The Device of Graphology in Joe Ushies Poetry. Stylistic and Pedagogical Implications

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATION

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

List of Tables

Abstract

Chapter One: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
2.1 Statement of the Problem
3.1 Purpose of the Study
4.1 Significance of the Study
5.1 Research Questions
6.1 Scope and Limitation of the Study
7.1 Conceptual Definition of Terms

Chapter Two: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Conceptual Framework
2.1.1 The Concept of Style: Historical Perspectives
2.1.2 Stylistics and its central concerns
2.1.3 Pedagogical Stylistics
2.1.4 Approaches to stylistic analysis
2.1.4.1 Linguistic Stylistics
2.1.4.2 Literary Stylistics
2.1.4.3 Literary Linguistic Stylistics
2.1.5 Between Stylistic Analysis and Literary Criticism: A Conceptual Separation
2.1.6 Linguistic Levels of Stylistic Analysis
2.1.6.1 Lexical Level
2.1.6.2 Syntactic/Grammatical Level
2.1.6.3 Graphological Level
2.1.6.4 Phonological Level
2.1.6.5 Context Level:
2.1.6.6 Semantic Level
2.1.7 The Concept of Graphology
2.1.8 Levels of analysis within the Graphological Framework: Enquiries into previous Categorization
2.1.9 Present study categorization of graphological devices
2.1.10 Punctuation
2.1.11 Orthography (spellings)
2.1.12 Typography (structure and arrangement)
2.1.13 Pictography (graphical elements)
2.1.14 Fonting
2.1.15 The Place of Deviation in Stylistics
2.1.16 Devices of Linguistic Deviation
2.2 Background of the Author
2.2.1 Joe Ushie as an African Poet and his Thematic Concerns
2.3 Theoretical Framework
2.3.1 Mukrovsky’s Theory of Foregrounding
2.3.2 Theory of Multimodality
2.4 Appraisal of Literature

Chapter Three: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
3.2 Population of the Study
3.3 Sample and Sampling Techniques
3.4 Research Instrument
3.5 Validation of the Instrument
3.6 Reliability of the Instrument
3.7 Procedure for Data Collection
3.8 Method of Data Analysis

Chapter Four: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Presentation of Data
4.3 Data Analysis
4.3.1 Yawns and Belches (2018)
4.3.2 Lambs at the Shrine (1995)
4.3.3 Popular Stand and Other Poems (1992)
4.3.4 Eclipse in Rwanda (1998)
4.3.5 Hill Songs (2000)
4.3.6 A Reign of Locusts (
4.4 Discussion of Findings

Chapter Five: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Summary
5.2 Conclusions
5.3 Recommendations
5.4 Contributions to knowledge

References

Appendices

CERTIFICATION

We certify that this Master’s Dissertation: “The Device of Graphology in Joe Ushie’s Poetry: Stylistic and Pedagogical Implications” was carried out by Nkopuruk, Imikan Nseobong and submitted to the Department of English Studies, College of Humanities, Tai Solarin University of Education, Nigeria in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of a Master of Education (M.Ed.) Degree in English.

DEDICATION

This Master’s Dissertation is dedicated firstly, to the Almighty God for His sustenance through the ups and downs of the academic programme; secondly, to my one-in-a-million parents, for understanding the true significance of child education and sponsorship and lastly, to my very marvelous siblings, for their encouragements and ginger at all times….the journey still continues!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“As long as there is a blue sky above me; as long as there is life in my hands”, my loyalty to God’s reign is steadfast and total. Special acknowledgement goes to the Almighty God, the author and finisher of faith, the alpha and omega, for His sustenance and benevolence. I am grateful to God who supplied me the ability, patience and grace to carry out an elongated research of this sort….always counting on Him, for higher heights.

I am also indebted to my amiable parents, Elder/Deaconess Nseobong Nkopuruk; they deserve a special mention, for their all-round support which metamorphosed into a Master’s Degree in English, today….always counting on them too, for higher heights.

