View
237
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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 support@jstor.org.
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
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 2/17
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.
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 3/17
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.
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 4/17
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 5/17
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)
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 6/17
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
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 7/17
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.
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 8/17
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.
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 9/17
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)
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 10/17
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 11/17
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 12/17
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
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 13/17
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
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 14/17
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
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 15/17
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.
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 16/17
8/10/2019 A Study in Prose Style
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-study-in-prose-style 17/17
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.
Recommended