【正文】 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。 scient if ic, reli gious, l egal language, et c.) are these i dioms associat ed? I s ther e any use of r ar e or speciali zed vocabul ary? Ar e any par ti cul ar morphological cat egor ies notewort hy (eg r are pound words, words wi th par ti cul ar suff ixes)? Nouns: Are t he nouns abstr act or concret e? What ki nds of abstr act nouns (eg nouns r ef er ri ng to event s, per cepti ons, pr oceses, m or al quali ti es, soci al quali ti es) are used? Why do pr oper nam es occur ? Col ecti ve nouns? Adj ecti ves: To what degr ee of f r equency ar e t he adj ecti ves used? To what ki nds of at ri butes do t he adj ecti ves ref er ( eg physical, psychol ogi cal, vi sual, audi t or y, col or, r efer enti al, emoti ve, evaluati ve, etc) ? Ar e t he adj ect i ves r estr i ct ive or non r estr i ct ive? At ri buti ve or pr edi cat ive? Ver bs: Do t he ver bs car y an im port ant part of t he m eani ng? Do they r ef er t o m ovements, physical act s, speech act s ( roughl y utt erances i n t he l anguage whi ch can be used to perf orm acts, or i n whi ch t he speaker can seen to have per f or med som e acts。 ―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 。 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 .