Let me, very remarkably appreciate the supports of the following scholars and authorities of English in no specific order: Dr. Yomi Okunowo (the Colorado Boulder trained scholar of Grammar and stylistics), my role model in a way as well as my indefatigable supervisor, He added strength to my consciousness, revived and deepened my sensitivity towards the study of style; Emeritus Professor A. Lekan Oyeleye of English Department, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, whose moment of sabbatical coincided with this programme and he taught me advanced meaning related courses and buttressed the impartation with sound scholarly etiquettes; Professor Joseph Akinbode, a passionate father who wishes his students what he wishes himself…Sir, frankly, I became a lecturer, that moment you taught us the topic: “The Character of a Scholar”; Professor Sogbessan and now Drs. Amore and Sonde of Department of English, Tai Solarin University of Education, Nigeria; very sincerely, this dissertation is a testimony of your mentoring…always counting on you too, for higher heights.

Professor Niyi Osundare has it that “one finger can never retrieve a fallen needle; one broomstick can never sweep the marketplace; one muscle can never make a fist; one tree can never make a forest”. He adds, “People are my clothes”. This wise claim and assertion suffices my doubt about individual ability…it is as minute as the mustard seed. For this, I recognize very heartedly, my friends: Ekemini Ituen of Akwa Ibom State Ministry of Works, and Miracle Sorgwe – two friends more precious than gold; Lizzy Uko of Federal Polytechnic, Ukana; Nyakno Solomon of Department of Linguistics, University of Port Harcourt; Joy Akpan, Williams Ekerette and Inimfon Udoinyang, my former classmates at the Department of English, University of Uyo; Odunayo Babalola and Adeniyi and Tayo Titilayo, (my landlord’s sons); co-budding scholars: Kehinde Odusina and Lasisi Abu, of Department of English, Tai Solarin University of Education, Nigeria, Abosede and Mayowa Ashimolowo Michael, Mr. Gbenga (my predecessors), Victor Abel Snr. of Department of English, University of Uyo, Ekemini Essien of Federal University of Science and Technology, Akure and Dan, Abasiono Godwin of Department of English, University of Ibadan; relatives: Mfiokma Nelson, Uncle Flow, Ukpeme John et alia and my students on whose shoulders I stood while the research lasted. May God’s blessings abound….always counting on you too, for higher heights.

I extend my gratitude to the authors whose literatures, I reviewed and referenced at the same time. I am not ungrateful to them, for making the knowledge readily available and at my disposal. To every other person, whose names escaped my linguistic description on this space, I am grateful equally, for the character you played towards the success of this academic research. May God bless you all….always counting on you, for higher heights.

Abstract

The concept of Style does not exist in a vacuum; it has meaning when language is used to communicate the message. The central question in stylistics is how a text means and language undoubtedly remains the central medium through which a writer’s style is revealed. Deviation on the other hand happens to be the sharpest way through which a writer foregrounds his intention and achieves aesthetics. By definition, deviation is the conscious attempt of flouting the linguistic norms for the purpose of foregrounding, revealing or defining the writer’s style or peculiarities. This dissertation is an investigation into the poetry of Joe Ushie from the perspective of linguistics. Joe Ushie, a prolific poet has to his credit, six poetry collections and other literary publications. As a matter of fact, scholars of stylistics have scarcely given this poet a deserving attention. This is evident by the insufficient literature in this discipline. More remarkably, none of these collections has been studied stylistically. Again, students whose interests are narrowed into the field of literary stylistics need an articulated and current work in the field to update their knowledge. The identified problems put together, informed the desire for this research. There are different linguistic levels of analyzing a literary or non-literary text. These levels include: syntax, semantics, lexis, phonology, graphology and others; in order to achieve the objectives of this study, this essay investigated the deployment of graphology as a device of meaning and aesthetics. Graphology is the study of language in print; a stylistic instrument which makes Ushie’s writing peculiarity an illustrating example of style as deviation from the actual linguistic norm. The study adopted Foregrounding and Multimodality as theoretical frameworks to the stylistic interpretations of the poetry of this author. Foregrounding as a theory was first put forward by Jan Mukrovsky, a don at the University of Prague. Significantly, by the establishment of a modified model of categorization of Graphological devices, this research will improve the teaching and learning of graphology as a device of literary composition by way of assisting learners to develop linguistic abilities necessary for them to read, understand and respond to literary and non-literary works sensitively.

