a study in prose style

8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 1/17

University of Texas Press

A Study in Prose Styles: Edward Gibbon and Ernest HemingwayAuthor(s): CURTIS W. HAYESSource: Texas Studies in Literature and Language, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Winter 1966), pp. 371-386Published by: University of Texas PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40753876 .

Accessed: 02/08/2011 22:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=texas. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Texas Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Texas Studies

in Literature and Language.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=texas

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40753876?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40753876?origin=JSTOR-pdf




CURTIS

W. HAYES

A

Study

n

Prose

tyles:

Edward Gibbon

nd Ernest

Hemingway

I. INTRODUCTION

THIS PAPER

IS IN PART AN

EXERCISE

IN THE ANALYSIS OF PROSE

STYLE

and n

part

n abstract fa larger tudyhat made onthe

prose

tyle

of

Edward

Gibbon.1n that

tudy

pointed

ut

that

ensitive

eaders

of

iterature

ave

certain

tylistic

intuitions

hat

nable

hem o

den-

tify

ertain

amiliaruthors.

or

nstance,

f

two

extracts

rom

he

u-

thors hosen or

his

tudy,

dward Gibbon nd Ernest

Hemingway,

were

iven

o

these eaders

hey

would

have

ittle

ifficulty

n determin-

ing

their

uthorship.

his

ntuitive

bility

may

not,

believe,

e

ade-

quately

ccounted

or

y

he

more

amiliar

pproaches

o

tylistic

naly-

sis.

By

morefamiliar mean

the schoolof

literary

riticismhat

attachesmpressionisticabels oprosetyles.orexample, emingway's

style

n the

more amiliar

tylistic

nalysis

asbeendescribeds

simple,

direct,

nd

sometimeslinear.

Gibbon's

tyle,

which

s

intuitively

more

complex

han

Hemingway's,

as been labeled as

grand

and

majestic.

These

abels,

owever,

o not

describe

tyle,

utrathermirror

n

im-

pression

ne

receives

hen

eading

xtracts

rom hese wo

uthors.

he

analysis

must

go beyond

he

mere

agging

f

mpressionistic

abelsto

prose tyles.

t is the

nalyst's

ob

to account

or

hese

ubjective

mpres-

sions. believe

hat ecent

evelopments

n

inguistic

cience,

articularly

thedevelopmentf thetransformational/generativeoncept fsyntax,

is

an

invaluable id in

formalizing

henotion

f

what ne

means

when

he

attaches

escriptive

abels o

prose

tyles.

Generative

rammarians

ave

in recent

ublications

tated

he

n-

herent

dvantages

f

generative/transformational

odel or

epresent-

ing yntax.2

n

particularhey

maintain

hat

generative

rammar

ol-

lowing

he

Chomskianmodel

would have

the

ability

o

generate

a

1

See

my

study,

A

Linguistic

Analysis

f

the

Prose

Style

of

Edward

Gibbon,

unpublished

issertation

University

f

Texas, 1964).

2For example,See Paul Postal, ConstituenttructureA StudyofContem-

porary

Models

of

Syntactic

escription,

JAL, XXX,

Part 3

(January,

964),

1

ff.



372

CURTIS W.

HAYES

betterermwould be

enumerate)

ll thewell-formedentencesf a

language

nd wouldbe

able,

further,

o

provide

deep

structural

e-

scription

or ach.

Since n

great

part

the

mpression

hat

sensitive

reader

erceives

rom

given

work

ests

pon

the

types

f

syntactical

processes

hat n author

ses,

t

would eem hat

he

heory

nd

methods

of

generative

rammarians

ight

end

themselves

o

the

xplication

f

literarytyle.

he

following

tudy

s

thus

n

experiment

n the

pplied

use of

generative

rammar

nd reflects

he

thesis,

lready

mplicitly

stated,

hat uch

grammar

s

a

powerful

nd

valuable

ool

n

ana-

lyzingiterarytyle.3

For

the

purpose

f

his

aper

tylemay

e defined

s a

characteristic,

habitual,

nd

recurrent

se

of the

transformational

pparatus

f

an-

guage.

Whatevers

characteristic,

abitual,

nd

recurrent

ust

e,

moreover,

menable

o statistical

easurement.

here

re certain

rans-

formations

statistical

ttributes)

n Gibbon's

tyle,

or

xample,

hat

can be measurednd

these

ransformations

an be

compared

o those

f

another

writer.n this

ense,

he

tudy

f

style

s

a

study

f the

com-

plexity

f

entences.

