The ‘indisciplinarity’ of stylistics

• Authors: Sandrine Sorlin
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper aims at showing why the stylistician can be construed as a prolific “impostor” in a most positive sense: pledged to no specific linguistic prophet, she can opt for different theoretical linguistic tools (in the sphere of pragmatics, critical discourse analysis, cognitive grammar, etc.) depending on her object of study and what her research question is. The liberty claimed by the stylistician explains why stylistics is the “undisciplined” child of linguistics, shirking any clear definition of its boundaries. It will be argued that stylistics can only exist as a cross-disciplinary field given its conception of language as fundamentally contextualized. If it was a discipline determined by clear-cut pre-established boundaries, stylistics would be far more “disciplined” but would run the risk of serving only itself. The broad goal of this paper is thus to evince that the “indisciplinarity” of stylistics constitutes its very defining essence. With this aim in mind, it will demonstrate what stylistics owes to other disciplines, what it shares with similar language-based disciplines and what it can offer to other fields or practices of knowledge.

Keywords

EN

Porous disciplinary boundaries; positive imposture; pragmatic stylistics; critical stylistics; cognitive stylistics; literary stylistics; stylistic sociolinguistics

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Topics in Linguistics
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 9-15

Dates

published

2014-12-01

online

2014-12-30

Contributors

author

Sandrine Sorlin

• Aix-Marseille University / LERMA / IUF, France

References

• ARISTOTE, 2007. Rhétorique. Présentation et traduction par Pierre Chiron. Paris : Flammarion.
• AUER, P. ed., 2007. Style and social identities. Alternative approaches to linguistic heterogeneity. Berlin, New York : Mouton de Gruyter.
• BAILLARGEON, N., 2010. The practice of intellectual self-defense in the university. In J. Bricmont and J. Franck, eds. Chomsky Notebook. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 283-292.
• BIBER, D. and CONRAD, S., 2009. Register, genre and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• BURKE, M., 2011. Literary reading, cognition and emotion. London: Routledge.
• COUPLAND, N., 2001. Language, situation and the relational self: Theorising dialect style in sociolinguistics. In P. Eckert and J. R. Rickford, eds. Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 185-210.
• COUPLAND, N., 2007. Style. language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• ECKERT, P. and RICKFORD, J. eds., 2001. Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• FOUCAULT, M., 1979. L’Ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.
• GEE, J. P., 2008. Social linguistics and literacies. London, New York: Routledge, 3rd ed.
• GOATLY, A., 2007. Washing the brain. Metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
• HUDSON, R., 2004. Why education needs linguistics (and vice versa). Journal of Linguistics, vol. 40, no.1, pp. 105-130.
• IRVINE, J. T., 2001. Style as distinctiveness: the culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In: P. Eckert and J. R. Rockford, eds. Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
• JEFFRIES, L., 2010. Critical stylistics. The power of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
• LECERCLE, J-J., 1993. The current state of stylistics. The European English Messenger, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 14-18.
• LOTY, L., 2005. Pour l'indisciplinarité. In: J. V. Douthwaite and M. Vidal Mary, eds. The interdisciplinary century: Tensions and convergences in eighteen-century art, history and literature. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, pp. 245-259.[WoS]
• MILLER, C. R., 1994. Genre as social action. In: A. Freedman and P. Medway, eds. Genre and the new rhetoric. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 23-42.
• SIMPSON, P., 2014. Stylistics. London: Routledge, 2nd ed.
• SORLIN, S., 2014. La Stylistique anglaise. Théories & Pratiques. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
• STOCKWELL, P., 2002. Cognitive poetics. An introduction. London, New York: Routledge.
• TOOLAN, M., 1996. Total speech. An integrational linguistic approach to language. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
• TOOLAN, M., 2009. Language teaching. Integrational linguistic approaches. London, New York: Routledge.
• WATSON, G. and Zyngier S., 2007. Literature and stylistics for language learners. Theory and practice. Foreword by Ronald Carter. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• WEBER, J-J., 1996. The stylistics reader: From Roman Jakobson to the present. London: Arnold.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/topling-2014-0008