Keywords: Graphology, Pedagogy, Stylistics, Deviation, Foregrounding and Multimodality

List of Tables

Table 1 - Levenston’s (1992) Model of Graphology

Table 2 - Lennard’s (2005) Model of Graphology

Table 3 - Present Study’s Model of Graphological Categorization

Table 4 - Statistical Presentation of Selected Poems

Table 4.3.1.1 – 4.3.6.4 - Data Analysis

Table 5 - Summary of Response to Research Question

Chapter One: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Over the years, stylistics has often been aligned with literary criticism. The centre of focus was the author’s style which was considered a major theme of this field of study. But in recent times, the focus has gradually shifted from the author’s theme to how meanings and effects are communicated in literary or non-literary texts. However, this shift in focus gave rise to stylistics being a linguistic field of its own away from the former literary criticism. Available literatures in the field of stylistics reveal the fact that traditionally, stylistics is concerned with the study of style in language. Verdonk (2002), in his view, defines it as the analysis of a distinctive expression and description of its purpose and effect. There is a point of convergence between style and meaning. This bond is harnessed given the qualities that they share. For instance, both concepts are interested in such features as are beyond the sentence boundary. The application of pragmatic and stylistic theories to text analysis indicates a clear departure from how texts were analyzed when modern linguistics began to develop. Ehrlich, (1990) informs us that the tradition at the inception of the evolution of modern linguistics was for analysts to confine the analysis of a text to the sentence domain of which was, then, regarded as the largest unit with an inherent structure. The pragmatic meaning of a text can be recovered through the context that produces the text. It is the realization that context is necessary in the exploration of the pragmatic meaning that guides a language user or text producer into employing appropriate linguistic resources in the text in order to achieve the stylistic meaning.

However, although stylistics draws its raw materials from literary works, it does not undervalue the importance of stylistics in non-literary texts. This, as a matter of fact makes it rather difficult sometimes to draw a clear line between literary stylistics and linguistic stylistics. While literary stylistics in this light is concerned with the use of linguistic techniques and dwelling heavily on external correlates (history, philosophy, source of inspiration, etc) as well as occasional leap into the elements of language used to interpret a text, the linguistic stylistics is about engaging in stylistic analysis in order to test or define a linguistic model – which in turn will contribute to the formation of linguistic theory; the latter also relies heavily on the ‘scientific rules’ of language in its analysis. Such rules as (Isidore, 2010) observes, will cover the lexical, grammatical, figures of speech, context and cohesion categories; it describes the elements of language used in conveying a certain subject matter. Stylistics hardly develops a theory of its own; instead, it relies so much on theories developed from other disciplines such as literature, photography, psychology, history and a lot more others. This is why it is often regarded as a ‘prostitute’ according to (Jeffries and McIntyre, 2010).

Subsequently, the development of stylistics as an independent field of linguistics, paved way for new theories, principles, concepts and models to aid the perspectives through which meanings and aesthetics are perceived in texts. Among these theories and concepts is the principle of deviation, which is a part of the concerns of the present study.

Deviation as a concept has received a special interest from stylisticians. It refers to the conscious attempt of flouting the linguistic norms for the purpose of foregrounding, revealing or defining the author’s style or peculiarities. Deviation, used in functional and condensed way, enhances and supports the possible meaning of the text, in other words, providing the readers with the possibility of aesthetic knowledge and the author’s defined style of writing.

According to (Short, 2000), the principle of deviation occurs by employing abnormal forms of language and breaking up the reader's routine behavior; by this, unremarkable views and perspectives are replaced with new and unexpected insights and sensations. In stylistics, deviation is a style. The concept of style as deviation is informed by the notion that certain rules and conventions exist in the study of language and a conscious departure from these common practices for the purpose of aesthetics and meaning delivery constitutes the background for the understanding of the term: ‘deviation’. Deviation may occur at any level of language description. For instance: phonological, syntactic, graphological, lexico-semantic etc.

This study however, focuses attention on graphological deviation which is understood as the variant means of language use in print to actualize the meaning of a text. The most distinct graphological feature in poetry is the linear arrangement of the poem in contrast to paragraphing in the case of prose. The irregular right-hand margin of poems, the strange use of parenthesis and the discarding of capital letters as used by E. E. Cummings, Christopher Okigbo, Wole Soyinka and others, fall under this division. Other graphological features include: the unusual but symbolic spacing, the italicizing of certain words and passages to denote a different context, the frequency of some punctuation marks and their prosodic and semiotic effects are the other possible graphological features of poetry. The poetry of Joe Ushie however, is characterized by these features and these inform the desire of this study.

