【正文】 we shoul d search f or som e si gnif icance, which we m ay cal l st yli st ic value, in the wr it er’ s choi ce t o express hi s/her sense in t his r at her t han that way. The above not ion of style as ―dress of thought ‖ or as manner of expr ession‖ consi st s in t he asumpti on that there is some basi c sense that can be pr eser ved i n dif fer ent r enderi ngs of wor ds or sentence str uct ur es. This is not li kel y to be chall enged i n ever yday uses of language. But i n li ter at ure, par ti cul arl y in poetr y, par aphr asing bees problemat ic. For example, the m et aphor in ―Com e, seel ing ni ght , / Scarf t he tender eye of pit if ul day‖ ( Macbet h, I I . i . 46 47) denies us a paraphrase in ei ther a li teral sense or a hidden meaning. Any par aphr ase woul d devoi d it of i ts r ichness of impl icati ons t hat i nduces us to f ind inter pr etati ons beyond the meanings capt ured by par aphrasing. Such a m et aphor, as Terence Hawkes says, ―is not 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 i t sel f . ‖ Cr it cs hol ding such as idea about style t end to l ook at a work of f icti on as a verbal ar ti fact. They 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。 I t is i mpossi bl e to divorce t he general appr eci ation of a l it erary work fr om t he appr eci at ion of i ts styl e. Perhaps Lodge’s st at ement s sound r ather ar bit rar y since we do have a great number of tr ansl at ed li terar y wor ks in vari ous l anguages, i ncluding poems, i n whi ch the esenti al art ist ry r emains ( though somet hi ng must have been lost) , and paraphrasing someti mes can be sai d to be one of i mport ant methods f or a basic understanding and appr eciati on of the esenti al l it er ari ness of a li terar y wor k and is of ten employed i n the t eaching of l iter ature. What ever not ion a per son m ay have t owards style, it i s impor tant to understand t hat l anguage in f icti on is the f ocus in our analysis of style. At the same t ime language is used to project a wor ld beyond language it sel f, and our analysis of l anguage can never exclude our general knowledge and understanding of t he real worl d. Theref ore, a li ngui st ic approach to st yle i s fr equentl y employed i n st yli st ic studi es. Among such pr act ices, cr it ics gener al ly t ry to deter mi ne the f eat ures of style, or st yle markers, t he li ngui st ic i tems t hat only appear or ar e typical or most or least f r equent i n a wor k of fi cti on. We thus need t o make c ompari sons and cont rasts so as to fi nd out t he dif ferences bet wen t he normal f requency of a f eat ur e and it s fr equency in the t ext or cor pus. Of course, f eat ures can regist er on a reader ’s m ind i n his/her recogni ti on of st yle, and doubtl essly t he degr ee to hi s /her recogni ti on of these f eat ures as they are sali ent wi l l var y, and the degree t o which t he reader r esponds to these f eat ures i n a given r eading wi l l al so var y acor di ng to