linguistics and literary history essays in stylistics

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

linguistics and literary history essays in stylistics

This Just In
Grateful Dead
Old Time Radio
78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
Audio Books & Poetry
Computers, Technology and Science
Music, Arts & Culture
News & Public Affairs
Spirituality & Religion
Radio News Archive

Flickr Commons
Occupy Wall Street Flickr
NASA Images
Solar System Collection
Ames Research Center

All Software
Old School Emulation
MS-DOS Games
Historical Software
Classic PC Games
Software Library
Kodi Archive and Support File
Vintage Software
CD-ROM Software
CD-ROM Software Library
Software Sites
Tucows Software Library
Shareware CD-ROMs
Software Capsules Compilation
CD-ROM Images
ZX Spectrum
DOOM Level CD

Smithsonian Libraries
FEDLINK (US)
Lincoln Collection
American Libraries
Canadian Libraries
Universal Library
Project Gutenberg
Children's Library
Biodiversity Heritage Library
Books by Language
Additional Collections

Prelinger Archives
Democracy Now!
Occupy Wall Street
TV NSA Clip Library
Animation & Cartoons
Arts & Music
Computers & Technology
Cultural & Academic Films
Ephemeral Films
Sports Videos
Videogame Videos
Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

Wayback Machine (iOS)
Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

Explore the Collections
Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Linguistics and literary history; essays in stylistics

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

Graphic Violence
Explicit Sexual Content
Hate Speech
Misinformation/Disinformation
Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

680 Previews

25 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

EPUB and PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by Alethea Bowser on January 4, 2012

Linguistics and Literary History

Leo Spitzer

Before you purchase audiobooks and ebooks

Please note that audiobooks and ebooks purchased from this site must be accessed on the Princeton University Press app. After you make your purchase, you will receive an email with instructions on how to download the app. Learn more about audio and ebooks .

Support your local independent bookstore.

United States
United Kingdom

Linguistics and Literary History: Essays in Stylistics

Princeton Legacy Library

Download Cover

Spitzer discusses the method he evolved for bringing together the two disciplines, linguistics and literary history, and examines the work of Cervantes, Racine, Diderot, and Claudel in the light of this theory. Originally published in 1967. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

Stay connected for new books and special offers. Subscribe to receive a welcome discount for your next order.

ebook & Audiobook Cart

Linguistics and Literary History: Essays in Stylistics

In this Book

Leo Spitzer
Published by: Princeton University Press
Series: Princeton Legacy Library

Title Page, Copyright
pp. vii-viii
1. Linguistics and Literary History
2. Linguistic Perspectivism in the Don Quijote
3. The "Récit De Théraméne"
4. The Style of Diderot
pp. 135-192
5. Interpretation of an Ode
PAUL CLAUDEL
pp. 193-236

Additional Information

Project MUSE Mission

Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.

2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218

+1 (410) 516-6989 [email protected]

Now and Always, The Trusted Content Your Research Requires

Built on the Johns Hopkins University Campus

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.

Search Menu
Advance articles
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Order Offprints
Open Access Options
Self-Archiving Policy
Why Publish with JAAC?
About Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
About American Society for Aesthetics
Editorial Board
Advertising & Corporate Services
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

< Previous

Linguistics and Literary History. Essays in Stylistics by Leo Spitzer

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Helmut Hatzfeld, Linguistics and Literary History. Essays in Stylistics by Leo Spitzer, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , Volume 9, Issue 1, September 1950, Pages 68–69, https://doi.org/10.2307/426120

Permissions Icon Permissions

Article PDF first page preview

Email alerts, citing articles via.

Recommend to Your Librarian
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1540-6245
Print ISSN 0021-8529
Copyright © 2024 American Society for Aesthetics
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Literature & Fiction
History & Criticism

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

To view this video download Flash Player

Linguistics and Literary History: Essays in Stylistics (Princeton Legacy Library, 2270) Paperback – November 21, 1967

Print length 244 pages
Language English
Publisher Princeton University Press
Publication date November 21, 1967
ISBN-10 0691012644
ISBN-13 978-0691012643
See all details

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Princeton University Press; New impression edition (November 21, 1967)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 244 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0691012644
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0691012643
Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 9.9 ounces