The basic

unit

of

description

n

this

paper

s

the

textual

entence.

Here

defined,

textual entence

orresponds

o the institutionalized

sentencethat

s,

nybody

fmaterial

ccurring

etween

ne

period

r

question

mark nd

the

following

ne. Textual

entencesre

not

lways

simple

rkernel

entences,

ut re

often

omplex

entences,

hich ave

been

generated

rom wo

r more

nderlying

ource

entences.

t is

best

to

considerhe

ultimate

extual

entence

the

one

which

ppears

fter

the

final

ransformation)

composite

ftwo

types

f

ource entences.

The

matrix

independent)

entence

orms he overall

pattern,

he

frame,

f

the

ultimateentence.

hose

sentences hich

re

embedded,

nested,raddedtothematrixentencerethe onstituentdependent)

sentences.

his

view

fmatrix

nd constituent

entence,

obert

.

Lees

says,

makes ssential

se ofthenotion

hat

art

f

the

yntactic

truc-

ture f sentence

s

the

et

of

underlying,

ometimes

ery

bstract,

ep-

resentatives

f he

imple

entences

rom

hich t

may

be

said

to be

de-

rived

y xplicit rammatical

ules alled

ransformations. 4

3

The motivation or

such a

study

has

been

clearly

stated

by

Richard

Oh-

mann,

Generative

Grammars

nd

the

Concept

of

Literary

tyle,

Word,

XX

(December,1964), 423-439. See also JamesP. Thorne, Stylisticsnd Genera-

tive

Grammars, ournal fLinguistics, (April,

1965)

49-59.

4

The

Promise

f

Transformational

rammar,

nglish

Journal,

II

(1963),

330.



374

CURTIS W.

HAYES

These rules onvert sentence

aving

hestructureP

+

VP into

noun

phrase

f

the

form o

+

VP or

ng

+

VP.

These

crippled

en-

tences

may

hen

e embedded

nto henominal lot f

thematrix

en-

tence.

-ing

VP

(Gerundive ominal)

Textual

entence

John njoys

laying

he

piano.

1

2

Matrix

(

John njoys

+

(

Nominal

t

3

4

Constituent:John Tns+ Be: ) (-ing play hepiano)

Transformation

1

+

2

>

1+4

>

John njoys lay-

3

+

4

ing

he

piano.

to

+

VP

(Infinitival

ominal)

Textual

entence

I asked im

o

play

he

iano.

1

Matrix

(

I

asked

im

2 3

Constituent:

He

+

Tns)

+

(play

he

piano).

Transformation:

>

1

+

to-3

>

I

asked

him

o

2

+

3

play

he

piano.

The

final

Nominalizing

ransformation

o

be

explicated

s

theF

ac-

tive

Nominal.

he

rules

which

enerate

active ominais

ill

handle

he

following

onstructions.

Subject: hat lause

1 2

(

Nominal

t

+

(

was evident

3

(He

did

t)

Transformation:

+

2

>

that-3 2

>

That

he

did

t

3

was evident.

Subject

question-word

lause

1 2

(Nominal)

+

(was

a

surprise)

3

4

(He

went)

+

(there)



Edward

Gibbon and

Ernest

Hemingway

375

Transformation:

+

2

>

where-3

2

>

where

e

3+4

went

was

surprise.

Non-Action erb

Object

1

(I know)

+

(Nominal:

t)

3

(He

did

t)

Transformation1+ 2

>

1

+

that-3

>

I

know hat

3 he did

t.

A sentence

NP

+

VP)

may

fill

n

adverb

lot

nd the

process

s

known s

adverbialization. or

example,

n

the

entence,

e killed

he

man

+

(Adv),

the

Adv lot

may

be filled

y

either

single

exical

tem,

a

phrase,

r

by

clause

a

crippled

entence)

He killed he

man

+

(quickly)

He killedheman+ (inthedark)

He killed heman

+

(while

he

ity

urned)

The constituententence

hich ills

he

Adv

lot

n

sentence

hrees em-

bedded

hrough

hese

perations:

1

2

Matrix:

He

killed he

man)

+

(Adv)

Constituent

(

the

ity

urned

Transformation

1

+

2

> 1+ while-3Right-branching)

3

j

The

constituent

entence

nd

its

lot

may

be

optionally

ermuted

o

sentence-initial

osition

left-branching)

While he

ity

urned,

e

killed he

man.

