approach that looks at characteristics considers norms, which in a way dictate the context cited in pragmatic choice. To choose to stick to or deviate from the norm is to consider context as well as how to best deliver one’s message. An example is when one is at giving away her daughter in marriage (which is supposed to be a happy moment) but ends up crying and uttering words that almost show grief. This leaves the viewer and listener with a doubt as to whether this mother has really made a choice (from other possible alternatives of the same) or the action has just been spontaneous. It is this fact that makes critics of this approach validly say that we cannot rely on an assumption that the communicator has made a choice, since choice comes from a mental process. We cannot access the speaker’s/writer’s mental system. But whether or not we do infer the contextual choice an author has made, we also need to remember that that choice is just one of the characteristic in a collection. It is one of the characteristics we consider when analyzing the stylistic attributes of the text in question.
As for the concepts of stylistic or unstylistic choice as applies in this approach, the text can be said to have certain characteristics. For unstylistic choice, which restricts itself to the “truth value”, we can say that (as a characteristic) the text is straight-forward, and precise. For stylistic choice, where one word can be used to mean a variety of things, especially in relation to context, then we can say the text is flavoured or not straight-forward. These are both characteristics of the text, which contribute to the collection mentioned in approach number vi) as laid down above.
The individual approach which contends that style is a set of individual characteristics presents yet another set of characteristics of a given text. When one speaks, we can know without looking in his/her direction that the person speaking is so and so. We detect this by his unique parole, which according to Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist is “the articulation of signs (for example, speech or writing)” [ CITATION Nic98 \l 1033 ]. The parole is part of the “langue, the rules of sign system (which might be grammar)”[ CITATION Nic98 \l 1033 ]. Parole may make differences by looking at characteristics like dialectical components of a given language, such that we will hear of Ugandan English, American English, British English and Nigerian English among others.
The concern of this approach is the parole as applies to the individual. The individual mingles himself/herself with the text he/she produces: the voice, the handwriting, the phrasing, the grammar and the manner of presentation among others. These constitute the specific characteristics of the text, which make up its style. Therefore, when we mention that analyzing the style of the text, as an approach, requires looking at a collection of its characteristics, these are just some of them, but playing alongside other attributes of the same text.
The fourth approach looks at language and manner of presentation in relation to the situation at hand. In other words, it is about language in context. It looks at what characteristics a given situation lends language and the manner of expression. Normally, context begets the manner in which expressions will be used. For example given one piece of information to tell to several people, one chooses the manner of expression varying from audience to audience. He/she may decide to use slang when talking to peers, semi-slang/semi-standard language when talking to a parent or guardian with whom he/she freely relates, and official, standard language when talking to a lecturer. These characteristics that he/she gives the text culminate into the style of his/her text, which also falls under the totality of characteristics that our choice approach considers. In summary, this approach also subscribes to the idea of the totality of characteristics of a text as a measure of style.
Another approach looks at the special way of presenting information as opposed to the usual way of doing it. It looks at the deviation from the usual way of communicating, sometimes due to difference in subject matter (for example HIV/AIDS, corruption, crime, and education among others), audience analysis (like age, sex, occupation, personality, superiority or inferiority, among others), and purpose of presentation (such as to warn, insult, praise, criticize or complement among others). The packaging of information depending on each of these considerations gives the text certain characteristics that make it appeal to that purpose, situation and audience, for effective communication. I argue that critically analysed, those tendencies to suit a given message into that closet of context culminates into its style. There are certain characteristics you give a text to make it suit that situation; for example to suit the young age, one may adjust the level of language complexity. If it is examinations, even the poorest schools try to type them for their learners, as opposed to their usual system of writing on the chalkboard (I am also aware that there are those which still write examinations on the chalkboard for learners to copy the questions before attempting them). These are some of the characteristics of the text, drawn from the collection that approach number vi) – our choice approach advocates for. As such, this approach is also a subset of the more complex, more inclusive approach that considers the totality of characteristics when analysing the style of the written or oral text.
As discussed above, I stand to maintain that the ideal approach to style is to view style as a set of collective characteristics; because whatever thing is done to a text for effective communication turns out to be one of its characteristics. We should also note that there is no text which has one characteristic. It is on this ground that this approach wisely commits itself to analysing a collection of characteristics belonging to a given text. That is the basis of my choice that this approach is more convincing than all the others, since as aforesaid, all are subsets of it. When everything has been said and done, each of the other approaches comes down and pays its humble allegiance to this approach.

Bibliography

CITATION Nic98 \l 1033 : , (Lacey),
CITATION Nic98 \l 1033 : , (Lacey),

Page of