of stylistic stimuli with the aid of linguistic concepts. By this definition li nguists should be interested in all kinds of linguistic variation and style is only one of many types. The table below is based on the relevant passage from the above quoted Enkvist? S book on Linguistic Stylistics and presents the classification of linguis tic variations according their correlation towards context, situation and others: correlates with context and situation
is an individual variation within each register correlates with a given period correlates with areas on a mapDIALECT correlates with the social class of its users
also called sociolect indicates the language of one individual
correlates with situations
different subtypes of language that people use insocial roles (eg doctor s register is differentthe teacher s, etc.)
relation between stylistics and linguistics
teaching of Stylistics depends on a technical terminology with which students can describe the stylistic choices. Much of this technical terminology is in practice taken from traditional grammar or from some linguistic theory. In addition, students will need to be able to construct diagrams of texts (such as tree structures for sentences, or some equivalent for syllable structure, or word structure or discourse structure), and again various linguistic theories provide methods for doing this.of the puzzles for Stylistics - and acutely a problem in teaching Stylistics - is the extent to which Stylistics depends on any particular linguistic theory, and particularly on any particular syntactic theory or theory of grammar. Ways of representing linguistic form were in the 60s and 70s drawn from the new (and mutually incompatible) theories of Systemic Grammar, Transformational Grammar, and Generative Semantics. Syntactic theory has for the past few decades been much too difficult to simply introduce in Stylistics teaching, and furthermore produces representations which are very distinct from the surface forms seen in texts; and Stylistics classes can rarely rely on students having a good understanding of Linguistics. This forces a certain decoupling of syntactic theory and Stylistics teaching It is this decoupling which enables Stylistics to be successful as a discipline even though it may be out of step with (formal) linguistic theory, and successful as a subject to teach to students even though they may have little understanding of linguistic theory. (On the other hand, it means that Stylistics is not necessarily a good introduction to linguistic theory, as is sometimes suggested.) Suggesting that Stylistics and Linguistics may be disconnected theoretically, even though they both clearly relate to language, I assume along chomskyan lines that language is not a theoretically unified domain. Linguistic theory is concerned with rules which build representations, and conditions which hold of those rules and representations; it is not - at least in most of its theoretical manifestations - an account of actual utterances or written sentences. While we can understand the construction of an utterance or a written sentence as the result of making a set of choices (which words to choose, in what order, phase, tense, aspect; how to relate subclauses, etc), those choices do not necessarily correspond to elements of linguistic form. Thus for example passive is a way of understanding a surface choice, but it need not be theorized linguistically as a rule or set of rules of linguistic form (instead, passive is the post-linguistic way of describing the a set of similar structures which emerge from a combination of underlying processes which may have no specific relation to one another within the system) .Fabb (2002) I argued that in literary texts we are dealing with two quite different kinds of form, which I called generated form (basically linguistic form and possibly some aspects of metrical form) and communicated form (genre, narrative form, and probably every other kind of literary form); this distinction can be restated using the terms in this current article as the distinction between form and style raquo ;. Generated form (now just called form) holds of the text by virtue of constituting it: being a noun, or a preposition phrase, or a specific phoneme are necessary formal aspects of the text which enable it to exist. On the other hand communicated form (now just called style) holds of a text by virtue of being the content of an assumption about the text which is licensed by the text. Form is the stuff from which a text is made, while style is what a text tells us about itself. (Goodman +1978 similarly focuses on the extent to which style is exemplified by a text: the text is both denoted by a term such as parallelism but in turn denotes that term - the text means par...