Or the

onstruction

ay

e self-embedded.

He,

while he

ity

urned,

illed

he

man.

TheRelative lauseTransformations an adjective-transformation.

Some

inguists

elieve

hat

renominai

djectivais

re

ultimately

erived

from

he

reductionf the

relative-clause

onstruction.

he

red of the

red

house,

hey

osit,

an

be

derived

n

the

ollowing

ay



376

CURTISW.

HAYES

thehouse sred > thehousewhich s red > thehouse ed >

the edhouse.

Other

inquists,

ho

ombine

he

ransformational

nd

tagmemicp-

proaches,

ouldnot hold to

thenotion hat

phrase

uch

as

the

red

house

may

be

derived

rom

ny

kind f entence

n which he

word

ed

appears

n

predicate

osition.

rchibald

.

Hill,

for

xample,

oints

out that

he

two

approaches

tagmemic

nd transformational

seem

to be

falling ogether,

n

that

the transformational

rammarians

re

accepting

he

notion f slots

ormodifiers

hich

an

occurbefore

he

noun.This avoids henecessityf ssumingat least nthis aper)that

the red house

was burned

own s

anything

ore

hana slot

with

fillern

it,

whereas

hehouse

was burned

ownhas the ame

slot

but

has

eftt

empty.6

n

this

aper

djectives

illnot

be

considered

s

being

derived

rom

he

eduction

frelativelauses.

The relative-clause

ransformation

nvolveshese

rocesses

1

2

Matrix:

The boy)

+

(is my

rother)

3

4

Constituent:

Theboy) + (ishere)

Transformation

1

+

2

>

1

+

WH-4

+

2

3

+

4

5

6 7

Result

(

The

boy

+

(

who

s

+

(

here

s

my

rother

Deletion

ellipsis)

5

+

6+7

>

5+7

>

The

boy

here

s

my

brother.

The

additive

rocess

in

essence,

transformational

xpansion)

s

signaled ya coordinateonjunction.he entire rocessmaybecalled

addition:

xpansion

f

X slot.

here

revarious

ypes

f lot

xpansions

that

speaker

ra writer

ay

erform:

e

may

onjoin

entences:

51

]

>

S1

+

conjunction:

nd/but/or

S2

52

]

There

re

other

ossibilities

f

slot

xpansions.

or

instance,

ne

may

do as Gibbon

abitually

oes nd

employ

he

ollowing

ransformational

expansions:

6

Professor

rchibald

Hill

made

this

uggestion

n a

paper

delivered

efore

he

Linguistic

ociety

f

America,

ecember,

1964.



Edward

Gibbon

and

Ernest

Hemingway

377

N

>N-f

conj

+

N

N

J

NP

>NP

+

conj

NP

NP

V

>V + conj V

V

VP

>

VP

+

conj

VP

VP

Prep

hrase

>

PP

+

conj

PP

Prep

Phrase

If

the

expansion

ncludes

nly

wo exical tems

e.g.,

Caesarea

was

plundered

nd burnt

y

he

icentious

arbarians)

then he onstituents

which

ill

he

lot re

referred

o

by

he

eneric

ame,

oublet.

m.

STATISTICALMETHODS

A

linguist

hen

electing

corpus

f

inguistic

aterial

or

nalysis

takes rom hat

orpus

sample

hat

he

hopes

will

be

typical

nd

repre-

sentative. e

does his ecause

corpus

s

often oo

arge

or ndividual

analysis. amplings an economical rocedurend it is particularly

necessary

n

this

aper,

ince

t

would

be

uneconomicalo

analyze

ach

sentence

n

The Decline and Fall. Each

sample

houldbe

tested

or

reliability.

o test or

eliability

linguistmploys

he

following

tatisti-

cal formula

7

A.

Reliability:

tandard rror

'/PQ/N

P

equals

he

proportion

frequency)

f

one ofthe

tems

eing

ounted;

Q

equals

he

bsence

f hat

tem.

+

Q

=

100%.

¿V s

the otal

num-

7A completeccount f the tatistical ethodsncorporatednthis aper an

be

found

n

publications

y

DavidW.

Reed.

