【正文】 a num ber of f act or s, such as his/ her at ent iveness, sensi ti vit y to st yl e mar ker s and previous reading exper ience. ( Leech and Short , St yle i n Fi ct ion, 1981) Foregroundi ng Foregrounding, ar ti stical y mot ivated deviati on or def am il iari zat ion of l anguage or st ructur e or ot her basic elements, acor di ng to Russian For mali st s, makes a li ter ar y wor k l iter ar y. By determ ining what i s for egr ounded or def amil iar ized we can disti ngui sh a grounding may be quali tati ve, a br each of some r ul e or conventi on of Engl ish such as t he present tense of the l ink verb ―be‖ in Jesus words i n the Aut hor ized Version of St John’ s Gospel: ―Bef or e Abr aham was, I am‖ and the use of ―now‖ in a sentence of past tense i n t he begi nni ng paragraph of Hemi ngway’ s ―A Clean, Wel Li ght ed Place‖: ―… and now at night i t was qui et …‖ –or i t may be si mpl y quanti tat ive, i e. Devi at ion f r om some expected f r equency, for i nst ance, t he repeti ti on of ―nada‖ in t he older wai ter ’s m onol ogue i n Hemi ngway’ s ―A Clean, Wel Li ght ed Place. ‖ And quant it ative f oregr ounding of a pr ominent pat tern of choice wi thi n the code may shade i nto quali tati ve for egr oundi ng whic h changes t he code i tsel f. For exam pl e, t he quant it at ive f oregrounding of long pound sentences (clause plus clause pl us cl ause) of si mple wor ds, someti mes joi ned wit h ―and,‖ in Hem ingway’ s nar at ive pr oduces the ef ect of l istening t o speech, whi ch is a mark of quant it ati ve foregr ounding i n Hemi ngway’ s wr it ing. Thus what is f oregrounded may soundl y be taken as a disti nct ive f eat ur e of style of a pi ece of f icti on. As the f or egroundi ng of language i n a stor y is concer ned, it m ay be useful t o make a checkli st of f eat ur es which m ay be si gni fi cant i n a given t ext , t hough t he feat ur es whi ch r e m end t hem selves t o the at ention in one t ext wi l not necesari ly be i mport ant i n anot her t ext by t he same or di f erent aut hor . Le ch and Shor t (St yle i n Fict ion, 1981) li st f our headings of st ylist ic categori es, which m ay be hel pf ul in our anal ysi s of the style of a st ory: Lexi cal General: I s the vocabul ar y sim ple or plex? Formal or col loquial ? Descr ipti ve or evaluati ve? Gener al or specif i c? How f ar does the author make use of t he emoti ve or ot her associat ions of words ,as opposed t o their r efer ent ial meani ngs? Does t he t ext contain idiom at ic usages, and if so, wi th what ki nd of r egister (l anguage var iat ion beyond di alectical dif ferences, such as di f er ences between poli te and f am il iar language。 to change so m uch as a wor d, the argument runs, is to change the meaning as wel l. This aust er e doctr ine has a cer tai n theoreti cal appeal … . Yet at the same t ime this doctr ine l eads t o the alt oget her counteri ntuit ive concl usi on that there can be no such thi ng as st yl e, or t hat styl e is sim ply a par t of content. To put t he pr oblem more concretel y, t he idea of st yl e i mpli es t hat t he words on page mi ght have been di f er ent, or dif ferentl y ar anged, wit hout a cor responding di f er ence in subst ance. (―Gener ati ve Gramm ar s and the Concept of Li terar y Style‖, 1964) To back up his argument that there ar e dif fer ent ways of saying the sam e thi ng, Ohmann of fers the f ol lowi ng par aphr ases of ― Af ter dinner, the senat or made a speech‖: When di nner was over , the senat or m ade a speech. A speech was m ade by t he senator aft er di nner . The senator made a post prandial or ati on. And poi nt s out t hat t hese are var iants of t he or igi nal i n a sense whi ch is not tr ue of , say, ―Columbus was brave‖ or ―Col um bus was nauti cal .‖ The di f er ences among ( 1) (3) are chief ly gr ammati cal 。 and t he grammat ical, r at her t han lexical, aspect of styl e is t he one on whi ch Ohm ann concent rates. Thus i n t he analysis of a wr i ter’s style i n a wor k of f icti on, we should study what t he wri ter has wri t en against the backgr ound of what he /she mi ght have wr it ten。 spoken and wri t en language。 of tr ansit ive or i nt ransit ive verb const ruct ions) ? Ar e there any unusual order ings (i niti al adverbi al s, f ronti ng of object or plement, etc) ? Do speci al ki nds of clause constr uct ion occur (such as t hose wi th pr epar ator y it or there) ? Noun phrases: Are they rel at ively si mple or plex? Wher e does t he plexit y li e (i n pr em odi fi cat ion by adjecti ves, nouns, et c, or i n post modif icati on by preposi ti on by preposi ti onal phr ases, relat ive clauses, et c)? Ver b phrases: Are there any signif icant depart ures f rom the use of the simpl e past tense? For example, not ice occur rences and f unct ions of the pr esent t ense, of the progr essive aspect, of the perf ect aspect , of modal auxi li ar ies. ot her phr ase t ypes: Is t her e anyt hing t o be sai d about other phrases t ypes, such as preposi ti onal phrases, adver b phrases, adj ect ive phrases? Wor d classes: Having alr eady consi dered maj or wor d classes, we may consi der m inor word cl ases (eg f unct ional wor ds) , such as pr eposi t i ons, conj unct ions, pr onouns, deter miner s, auxi li ari es, int er jecti ons. Ar e par ti cul ar words of these types used f or par ticul ar ef ect ( eg demonst rati ves such as this and t hat , negati ves such as not , not hing)? Gener al : Note whet her any gener al t ypes of gramm at ical constr uct ion ar e used t o special ef ect ( eg par ative or super lat ive constr ucti ons, coor di native or l isti ng constr uct ions, par ent het ical constr uct ions, i nterj ect ions and af ter thought s as occur in causal speech). And see to the number of l ists and coordinat ions. Fi gur es of Speech Her