【正文】 bel ieve t hat in such a verbal art if act t her e can be no separati on of the author’ s creati on of the plot , character, social and m oral li fe, fr om t he language i n whi ch they are port r ayed. As Davi d Lodge put s it : ―The noveli st ’s m edi um i s language: what ever he does, qua novel ist, he does i n and thr ough language, Lodge i s ready to see no dif fer ence between t he ki nd of choi ce a wri ter makes in cal ing a character ―dar khair ed‖ or ―f air ,‖ since al the choices a wr it er m akes are a mat er of l anguage. Lodge al so argues that her e i s no esent ial dif fer ence between poet ry and pr ose and t hat t he fol lowi ng te s appl y t o bot h: I t is i mpossi bl e t o par aphr ase l it erary wri ti ng。 ―obvi ously‖, ―fr ankl y‖)? Gr am mati cal Sent ence t ype: Does the aut hor use onl y statem ent s, or does he/ she al so use quest ions, mands, exclamati ons, or sentence fr agment s ( such as sentences wit h no verbs)? I f other types of sentence ar e used, what is t hei r function? Sentence pl exi ty: Do sentences on whol e have a si mple or a pl ex st ructur e? What is t he average sent ence l engt h? Does pl exi ty var y st ri kingly fr om one sent ence t o anot her ? I s pl exi ty mainly due t o ( i) coordinati on, ( i ) subor di nat ion, (i i ) juxtaposi ti on of cl auses or of ot her equivalent st ructur es? I n what par ts of t he text does plexit y t end t o occur? clause t ypes: What types of cl auses are f avor ed—r el ative cl auses, adver bial cl auses, or dif f er ent t ypes of nominal clauses? Ar e non fi nit e for ms monly used, and i f so, of what ypes ar e they ( inf init ive, i ng for m, ed f orm, ver bl es str uct ure) ? What is t hei r functi on? Cl ause st ructur e: I s there anythi ng si gni f i cant about cl ause elements ( eg f requency of objects, adverbial s, plements。 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 。 spoken and wri t en language。 I t is i mpossibl e to tr anslat e a li ter ar y wor k。 for exam pl e ―I nam e t he ship t he Queen Eli zabeth. ‖) , psychol ogi cal stat es or act i vi ti es, percept i ons, et c? Are t hey tr ansit i ve, i nt ransi ti ve, li nking, et c? Ar e they stati ve ( descr i bi ng st at e s) or dynam ic ( descri bing acti ons) ? Adver bs: Ar e t he adver bs fr equentl y used i n t he text? What semanti c f uncti ons do t hey per f or m (manner , place, dir ect i on, ti me, degr ee, etc) ? Is there any signif icant use of sent ence adver bs (such as ―t her efor e‖, ―however‖。t he m ai n verb (shown in capit als) occurs i n mi dparal leli sm and for ms a concealed center of gravit y, balancing subj ect against pr edi cat e. I t is obviously t he aestheti cs of f orm t hat tends to at tr act t he reader ’s at tenti on her e rat her t han the meaning. We mi ght pl ausibl y say that Lyl y has em br oidered an el abor at e garment round t he si mple i dea ―Eupheus was a young dandy. ‖ If ―ador nment‖ i s to be ident if ied i n l inguisti c pat terns whi ch have l it tl e sem ant ic f unct ion, we can poi nt to t he al li ter at ions clustered i n t he end of t he thir d sent ence. We can also point t o grammat ical par al leli sm whi ch, t hough not devoi d of content, seem mer el y t o play a r ole of embel ishment , providi ng fur ther exampl es of a concept alr eady expressed: ―The sweetest r ose hat h his pr ickle‖ alr eady conveys t he meani ng ―even t he best thi ngs ar e al loyed wi th bad,‖ and t hus t he repeti ti on of t he pat ter n in ―t he fi nest velvet hi s brack, t he fai rest f lower his br an’ i s redundant. Lyl y mi ght not have, then, added the l ast piece of pat tern unl es he had elaborated on t he al l i t er ati ve funct ion of ―holi est head‖ and ―wicked way.‖ However, t he el abor at ion of f orm wi l inevit abl y bri ng an elaborati on of meani ng. The r epet it on of par al el of exam pl es fr om di f erent experi ence ( ―r ose… vel vet … fl ower … wit … head‖) spurs our asoci ati on wit h t he generali ty of a di dact ic pr inciple which i s ot her wi se seen to be par ti cul ar . The repeti ion i n ―wi t… weal th… wisdom‖ i s not m er e r epeti ti on but a pr ogressi on im pl ying an i ncr easing wei ghtiness of the qual it ies li sted. The par al leli sm of ―inf er ior t o none in pl easant concei ts‖ and ―super ior t o al in honest condit ions‖ gi ves a schemati c bal ance t o the i mage of som et hing l ight (― pleasant conceit s‖) bei ng weighed agai nst something heavy (―honest condi ti ons‖), under li ning t he fault y logi c of Eupheus’ s yout hful mi nd. So t he schemati sm of for m ai ms at the i deas bei ng present ed. A more general and tenabl e def ini ti on of st yle i s the ―manner of expresi on‖: ever y wr it er ne