See

his

The

History

f nflectional

n

in

English

Verbsbefore

500,

Universityf California

ublications n

English,

VII,

iv

(1950),

especially p.

172-180,

nd

A

Statistical

pproach

o

Quanti-

tative

inguisticnalysis,

ord,

(December,949),

35-247.



378

CURTIS W. HAYES

berof tems ounted. or

example,

ssume hat 0 sentencesontain

given

tylistic

evice,

hile

0

sentences

o not. n that

vent,

SE~V

100

=

4.5%

If

the

E should xceed

%,

more temsmust

e selected

o

reduce he

error.

Earlier positedhat tyles npart habitualnd characteristicse

of

the

transformational

pparatus

f

one's

language.

To

determine

whether defined

tylistic

evice

transformation)

s characteristic

f

one authorn

comparison

o another

uthor,

linguist

ust

est

or ta-

tistical

ignificance.

n

a

randomly

hosen

ample uppose

e

finds hat

in

author

70

sentences

ut

of

100

contain

oublets,

hile

n

author

Y

the

doublet s

found

n

only

60

sentences. e

wants

o

determine

whetherhese

wo

proportions

frequencies)

an be

said to

belong

o

the same

population

no

statistical

ignificance)

r

to

belong

o

dif-

ferent

opulationsstatisticalignificance).

o test

or

ignificance,

linguistmploys

hese ormulas

B.

Significance:

=

NiPi

+

N2P2

Ni

+

N2

The

value

P

is

simply

he

proportion

or he

two

samples

ombined.

That

s,

130

of he

00

sentences

ontain

oublets.

P=

100

X.

60+

100

X.

70

100

+

100

=

130/200=

.65

With

he

bove

nformation

he

ampling

ariance

the

Standard

rror

of he

difference

etween

wo

proportions)

ay

e

calculated

°Pl

?2~V

N,

+

N2

_y/.65

X

.35

+

.65

X

-35~

V

100

+

100

=V-00455

=

.675

(Standard

rror

f heDifference

etweenwo

pro-

portions)



Edward

Gibbon

and

Ernest

Hemingway 381

(Laetus

was their

raefect)

16

17

(Their

praefect)

(found,

when t

was

too

ate,

hathisnew m-

peror

would

reward

servant,

ut

would

not be ruled

by

a

favourite)

Transformation:5

>

15

+

WH-17

16

+

17

5. Right-branchmbedding:elativelauseplusdeletionf

WH

+

V.

18

(Their

discontentsere

ecretly

omented

yLaetus)

19 20

(Laetus)

+

(was

their

raefect,

ho

found,

when

t was too

ate,

thathis

new

emperor

ouldreward

servant,

ut wouldnot

be

ruled

y

a

favourite)

Transformation:

8

> 18

+

WH-20

19

+

20

21

Result:

Their

discontents

ere

ecretly

omented

y

Laetus)

+

22

23

(who

was)

+

(their

raefect,

ho

found,

hen

t

was too

late,

thathis

new

emperor

ould

reward

servant,

ut

would

notbe

ruled

y favourite)

Deletion:21+22 + 23 > 21 + 23 = Textual entence

The

following

found o

be

typical

f

the

ype

f

entence

hatGibbon

and

Hemingway

mploy:

Gibbon

A

sense

of

interest

ttached hese

more

ettled

arbarians o

the

alliance

f

Rome,

nd a

permanent

nterest

ery

requently

ipens

nto

sincere nd

useful

riendship.

The

whole orce f

Constantine

onsistedf

ninety

housand oot nd

eight

housand

orse;

nd,

as the

defence f the

Rhine

required

n

extraordinaryttentionuringheabsence f theemperor,t was not

in

his

power

o

employ

bove halfhis

troops

n

the

talian

expedition,

unless e

acrificedhe

public afety

o his

private

uarrel.

Whilst ome

amented

he

fate f

her

overeign,

he

avage

oldness



382

CURTISW. HAYES

ofhis onwas extolled

y

the ervileourtierss the

perfect

irmnessf

a hero nd a stoic.

The

religion

fZoroaster

as

abundantly

rovided

ith he

former,

and

possessed

sufficient

ortion

f he atter.

Hemingway

I

gave

them

money

or

latform

icketsnd

had

them ake

my

bag-

gage

We ooked

t eachothernthe

dark

I lowered he

vermouthottle

o

theother

ide

ofthe

bed

when

he

came n.

