Abstract
The publication of Lesley Jeffries and Dan McIntyre’s book in Cambridge University Press’s red series is worth celebrating, not only because it marks the point at which the visibility and standing of stylistics as a research discipline is affirmed, but also because the book represents a mature and considered view of the discipline which proudly acknowledges its milestones. A ‘red’ book speaks volumes; it is recognition that the subject being presented is worthy of serious study, on a par with linguistic sub-disciplines whose textbooks have also appeared in the series. Some of these, on such topics as pragmatics (Levinson, 1983), cognitive linguistics (Croft and Cruse, 2004), and genre study (Biber and Conrad, 2009), are close to stylisticians’ hearts as they have informed recent approaches in stylistics.
The book’s red colour aside, it should be mentioned that there are several introductory books already available for those embarking on the study of stylistics. Some are two decades old or older (e.g., Leech and Short, 1981; Toolan, 1990; Widdowson, 1992) and hence might provide a reason for a newer book. However, other textbooks such as Verdonk (2002), Simpson (2004), and the revised edition of Leech and Short’s 1981 book (published in 2007), are relatively recent, so the obvious question is why the need for another introductory book? Jeffries and McIntyre had clearly anticipated this question. However, rather than pointing out the shortcomings of previous books, they express their desire to pay tribute to the books’ authors, some of whom are leading figures in the field. At the same time, they also point out that most of the books are written with the authors’ own theoretical leanings in mind, whereas theirs seeks to provide a broader historical view which highlights major theoretical influences and analytical models which have shaped the discipline.
The book consists of eight chapters, and much like other textbooks, each chapter includes exercises and suggestions for further reading. The introductory chapter is devoted to mapping the field. The authors mention that stylistics draws its insights from a number of fields, but most notably linguistics. They insist, as Verdonk (2002) did before them, that stylistics is ‘eclectic and open’ in its theoretical orientations and methodologies, and this openness is in fact the discipline’s main strength. They add that stylistics’ main emphasis is on the analysis of textual data, be it written or spoken, literary or non-literary, and therefore, ‘there can be no such thing as stylistics unless texts are being analysed’ (p. 21).
Chapter 2 introduces the reader to early approaches, namely those rooted in Russian formalism and structural linguistics, and pays particular attention to the concepts of defamiliarisation and foregrounding. The chapter provides a detailed description of a number of analytical concepts for identifying foregrounded elements, such as sound symbolism, ungrammaticality, and word-compounding. At the end of the chapter, Jeffries and McIntyre comment that, despite the introduction of new analytical methodologies, foregrounding remains widely applied as an analytical tool. Thus stylistics adopts the new but does not abandon the old altogether. This statement, which is in praise of the longevity of the early approaches, is one example of how Jeffries and McIntyre pay tribute to the discipline’s founding figures.
The following four chapters (Chapters 3-6) home in on two groups of major linguistic approaches that have influenced contemporary stylistics. Each is discussed in two separate chapters: discourse and context based approaches (Chapters 3 and 4), and text processing and cognitive approaches (Chapters 5 and 6). I will discuss each of these chapters later.
Chapter 3 describes and evaluates analytical concepts for identifying stylistic effects beyond the sentence. A number of these concepts, or ‘functional categories’, such as transitivity, modality, and cohesion, are derived from Hallidayan systemic linguistics. The works by Paul Simpson are noted as particularly resonant with the systemic approach. The chapter also introduces the reader to the model of speech and thought presentation espoused by Leech and Short in their influential book Style in Fiction (1981). An interesting addition to the chapter is the functional category ‘textually-created opposites’. This category relates to instances in discourse in which the juxtaposition of words gives rise to an ‘opposite’ interpretation by virtue of the linguistic context and our shared understanding of their default interpretations in other contexts. Opposites are thus understood as context-bound, detachable (pragmatic) meanings rather than prototypical (semantic) meanings.
Chapter 4 explores two major approaches to the stylistics of interaction: conversation analysis and pragmatics. The discussion of conversation analysis provides an appropriate springboard from which to introduce pragmatic concepts such as implicatures, conversational maxims, speech act theory, and politeness. Jeffries and McIntyre mention in Chapter 3 that what makes ‘opposites’ similar to the other functional categories in the chapter is that this category is conceptual rather than formal. Whilst that is certainly the case, ‘opposites’ would perhaps also make a suitable point of discussion for Chapter 4, given the detachable nature of opposite meanings. However, judging from the examples given, which are from written, non-dialogic texts, and the focus on interactional texts in Chapter 4, the authors’ decision to keep it in Chapter 3 is well made.
The cognitive turn in stylistics has been a significant point in the discipline’s history which introductory textbooks would be ill advised to ignore. Jeffries and McIntyre give proper acknowledgment to this development by devoting the whole of Chapter 5 to the explication of fundamental concepts in cognitive stylistics such as scripts and frames, figure/ground alignment, image schemas, metaphor, and blending. The detailed discussion of metaphor and the references to key figures in cognitive metaphor theory (Lakoff, Johnson, and Turner), as well as to cognitive stylisticians, such as Semino, Stockwell, are clear indication of how deeply insights from cognitive linguistics have been embraced by stylistics. I was somewhat surprised, however, to find an absence of references to Langacker and Talmy, given they are founding figures in this linguistic sub-discipline whose works have widely discussed topics pertaining to figure-ground alignment and image schemas. The chapter is also less clear about the extent to which Fauconnier’s blending theory, another influential approach in cognitive linguistics, has informed studies in stylistics.
Chapter 6 presents two other important cognitively oriented theories, namely, text world theory and deictic shift theory. Whilst the theories described in the previous chapter and this chapter all highlight the role of the reader as active participant in meaning construction, Chapter 6 seems more integrated than the previous chapter in the sense that the two theories brought together are highly complementary. The major idea behind text world theory – that texts are mental constructs or ‘worlds’, and that reading is a process of constructing a mental representation of the text – is compatible with the contention in deictic shift theory that reading is the process of entering and experiencing the ‘story world’ (Segal, 1995: 74). In text world theory, words, phrases, and propositions are signposts or ‘world-building elements’ (p. 153) which serve to guide the reader in navigating her/his way around that world. Deictic expressions are an important example of such elements. Indeed, McIntyre himself has demonstrated the compatibility of these theories in his work on English drama.
The penultimate chapter (Chapter 7) expands on the methodological issues introduced in the first chapter, particularly regarding quantitative and qualitative methods. It also discusses the significance of corpus linguistics as a methodology. The authors make the point that large corpora provide the opportunity for analysts to test their intuitive judgments concerning what might constitute a text’s foregrounding elements. They also note that the method can be particularly useful for analysts who are not native speakers of the language employed in the text(s). The concluding chapter identifies two new orientations in the field which have the potential to move the discipline forward: the inquiry into the role of the ideological basis of textual meaning, and multimodality, currently a hot topic in linguistics.
As a discipline, stylistics has had its share of criticisms. Stanley Fish’s attack on its supposed lack of objectivity is well known. Jeffries and McIntyre are at pains to show that the discipline possesses conceptual integrity and intellectual rigour. Their book is a confident, intelligent, and articulate summation of the field, one that even Fish would be pleased to see. The only thing I would have liked to see is examples from non-English texts. The absence of such examples is possibly an indication that stylistic work in languages other than English is relatively little known. If that is indeed the case, one certainly hopes that this book would invite future investigations in which cross-linguistic issues are afforded significant considerations. Such endeavours would contribute to the discipline not only by widening the range of data which can suitably be investigated, but more importantly, by demonstrating that stylistic methodologies are indeed falsifiable.