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top review from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Amazon Newsletter
About Amazon
Accessibility
Sustainability
Press Center
Investor Relations
Amazon Devices
Amazon Science
Sell on Amazon
Sell apps on Amazon
Supply to Amazon
Protect & Build Your Brand
Become an Affiliate
Become a Delivery Driver
Start a Package Delivery Business
Advertise Your Products
Self-Publish with Us
Host an Amazon Hub
› See More Ways to Make Money
Amazon Visa
Amazon Store Card
Amazon Secured Card
Amazon Business Card
Shop with Points
Credit Card Marketplace
Reload Your Balance
Amazon Currency Converter
Your Account
Your Orders
Shipping Rates & Policies
Amazon Prime
Returns & Replacements
Manage Your Content and Devices
Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
Conditions of Use
Privacy Notice
Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
Your Ads Privacy Choices

Previous Issue
Previous Article
Next Article

Linguistics and Literary History: Essays in Stylistics

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data
Peer Review
Open the PDF for in another window
Permissions
Cite Icon Cite
Search Site

George W. Umphrey; Linguistics and Literary History: Essays in Stylistics. Modern Language Quarterly 1 December 1948; 9 (4): 507–510. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00267929-9-4-507a

Download citation file:

Reference Manager

Article PDF first page preview

Citing articles via

Email alerts, related articles, related topics, related book chapters, affiliations.

About Modern Language Quarterly: A Journal of Literary History
Editorial Board
For Authors
Rights and Permissions Inquiry
Online ISSN 1527-1943
Print ISSN 0026-7929
Duke University Press
905 W. Main St. Ste. 18-B
Durham, NC 27701
(888) 651-0122
International
+1 (919) 688-5134
Information For
Advertisers
Book Authors
Booksellers/Media
Journal Authors/Editors
Journal Subscribers
Prospective Journals
Licensing and Subsidiary Rights
View Open Positions
email Join our Mailing List
catalog Current Catalog
Accessibility
Get Adobe Reader

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Architecture and Design
Asian and Pacific Studies
Business and Economics
Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Computer Sciences
Cultural Studies
Engineering
General Interest
Geosciences
Industrial Chemistry
Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
Jewish Studies
Library and Information Science, Book Studies
Life Sciences
Linguistics and Semiotics
Literary Studies
Materials Sciences
Mathematics
Social Sciences
Sports and Recreation
Theology and Religion
Publish your article
The role of authors
Promoting your article
Abstracting & indexing
Publishing Ethics
Why publish with De Gruyter
How to publish with De Gruyter
Our book series
Our subject areas
Your digital product at De Gruyter
Contribute to our reference works
Product information
Tools & resources
Product Information
Promotional Materials
Orders and Inquiries
FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
Repository Policy
Free access policy
Open Access agreements
Database portals
For Authors
Customer service
People + Culture
Journal Management
How to join us
Working at De Gruyter
Mission & Vision
De Gruyter Foundation
De Gruyter Ebound
Our Responsibility
Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Literary Theory and Criticism

Home › Russian Formalism › Stylistics

By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on October 20, 2020 • ( 0 )

Treatises devoted to the study of style can be found as early as Demetrius’s On Style (C.E. 100). But most pre-twentieth-century discussions appear as secondary components of rhetorical and grammatical analyses or in general studies of literature and literary language. The appearance of stylistics as a semiautonomous discipline is a modern phenomenon, an ongoing development in linguistic description that is closely tied to the similar rise of literary criticism and linguistics as academic subjects and departments. Modern stylistics, in general, draws much of its analytical power from the analytical methods and descriptive intentions of linguistics, while modern literary stylistics, in particular, draws upon that area and adds to it the interpretive goals of modern literary criticism. In both cases, the use of linguistic methodology has allowed stylistics to move beyond earlier normative and prescriptive descriptions of “correct” styles to a fuller analysis of language itself and the purposes to which language regularly is put.

Whatever the limits of previous approaches to style, or the difficulties that have arisen from the practical application of linguistic methods to stylistic analysis, the desire to begin with a set of well-defined terms and procedures lies at the core of the initial formation of stylistics as a discipline. While all versions of literary stylistics have dedicated themselves to the study and interpretation of literary texts, it was the growing importance of European historical linguistics during the mid-nineteenth century that produced the most easily recognized component of early modern stylistics: a deeply rooted concern with formal linguistic description of literary language. The methodological benefits that stylistics gained by uniting literary interpretation and linguistic analysis were matched by institutional gains as well. Historical and general linguistics were well-established academic disciplines at the turn of the twentieth century, and stylistics could expect to benefit from that status. The use of linguistic procedures thus offered stylistics both an affinity with an established discipline and the possibility of founding the description and interpretation of style upon the bedrock of science.