We

walked

long

ogether

hrough

he own nd

chewed he

offee.

I looked

ack nd

sawher

tanding

n the

teps.

V. RESULTS

OF ANALYSIS

AND STATISTICAL

COMPARISON

What

follows

re the

result

f this

nalysis

nd a

comparison

fthe

types

f transformations

hatGibbon

nd

Hemingway

mploy.

his

s

done n an

efforto determine

hether

tatistical

ignificance

xists

n

Gibbon's

use of

a

specific

ransformation

ompared

o

Hemingway's

use of thesametransformation.he attributestransformations)re

in the eft-hand

olumn,

he

frequency

f

the

transformation

s

in

the

center

olumn,

nd

significance

s noted

n

the

ight-hand

olumn.

ATTRIBUTE

Gibbon

Hemingway

Standard

rrors

Transformations

er

sentence

4.3

1.3

Sentences

ndergone

T

98%

60%

SE

=

6.5

Passive

68%

2%

9.48

Doublet

68%

8%

9.0

Sentences ontainingnly ne doublet 40% 8%

Sentences

ontaining

doublets

18%

0%

Sentences

ontaining

doublets

7%

0%

Sentences

ontaining

doublets

1%

0%

Sentences

ontaining

doublets

2%

0%

Total

#

of doublets

111

8

#

N

doublets

64

4

#

Adj

doublets

33

4

#

V doublets

13

0

#Adv

doublets

1

0

NP

expansions

16%

0%

VP

expansions

14%

28%

SE = 2.6

PP

expansions

7%

2%

1.7

Factive

Nominal

Expansions

2

0

%

of S

which

have

doublet

expansions

79%

36%

SE

=

6.0



Edward

Gibbon

nd Ernest

Hemingway 383

Gibbon

Hemingway

Standard rrors

Triplet

14%

4%

2.5

#

N

expansions triplet)

4

2

#

NP

expansions

2

0

#

V

expansions

2

0

#

VP

expansions

3

0

#

Adj

expansions

0 2

#

PP

expansions

2

0

#

FactiveNominal

expansions

1

0

Quadruplet

3

0

# N

expansions

1' 0

#

NP

expansions

1

0

#

Factive

Nominal

expansions

1

0

Nominalizations

49%

22%

SE

=

4.0

Infinitival ominal

31%

9%

3.9

Total Number

37

10

S

containing

Infinitival 25

8

S

containing

Infinitivais

6

1

GerundiveNominal

16%

4%

....

2.8

Factive Nominal 19% 13%

1.17

Embedding

#

S whichhave

embedded

lements

64%

20%

6.3

Total

#

of

embedded tructures

105 24

#

S

containing

embedded

tructure

36

16

#

S

containing

embedded

tructures

18

4

#

S

containing

embedded tructures

7

0

#

S

containing

embedded

tructures

3

0

S

having

Rei. Cl.

structures

51%

8%

7.0

Total

#

of RC structures

77

10

S having1 RG 30 6

S

having

RG

16

2

S

having

3 RG

5

0

Types

of

Branching

Right Branching

26

4

Deleted

Right

Branching

14

4

Self

Embedded

19

0

Deleted Self

embedded

17

2

S

having

Adv

Clause

structures

23%

12%

2.0

Total

#

Adv Glauses

28

14

S

containing

AC 19

10

S

containing

AC 3 2

S

containing

AC

1

0

Types

of

branching

Right Branching

9

8



384

CURTIS W. HAYES

Gibbon

Hemingway

Standard rrors

Deleted

Right

Branching

2

0

Left

Branching

12

4

Deleted

Left

Branching

1

2

Self

Embedded 4

2

Additive

rocess

Expansion

f

S Slot

%

of

S

which re

expansions

68%

32%

5.1

S

having

conjoined

41

30

S

having

conjoined

S 18

1

S having conjoined 9 0

The

table

ndicates

hatwe

already

new

ntuitively,

hat he

tyles

f

Gibbon and

Hemingway

re different

that the

style

f

Gibbon

s

grand,

majestic,

complex,

nd

that he

tyle

f

Hemingway

n

comparison

s

simple.

he

importance

f

the

ables,

owever,

s

that

they

ffer

s an

objective

measure o

capture

his ntuition.

