【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 t f ancif ul em br oidery of t he facts. It i s a way of exper ienci ng the f act s.‖ ( Metaphor, 1972) Lit er ary devices, i n addi ti on to metaphor , such as ir ony, ambi gui ty, pun, and even i mages, poet ry. Wi th del iberate considerati on of this fact, som e theori st s, especial ly t he New Cr i tics, reject the f orm meaning dichotomy and they tend t o see sense and styl e as one t hing, as Wim sat t asser ts: It i s har dly necesary t o adduce pr oof t hat t he doct ri ne of i dent if y of st yle and meaning i s today f ir mly establi shed. The doct ri ne is, I take it , one [ emphasi s mine] fr om which a modern theori st can har dly escape, or har dly wi shes t o. ( The Prose Style of Samuel Johnson, 1941. ) It i s to be not ed that he emphasis upon t he ar ti sti c integr ity and inviolabil it y of their wor ks is echoed not only i n poets but al so in m any pr ose wri ter s, and we can f ind an art iculat ion i n Tolstoy’s wor ds: ―This i s indeed one of t he si gnif icant f act s about a t rue wor k of ar t—t hat i ts cont ent i n i ts enti rety can be expressed only by it sel f. ‖ Cri ti cs hol di ng such as i dea about st yle t end t o l ook at a wor k of fi cti on as a ver bal ar ti fact . They bel ieve t hat i n such a ver bal arti f act t her e can be no separati on of t he aut hor’ s creati on of t he plot, character, soci al and m or al li fe, fr om t he language i n whi ch t hey ar e 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 noveli st, he does i n and t hr ough l anguage, Lodge i s ready to see no dif f er ence bet wen t he ki nd of choi ce a wri t er m akes i n cal i ng a char act er ―dar k hair ed‖ or ―f air,‖ si nce al t he choi ces a wr it er m akes ar e a m at er of l anguage. Lodge al so argues t hat here i s no esent i al dif f er ence bet wen poet r y and pr ose and t hat t he f ol lowi ng te s appl y t o bot h: It i s i m possi bl e t o par aphr ase l it erar y wri ti ng。 I t is i mpossi bl e t o tr ansl at e a li t er ar y wor k。 I t is i mpossi bl e t o divor ce t he gener al appr eci ati on of a lit erar y wor k fr om t he appr eci at i on of i ts st yl e. Per haps Lodge’s st at em ents sound rat her arbit r ar y since we do have a gr eat num ber of t ransl at ed li t er ar y wor ks in vari ous languages, i ncl udi ng poem s, i n whi ch t he essent ial art istr y rem ai ns (t hough somethi ng must have been l ost ), and paraphrasi ng som etim es can be said t o be one of impor tant methods for a basi c under st andi ng and appr eci at ion of t he essent ial li terar ines of a l it erary work and i s oft en em ployed in t he teachi ng of li terat ur e. Whatever not ion a person may have towar ds st yle, it is i mport ant t o under stand that language i n fi cti on is t he focus in our anal ysi s of st yle. At the sam e ti me l anguage is used to pr oject a worl d beyond l anguage it self , and our analysi s of language can never excl ude our gener al knowl edge and under standing of the r eal wor ld. Therefor e, a l inguisti c appr oach to styl e is f r equent ly em ployed in styl isti c studies. Am ong such pr act ices, cri ti cs general y t ry t o determ ine t he features of st yle, or st yl e markers, the l inguisti c it ems that only appear or are t ypical or most or least f requent i n a wor k of fi ct ion. We t hus need t o make par isons and contr ast s so as t o f ind out the di f er ences between t he nor mal fr equency of a featur e and its fr equency in t he text or cor pus. Of course, featur es can r egi st er on a reader ’s m ind i n his/her r ecogni ti on of st yle, and doubtl esly the degr ee to hi s /her r ecogni ti on of these features as t hey ar e sal ient wil l var y, and t he degr e t o whi ch the r eader responds to these features i n a given r eadi ng wil l al so var y accor ding t o a numbe r of f act ors, such as his/ her at entivenes, sensit ivit y to st yle m ar ker s and previous r eading experi ence. ( Leech and Short , Style in Fi ct ion, 1981) Foregroundi ng Foregr ounding, art isti cal ly m ot ivated deviati on or def amil iar ization of l anguage or st ructur e or ot her basic el em ent s, accor ding t o Russian For mali st s, m akes a l it er ary wor k l it er ary. By determ ini ng what i s for egr ounded or defami li ar ized we can dist ingui sh a grounding m ay be quali tat ive, a breach of some r ule or conventi on of Engl ish such as t he present t ense of the l ink verb ―be‖ i n Jesus words i n the Aut hor ized Ver si on of St John’ s Gospel : ―Bef ore Abr aham was, I am‖ and t he use of ―now‖ in a sentence of past tense in t he begi nni ng par agraph of Hemingway’s ―A Cl ean, Wel l Li ghted Pl ace‖: ―… and now at ni ght i t was qui et…‖ –or it may be sim pl y quant it ative, ie. Deviati on fr om some expect ed fr equency, f or inst ance, the r epet it ion of ―nada‖ in the older wait er’ s monol ogue in Hem ingway’ s ―A Cl ean, Wel l Lighted Pl ace.‖ And quanti tati ve for egr oundi ng of a promi nent pat er n of choi ce wit hin t he code m ay shade int o qual it at ive f oregrounding whi ch changes the code itself . For e xample, the quanti tati ve for egr ounding of l ong pound sent ences ( cl ause plus cl ause plus clause) of simpl e words, som et im es j oined wi th ―and, ‖ in Hemingway’s nar rati ve produces t he ef fect of li st eni ng to speech, which i s a mar k of quanti tati ve for egr oundi ng in Hemingway’s wr it ing. Thus what i s for egr ounded may soundl y be t aken as a dist incti ve feature of styl e of a piece of fi ct ion. As the f oregrounding of l anguage in a st or y i s concerned, i t may be usef ul to m ake a checkl ist of features whi ch may be signif icant i n a gi ven t ext , though the f eat ures which r e mend themsel ves to t he at tenti on in one t ext wi l l not necessar i l y be im por