While its air of scientific analysis made linguistics attractive, linguistic science was not itself a monolithic entity. During the latter half of the nineteenth century, linguistic study oscillated between a desire to define language through efficient analytical methods (often requiring a-contextual descriptions) and another, competing desire to define language as a social and cultural phenomenon. The work of the neogrammarians, key figures in the formation of linguistics as a modern scientific discipline, displays the tension well. Although the neogrammarians began their work with the intention of reintroducing behavior into linguistic description, the attractiveness of scientific method dictated the slow elimination of the user as a complex part of the description. The result for some linguists, notably the philologians, was a sacrificing of the real heart of linguistics to a sterile formalism; for many, however, the shift was the logical result of a move into the modern scientific age. It was in terms of these separate views of the proper role of linguistic description that the predominant approaches to modern stylistics developed, and because of the strong Continental influence of Romance Philology on historical linguistics, modern stylistics usually is seen as having begun there.

The roots of modern stylistics can be uncovered in the work of Charles Bally (1865-1947) and Leo Spitzer (1887-1960). Bally’s Précis de stylistique (1905) stresses the description and analysis of a language’s generally available stylistic properties. Literary texts, in Bally’s formulation, are particular examples of language use, and the analysis of their style is not a central part of the general stylistics he emphasizes. Nevertheless, Bally’s work, and its later realization in the work of Jules Marouzeau ( Précis de stylistique française , 1946) and Marcel Cressot ( Le Style et ses techniques , 1947), strongly influenced the formation of literary stylistics. Such analytical work offered literary critics a relatively precise methodology for describing the components and features of a text. In place of an open-ended and evaluative interpretive process, linguistics both underwrote the need for a more precise analytical attitude toward language study and provided specific categories for characterizing sound, rhythm, and eventually syntax, as well as points of comparison and contrast between registers, forms, and functions within genres and literary periods.

In contrast to the stylistique of Bally and his proponents, Leo Spitzer insisted upon following the more philologically based tradition of textual (and often literarytextual) analysis. Such work, while usin g the analytical techniques of modern linguistics, strives to unite the analytical description with a critical interpretation that relat es the style to a larger conceptual or situational frame (e.g., Linguistics and Literary History 1-39). Style is seen as an expression of a particular psychological, social, or historical sensibility or moment rather than as a general property of a particular language. In undertaking these wider interpretations, critics such as Spitzer did not, however, assume that they were defining their stylistics as separate from, or even as a subset of, linguistic analysis. In both his etymological studies and his more specifically literary-critical interpretations ( Stilstudien , 1928, and Romanische Stil- und Literaturstudien , 1931), Spitzer insisted that he was promulgating a general program of linguistic study, offering his stylistics in opposition to what he saw as the more reductionist analyses of general, scientific linguistics. Spitzer himself emphasized the split until the end of his career, regularly referring to his work as Stilforschung (literary, cultural interpretation of style—philology in his eyes) to set it apart from that of Stilistik , or Bally’s stylistique (e.g., “Les Études de style et les différents pays” 23-39). At the same time, he assumed—as did fellow critics of style such as Ernst Robert Curtius, Karl Vossler, and Helmut Hatzfeld—that he was not reducing the scientific aspect of linguistics but only offsetting a false, positivistic tone that was becoming increasingly predominant in the field. The tension in linguistics between general linguistic description and less formal sociocultural interpretation thus was mirrored in this early separation in stylistics between linguistic stylistic description and literary stylistic interpretation. It is a separation, and a tension, that remains at the heart of modern stylistics.