n

other

words,

we

may

use thetable s a toolto show

he

reasons

ehind

ur

intuition.nstead f

basing

ur

analysis

n

subjectivempressions

nd

using

paque

terminology

o describe

hese

mpressions,

e

may

say

exactly owtwo tyles iffer. enerativerammarsimportantothe

literarynalyst

or hat

reason:

t offers

ima device

hrough

hich

objective

tatementsan be

made

about

tyle.

or

nstance,

e can

say

that

he

tyle

fGibbon

s

more

omplex

han hat

f

Hemingway,

ince

the

number

f

ransformations

er

entence

s an indication

f hat om-

plexity.

his is

further

ndicated

y

the

number

f sentences

aving

embedded tructures

relative

lauses,

dverbial

lauses),

nested

truc-

tures

nominalizations),

nd

expanded

tructures

ithin

hem.

Rarely

are

there ransformational

xpansions

r

embedded

tructures

ithin

Hemingway'sentences.

It

is

traditional

o

say

that

Gibbon's

tyle

s

characteristically

al-

anced.The table hows

he

degree

fthis

arallelism.

ot

only

an

we

say

that

Gibbon

usesa

highdegree

f

parallel

tructures,

e can

also

say

something

bout

the

kinds f

parallel

tructures.

e

can

say

that

thenumber

fdoublet

xpansions

n

Gibbon

ar xceeds

hose

ound

n

Hemingway;

nd that here

re other

ypes

f

balanced

tructures

n

addition

o the

two-membered

alanced

ntity

for

xample,

he

bal-

anced

noun

phrases,

erb

phrases,

nd

prepositional

hrases).

n

sum,

the table

enables

s

to makeexact

descriptions

f each

author's

tyle.

Thefollowingsa statisticalummationf he ransformationsount-

ed.

The list

s

graded

from

most

ignificant

the

passive)

to

least

ig-

nificant

adverbial

lause)

to

nonsignificant.



386

CURTIS W. HAYES

theultimateextual

entence,

ne

may

rrive tthe

degree

f

complex-

ity,

which,

have

maintained,

s one

ndication

f

an author's

tyle.

Since

complexity

s

only

ne

indication

f

style,

he

complexity

n

Gibbon's entences

ay

notdiffer

rom

he

omplexity

n the

entences

of

imilar

uthors,

ay

amuel

Johnson

nd

David

Hume.8

n that

ase,

if

one

may

hypothesize,

he

difference,

f

here

s

any,may

xist

n other

levels

imagery,

etaphor,

tc.).

After

making

hese

trong

laims or he

fficacy

f

transformational

model

n

literary

nalysis,

t

s

perhaps

elf-defeating

o

point

ut

that

thismethods nota panacea forcorrectinghe lls ofpaststylistic

analyses.

With his n

mind,

t

wouldbe

perhaps

elpful

o state

what

this

tudy

as

accomplished

nd what he

imitations

f such a

study

are.

First,

he

study

s

presented

s an

attempt

oward

apturing

he

elusive

notion f

literary

tyle.

et,

as

pointed

ut,

style

xists

t all

levels,

ot

merely

t

the

yntactical

evel;

and

certainlytyle

xists

e-

yond

he

sentence,

ay

n

the

realmof

magery.

his

study,

n other

words,

as

not

exhausted he

possibilities

f

discovering

he

nherent

differences

n

Hemingway's

nd Gibbon's

tyles. othing,

or

xample,

has

been

said

about their

espective

ocabularies.

ertainly

ibbon's

vocabularysmore atinatehanHemingway's;ndthis s a distinctive

difference.

oreover,

transformational

tudy

ould

be

deeper

n

some

respects

for

xample,

n

pointing

o

the

position

f

djectives.

ibbon's

adjectives,

hich

usually

ccur n

attributive

osition,

ould

be com-

pared

to

Hemingway's

djectives,

hich

normally

ccur

n

predicate

position.

o

conclude,

he

mportance

f his

ype

f

nalysis

s that

he

intuitively

elt

differences

etween

wo

differing

tyles

an

at

leastbe

explained

y

the

types

and

frequencies)

ftransformations

hat

ach

author

xploys

n

constructing

is entences.

UniversityfNebraska

Lincoln,

Nebraska

8

am

preparing

manuscript

n

which

compare

he

prose

tyles

f

Gibbon,

Johnson,

nd Hume.

a study in prose style

Documents