Stylistics is described as “a method of textual interpretation in which primary of place
is assigned to language” (Simpson, 2004, p. 2). Language becomes very important because the various forms, levels and patterns that ‘constitute linguistic structure are an important index of the function of the text’ (ibid.). The question that now arises is: What
is the purpose of stylistics? Simpson (2004) answers this question by asserting that
doing stylistics is exploring language and the creativity in the use of language. It
enriches the ways in which we think about language and ‘offers a substantial purchase on our understanding of (literary) texts’ (Simpson, 2004, p. 3). Analytic inquiry has an essential ‘reflexive capacity’ that can ‘shed light on the very language system it derives from; it tells us about the “rules” of language because it often explores texts where those rules are bent, distended or stretched to breaking point’ (Simpson, 2004, p. 3). In other words, stylistics aim to encourage students to make meaningful interpretations of
literary texts and expand their awareness of the language (Lazar, 1993).
Paran (2008) roots the ‘re-emergence’ of literature within the context of L2 learning on stylistics, even though he acknowledges the complex relationship between the two. He
attributes this intricate relationship to the lack of empirical research on the effect of
stylistics in the language learning classrooms, and even more so in the context of L2
learning. Some papers have dealt with the effect of stylistics on language learners
(Watson & Zyngier, 2007) by mostly focusing on L1 situations, and this leads people
that they do not exist (Paran, 2008, p. 486). There are, however, some exceptions that
demonstrate a stylistic approach in relation to using novels with the language learners
(Lazar, 1990; Davies, 1998). Nevertheless, if we wish to involve stylistics in language
learning, we should definitely examine the relationship between stylistics and language
teaching empirically and more emphatically. As Paran (2008, p. 487) suggests, we need more research that will support the ‘intuitive endorsement of [stylistics] for language learning.
Carter (1996, p. 4) notices a link between language-based approaches and stylistics, in that the former may provide a ‘pre-stylistic basis for subsequently more systematic and rigorous scrutiny of language’. He also notes on how stylistic analysis may facilitate fostering interpretive skills and promote reading between the lines, which can help learners make sense of language, which is not always ‘in real communicative contexts – neat, clear and immediately comprehensible’ (Carter, 1996, p. 5). Thus, this is seen as a major benefit of stylistics since it encourages learners to work with the language,
make inferences and examine all the possible clues to meaning. Short (1996, p. 41) considers stylistic analysis a very important tool that can help ‘less sophisticated readers...to puzzle out meaning when they get stuck’. This, as he argues, can be applied to a wide range of language and literature students who can be both native and non-
native speakers of English. However, he suggests caution when we would be dealing
with lower level students and advises us to find techniques that will help students get over the ‘initial hurdles’. These might be ‘softening-up’ teaching techniques, as he calls them, which are associated with ELT to non-native students of English and aim to get
the students interested in applying them in analysis (Short, 1996, p. 43). This view matches Carter’s beliefs regarding the advantages of stylistics, in that they can provide
students with a ‘way in’ to a text ‘opening up starting points for fuller interpretation’ and better scrutiny of literary texts (Carter, 1996, p. 5).
Since literature is made of language, I consider the role of linguistic structures and the
general use of language in a literary text formative and determining in order to acquire
meaning. Therefore, it is quite essential to expose our students to the function and
character of language in moulding their perception and appreciation of a literary text.
In doing so, we create a relationship between the linguistic features of a text and the
interpretation of a text, resulting in a meaningful consideration which consists, above
all, linguistic structures.
Short (1983) describes that teachers of English literature have been repeatedly omitting
and neglecting a stylistic and textual analysis and this “flight from the text” can be
particularly observed in teaching in countries other than England. It is true that one of
the greatest fears of English language teachers (and perhaps it should be stressed that I
am mainly referring to non-native English language teachers) is to be linguistically
competent enough in order to be in position to perform a textual analysis of a text, thus
introducing it to their students. Short also notes that the lack of recognition of the role
of stylistics and most importantly of ‘deviant linguistic structures in understanding’ was
mainly accountable for the failure in teaching English through Literature (1983:72).
The attempt to teach language through literature should not, however, be abandoned
since stylistic analysis could help the learners to understand how meanings can be “constructed” and at the same time, increase the learners’ awareness of the norms and conventions of English usage (Short, 1983:73). Moreover, Short reminds us that the
non-native speakers of English have the advantage of being exposed to a ‘long-term exposure’ to linguistic analysis and structures because of the teaching of English grammar, an occurrence which leaves the learners more prepared to cope with the
stylistic descriptions and analysis which are necessary for enhancing their
understanding and awareness (ibid.)
However, I believe that teaching English to speakers of other languages by introducing literary texts as a means towards language mastery necessitates attention on more “text- immanent” features. This need can be explained since students may not have adequate knowledge of the norms of the language in order to distinguish what is fundamental for
understanding (Short, 1983, p. 72).
Consequently, if students are not urged to develop an awareness of textual analysis
based on the stylistic examination of a text, they are more likely to fail in learning the
language by using literature since they will not be in position to make an interpretation based on “unknown” language norms. Moreover, a stylistic analysis of the text, especially for non-native speakers of English, is required in order for them to grasp the
characteristics of the language and understand its features in both grammatical and
structural terms.
Short (1996) suggests that stylistic analysis is a method which undoubtedly depicts the
central features of a text linking them to an interpretation. Similar views are expressed
by Lazar (1993), since she finds that stylistics is possibly one of the greatest links that
results in understanding how the messages in a text are conveyed. She goes on to
suggest that stylistics has the advantage of “illustrating how particular linguistic forms function to convey specific messages…[by] using terminology and a set of procedures reasonably familiar to students to reach and justify literary intuitions” (Lazar 1993, p.
32).
Of course, the reference to relevant terminology and set of procedures which Lazar
you wish), so that learners will develop and intensify their knowledge of the language.
By doing so, not only do the students increase their language awareness, but they are
also able to use their knowledge about the norms of the language to interpret literary
texts and convey meaning.
In a very similar way, Brumfit and Carter (1986) note the relationship between “practical criticism and stylistic analysis of literary texts”. In short, practical criticism refers to the intuitions of the reader to make critical judgements where students are
presented with a text and are expected to arrive impulsively at an appreciation of its
literary values without explicitly guiding them how to do it (Lazar, 1993, p. 31).
Moreover, Brumfit and Carter (1986) explain that practical criticism shares two
assumptions with the stylistic analysis. First, the principal form for analysis of a literary texts should be “patterns made by language”, considering that texts are exclusively made by language, and second, that practical criticism is conflicting with the aesthetic
view of the text. Therefore, the aim of both practical criticism as well as stylistic
analysis is to try and pinpoint intuitive responses of the learners that will result in the
interpretation of meaning of the text based on its language structure. In this way, the teacher will ultimately try to show “how what is said is said and how meanings are made” (Brumfit and Carter, 1986, pp. 2-3).
I cannot, however, comment on the language learners’ intuitive responses without
making a reference to the key theory which examines reader responses – reception