This tension, Spitzer’s and Bally’s position as Continental rather than Anglo-American linguists, and the popularity of Practical Criticism and new Criticism in England and the United States all lay behind the relative lack of an organized, Anglo-American literary stylistics during the first half of the twentieth century. Literary stylistic analyses were occurring in England and in the United States at this time, but they often did not contain the formal linguistic orientation that characterizes the modern discipline of stylistics. Instead, they drew support and procedures from the basic but less analytically structured orientation of New Criticism and practical criticism. And while the influence of Romance language study grew during the mid-twentieth century (due in no small part to the presence in England and in the United States of many expatriated scholars), the established strength of other, more empirical linguistic methodologies reduced possible exchanges between linguistics and literary criticism. The eventual appearance of modern stylistics in Anglo- American work repeated the earlier Continental process, appearing most clearly when united with an interest in linguistic analysis at mid-century and with the related interest in literary Structuralism somewhat later. By the late 1950s, the general critical ambience provided by the rise and fall of New Criticism and practical criticism, in combination with a growing interest in comparative literary studies and a new awareness of the increasing importance of linguistic science, provided the needed impetus for a strong appearance of literary stylistics outside the European continent. The processes behind the formation of American stylistics are exemplified by work done by Michael Riffaterre on Romance languages. Riffaterre’s published dissertation, Le Style des Pléiades de Gobineau (1957), is a self-described attempt to blend Spitzer’s work with that of contemporary structural linguistics, while the later, even more formal stylistic methodology set forth in “Criteria for Style Analysis” (1959) and “Stylistic Context” (i960) shifts away from interpretive description and toward the general linguistic analysis that was beginning to dominate academic study.

Lacan and Roman Jakobson/Pinterest

Such work in stylistics reflected a larger trend occurring within literary criticism as a whole during this period. Riffaterre’s particular interest in a systematic, formal description of literary style mirrored a growing awareness among literary critics in general of the possibilities provided to literary study by trends and theories available from formal linguistic study. The discovery of linguistic work by Ferdinand de Saussure , Roman Jakobson , and structural linguistic theory in general all formed part of the rapid flowering of critical work closely related to, if not directly based upon, particular methods of linguistic analysis. It was not a link between literary stylistics and structural linguistic analysis that marked the real establishment of stylistics as a discipline within the United States, however. It was the transformational-generative grammar of Noam Chomsky ( Syntactic Structures , 1957) that signaled the arrival of stylistics as a discipline with independent, self-defined goals, if not yet a real autonomy from either linguistic or literary-critical approaches to language analysis.

The rapidly established importance of Chomsky’s linguistics within his own discipline provided a strong argument for the importance of transformational-generative grammar within literary stylistics as well. But beneath that academic, institutional cause lay particular features of the theory that explain further the explosion of stylistic work using transformational-generative grammar. The grammar’s focus on syntax, its distinction between deep and surface structures, and the resulting dynamism in its descriptive procedures all contributed to a methodology that allowed for a much wider discussion of the possible forms (and by implication styles) available to the user of language. At the same time, the declared mentalism of Chomsky’s grammar was seen by many as providing literary stylistics with a means of uniting a still lingering Romantic sense of creativity with the formal linguistic description needed to provide the analysis with a now-requisite air of scientific study. Many critics found not only an implied linkage between language and mind within Chomsky’s grammar but an actual justification for tying intention to structure. Whichever aspect of Chomsky’s grammar provided the impetus for a particular study, the general influence was huge, and the numerous studies that appeared during the years 1965-75 testify to the boost that Chomsky’s thinking on language gave to the era, one of the most hectic and dramatic in the formation and growth of stylistics.

The founding of the field’s major Anglo-American journals— Style (1967) and Language and Style (1968)— provides one convenient benchmark for the full arrival of stylistics as an academic discipline in Britain and the United States, while a plethora of studies and editions from 1970 and later provides another, more wide-ranging view. Representative texts, which display not only a sense of the myriad volumes available on the two continents but also a sampling of other methods either related or opposed to Chomsky’s work, include Donald Freeman, ed., Linguistics and Literary Style (1970); Pierre Guiraud, Essais de stylistique (1970); Guiraud and Pierre Kuentz, eds., La Stylistique: Lectures (1970); Seymour Chatman, ed., Literary Style: A Symposium (1971); Roger Fowler, ed., Style and Structure in Literature: Essays in the New Stylistics (1975); Helmut Hatzfeld, ed., Romanistische Stilforschung (1975); and Freeman, ed., Essays in Modern Stylistics (1981). The last text in this list, Freeman’s second collection, argued for the gradual cementing of transformational- generative grammar’s position within much of American stylistics, an argument made clear by comparing this collection’s announced focus on transformational-generative grammar with the eclecticism of Freeman’s first text. But the position of transformational-generative grammar had become decidedly less dominating by 1980, as the rest of the collections demonstrate.

