<<

Chapter 3 of : , or Literary Analysis?

3.1 : The Methodology Dilemma and a Solution

Roman Jakobson’s work outlined in the previous chapter was a precursor to literary-linguistic DA along with a number of other sub-disciplines within both linguistic and literary studies. One of the fields founded on Jakobsonian of and is “stylistics.” Stylistics is of particular im- portance here as practioners (“styliticians”) have made tremendous progress in pioneering the way for the development of sound methodology in carrying out literary linguistic analysis that accounts for the integration of the three ele- ments of (1) style, (2) colometric structure, and (3) poetic macrostructure. Paul Simpson defines stylistics as,

a method of textual interpretation in which primacy of place is assigned to language. The reason why language is so important to stylisticians is because the various forms, patterns and levels that constitute linguistic structure are an important index of the function of the text. The text’s functional significance as discourse acts in turn as a gateway to its in- terpretation. While linguistic features do not of themselves constitute a text’s ‘meaning’, an account of linguistic features nonetheless serves to ground a stylistic interpretation and to help explain why, for the analyst, certain types of meaning are possible.1

As the present project can be defined as a type of stylistic analysis, or literary- linguistic reading of BHP, much of the task at hand falls within the broader methodological spheres of stylistics. At the same time, stylisticians have long been aware that satisfying all the criteria for conducting in the lin- guist’s laboratory as well as the literary critic’s study is no simple or easy task. Such a methodological framework must be especially narrow and careful in its selection of for integration and process. On the one hand, linguistic theory can be largely mathematic and objective. On the other hand, literary

1 Paul Simpson, Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students (Routledge English Language Introduction; Routledge, 2014), 2–3.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004366275_005 Methodology of Discourse Analysis 35 criticism is known for its subjectivity and dependence on human for interpreting form and meaning. The literary critic considers the organic relationship that each piece of literature shares with its reader. The linguist is the scientist whose analysis is highly controlled and limited to observation and calculation. Literature, especially poetry, is geared to challenge, and even break the rules thereby establishing new and fresh conventions, while linguis- tic theory seeks to define the rules and set boundaries. In a sense, to bring the two together is comparable to combining centripetal and centrifugal forces. Even with the opposing natures of these particular components and priorities of each respective field, there are other dynamics and insights of each that are capable of careful combination for the sake of constructing a unique lens through which to explore the performance of an artistic text. More precisely, because texts are fashioned by language, the literary critic is able to draw upon linguistic insights to provide an objective description of literary conventions in terms of linguistics. The larger discipline of stylistics has responded to the challenge of this methodological dilemma by developing innovative and precise tools and prac- tices for arriving at sound and replicable conclusions. In fact, leading theorists have pointed out that the paradox that characterises the methodological di- lemma of literary-linguistic analyses is precisely where its strength lays. Leslie Jeffries writes:

stylistics draws on a wide range of theories and methods from linguistics, and as a result does not have a single set of parameters which define the discipline. This eclecticism is not a weakness, but a theoretically-legitimate strength. The purpose of theories is to shed light on the subject under consideration and as a result they tend to produce models which are simpler in some respects than the data they relate to. This is in order to generate fuller understanding of particular aspects of the data separately. Trying to capture the whole ‘truth’ about the data in one single unified theory of textual meaning would be unilluminating in its complexity.2

M. Short, a leading stylitician and stylistics theorist, adds another dimension with this point:

For a stylistician, then, being objective means to be detailed, systematic and explicit in analysis, to lay one’s interpretive cards, as it were, clearly

2 Lesley Jeffries and Daniel McIntyre, Stylistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 170; emphasis added.