The differing models and methodologies found in a text such as Chatman and Samuel R. Levin’s Essays on the Language of Literature (1967), which is not devoted to stylistics alone, serve to demonstrate that other methods were equally popular elsewhere, even before the eager pursuit of Chomsky’s linguistics had faded. In England, interest in describing not only the structure of language but also the properties of discourse and its functions gathered around the work of J. R. Firth, in general, and in the union between linguistics and literary criticism that appears in the work of M. A. K. Halliday, in particular, while the work of Stephen Ullman provided yet another example of stylistic analysis brought to fruition by an expatriated Continental Romance scholar. At the same time, philologically oriented work similar to that of Spitzer continued to be available, especially in Italy, while other work, such as that of Richard W. Bailey and Lubomir DoleZel in statistical analysis, argued for yet another method within What was already a very eclectic field. In fact, while linguistic formalism applied to literary language remained the basis of modern stylistic procedure, the field continued to build upon what was historically a large variety of possible stylistic approaches.

Numerous descriptive categories have been created to provide some order among the resulting variety of approaches to style, but the most common and useful taxonomies are those designed around a communication model such as that of Jakobson (“Linguistics and Poetics,” in Sebeok). Some approaches are essentially concerned with describing style as a habitual form of expression particular to an author or authorial psyche, while other formats begin with style as an affective response generated in the reader. Similar to these alternatively expressive and receptive approaches are definitions that see style as indicative of a larger context: a cultural sensibility, a historical period, or a national feeling. More textually focused approaches define style in terms of a particular genre, or in relation to other linguistic registers, or simply as a web of relations between the elements of the text itself. In all this work, whatever its variety, the main attraction for stylistics remains that of formal descriptive power.

That interest eventually began to come under increasing censure for what was perceived as its sacrificing of interpretive complexity for scientific efficiency. The swinging back of the critical pendulum is most clearly apparent in Stanley Fish ‘s pointed attack, “What Is Stylistics and Why Are They Saying Such Terrible Things about It?” issued in two parts, in 1973 and 1980. The main thrust of such arguments was not simply that stylistic analyses were misguided or misinterpretive but that the very foundation of scientific analysis on which stylistics based itself was inherently flawed. In essence, the arguments stated that there was no way to link the empirically defined features of the text with the rest of the critical analysis except through the subjective, interpretive framework of the critic. In fact, the arguments declared, even the stylistic features described in the analysis were themselves subject to the interpretive choices of the reader/critic.

In attacking this aspect of stylistic analysis, these discussions were taking aim at one of the specific reasons for the rise of stylistics as an academic discipline during the twentieth century. The depth and cogency of arguments such as those put forth by Fish, Barbara Herrnstein Smith, and others were a clear signal of shifting trends in literary criticism—and in its attitude toward linguistic analysis. By 1980 it was impossible to argue for any stylistic model without addressing these trends, although by then the issue already had been partially settled by an increasing concern with discourse in the field of linguistics. Speech-act theory was providing cogent arguments in favor of a return to the speech situation and the context of production, and those discussions merged nicely in literary circles with an increased interest in historical and contextual analysis. The question for stylistics became one of how to blend this increased desire for social, cultural, and contextual critical analyses with the discipline’s foundation in formal linguistics.

Although the problem came to the forefront of stylistics by 1980, it had been looming on the horizon for a while. The value of efficient description began to fade before a renewed desire for social and contextual analysis in the study of language and of its situation of production and reception, and the basic movement under way in linguistics displayed itself in a variety of ways and works in literary stylistics. Roger Fowler, for example, issued Essays on Style and Language (1966) and Style and Structure in Literature (1975) but shifted to Literature as Social Discourse (1981). Halliday, who also had been working on discourse issues for some time in Great Britain, produced Language as Social Semiotic (1978), while the positive reception given to Mary Louise Pratt’s Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse (1977) demonstrated the degree to which such concerns were taking root in critical discussions within the United States. Finally, the growing influence of feminism and psychoanalysis on linguistics and literary criticism, exemplified by Robin Lakoff’s Language and Woman’s Place (1975), Chéris Kramarae’s Women and Men Speaking (1981), Deborah Cameron’s Feminism and Linguistic Theory (1985), and John Forrester’s Language and the Origins of Psychoanalysis (1980), reinforced the need to adopt a new stance toward contextually rooted discussions in both stylistics and linguistics. The resulting shift away from strict formalism and toward a greater concern with function and context, together with a rebirth of interest in interpretive as well as descriptive analysis, once again forcefully brought forward the issue of what constituted the proper degree (or non-degree) of methodological rigor in stylistics.

At the turn of the twentieth century, allegiance to linguistic procedures was the primary defining element of stylistics as a discipline, and it remains so in the last quarter of the century. The major question facing stylistics is whether movement away from that defining characteristic, no matter how slight, will result not only in a loss of self-definition but also in a shifting back of the entire field into the related disciplines of literary criticism, linguistics, or more probably rhetoric, which is enjoying a strong rebirth. In addressing that question, stylistics continues to face its status as a discipline operating among all these disciplines, from which it historically has drawn both its goals and its methods. Work being done in the last quarter of the century on historical and contextual readings of literary and nonliterary texts suggests that stylistic models can be expanded sufficiently to allow the discipline to continue to draw upon all related fields adequately for its own purposes while maintaining its own autonomy.

Further Reading Charles Bally, Précis de stylistique (1905); Deborah Cameron, Feminism and Linguistic Theory (1985); James Catano, Language, History, Style: Leo Spitzer and the Critical Tradition (1988); Seymour Chatman, ed., Literary Style: A Symposium (1971); Seymour Chatman and Samuel R. Levin, eds., Essays on the Language of Literature (1967); Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (1957); Marcel Cressot, Le Style et ses techniques (1947); Lubomir DoleZel and Richard W. Bailey, eds., Statistics and Style (1969); John Rupert Firth, Selected Papers of J. R. Firth: 1952-59 (1968); Stanley Fish, “What Is Stylistics and Why Are They Saying Such Terrible Things about It?” (1973, pt. 2,1980, Is There a Text in This Class? 1980); John Forrester, Language and the Origins of Psychoanalysis (1980); Roger Fowler, Essays on Style and Language: Linguistic and Critical Approaches to Literary Style (1966), Literature as Social Discourse: The Practice of Linguistic Criticism (1981); Roger Fowler, ed., Style and Structure in Literature: Essays in the New Stylistics (1975); Donald C. Freeman, ed., Essays in Modem Stylistics (1981), Linguistics and Literary Style (1970); Pierre Guiraud, Essais de stylistique (1970); Pierre Guiraud and Pierre Kuentz, eds., La Stylistique: Lectures (1970); M. A. K. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning (1978); Helmut Hatzfeld, ed., Romanistische Stilforschung (1975); Roman Jakobson, “Linguistics and Poetics” (Sebeok); Chéris Kramarae, Women and Men Speaking (1981); Robin T. Lakoff, Language and Woman’s Place (1975); Language and Style (1968-); Jules Marouzeau, Précis de stylistique française (1946); Mary Louise Pratt, Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse (1977); Michael Riffaterre, “Criteria for Style Analysis,” Word 16 (1959), Essais de stylistique structurale (1971), Le Style des Pléiades de Gobineau (i957)/ “Stylistic Context,” Word 16 (i960); Thomas Sebeok, ed., Style in Language (i960); Herbert Seidler, Allgemeine Stilistik (2d ed., 1963); Barbara Herrnstein Smith, On the Margins of Discourse: The Relation of Literature to Language (1978); Leo Spitzer, “Les Études de style et les différents pays,” Langue et littérature: Actes du VIII Congrès de la Fédération Internationale des Langues et Littératures Modernes (1961), Linguistics and Literary History: Essays in Stylistics (1948), Leo Spitzer on Language and Literature: A Descriptive Bibliography (ed. E. Kristina Baer and Daisy E. Shenholm, 1991), Romanische Stil- und Literaturstudien (2 vols., 1931), Stilstudien (2 vols., 1928); Style (1967-); Stephen Ullman, Meaning and Style: Collected Papers (1973)· Richard W. Bailey and Dolores Μ. Burton, English Stylistics: A Bibliography of Stylistics and Helmut Hatzfeld, A Criistics Applied to the Ron and 1953-1965 (1966). Source: Groden, Michael, and Martin Kreiswirth. The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.