2.1 Statement of the Problem

Stylistics being a relatively new and independent linguistic discipline has recorded an innumerable influx of researches and literary assessment by scholars in that field; new theories, concepts, models and principles have also sprung up in the field of stylistics and attempts have in recent times been made by literary critics and stylisticians to apply these emerging theories and principles into the analysis of texts. The linguistic levels of analysis have often been the hallmark of any stylistic analysis of a text. These levels include: Lexis, syntax, morphology, graphology, phonology etc. Related literatures like (Isidore, 2010, Chatman, 1967, Van Peer, 1980 etc) have revealed the fact that researchers attempt to explore at a stretch, all these levels of analysis in a text, thereby heralding some deficiencies in the individual linguistic levels. This is why the present study specifically addresses how the author communicates meaning through the device of graphology.

Again, although there are arising researches in the area of stylistics, none of these has dwelt on a linguistic stylistic study of Joe Ushie’s poetry. This author belongs the generation of Nigerian poets often referred to as ‘Contemporary poets’. He has to his credit, six poetry collections and other literary publications. As a matter of fact, scholars of stylistics have scarcely given this poet a deserving attention. At different instances, most attempts at studying this author are based on journal articles, the example of Rome Aboh’s Proverbs and Euphemisms as Discourse Strategies in Joe Ushie's Poetry. More remarkably, none of Ushie’s collections has been studied at the level of dissertation, yet, Ushie is a renowned poet whose beautifully complex sentence types and structures, intelligent lexical and graphological foregrounding cannot be overemphasis.

Finally, students whose interests are narrowed into the field of linguistic stylistics need an articulate and current work in the field to update their knowledge. All these problems put together, inform the researcher’s desire for this study with the title: The Device of Graphology in Joe Ushie’s Poetry: Stylistic and Pedagogical Implications.

3.1 Purpose of the Study

Apart from proposing a model of categorization of the graphological devices for the stylistic analysis of texts, the major purpose of the study is to carry out a graphological analysis of Joe Ushie’s poetry. However, the specific purpose of the study includes:

1) To identify the patterns of graphology found in Ushie’s poetry?
2) To examine the extent to which the identified patterns of graphology are signifiers of meaning?
3) To identify the pedagogical influences that can be brought to bear by graphology in understanding Ushie’s poetry?

4.1 Significance of the Study

The ultimate aim of carrying out a research is to develop knowledge. Abdulwahab (2004) opines that it is expected of every research project to have something new to contribute to knowledge in that subject area, however small as this represents the hallmark of all research endeavours. In the area of stylistics, graphological knowledge is central to the understanding and better appreciation of a literary text. This study however, postulates the following significance:

Firstly, apart from questioning the existing norm of graphological analysis and contributing to knowledge in the field of stylistics, by way of modification of previous models, the knowledge of graphology embedded in this research will assist critics and stylisticians in sharpening their awareness of the stylistic patterning of language, which they will put to extensive use in literary and non-literary texts.

Secondly, the study provides the students with an overwhelming sensitivity with language use thus, revealing the writer’s conscious attempt at deviating from the linguistic norm; and also enhancing their in-depth and critical understanding as well as appreciation of texts.

Lastly, the study will serve as a guide and resource material to scholars and learners who may wish to carry out research in the area of stylistics as findings generated from the study will be of great benefit for further enquires.

5.1 Research Questions

Based on the statement of the problem stated above, the research examines the following questions in order to achieve the purpose of this study:

1) What are the patterns of graphology found in Ushie’s poetry?
2) To what extent are the identified patterns of graphology signifiers of meaning?
3) What are the pedagogical influences that can be brought to bear by graphology in understanding Ushie’s poetry?

6.1 Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study is limited to graphological level of linguistic stylistic analysis, for two obvious reasons: firstly, the research did not consider the other levels, for avoidance of deficiency and awkwardness, having studied six poetry collections; secondly, the research is not on General Stylistics – which analyses nonliterary variety of language or registers. The other levels of linguistic stylistic analysis not considered are: the syntactic level, morphological level, lexico-semantic level and the phonological level.

Conceptual Definition of Terms

For the purpose of clear understanding of the study, the following terms are defined within the context of this research:

(1) Deviation: Deviation is defined as the movement away from the linguistic norms and conventions to create sensitivity and inform, foreground and define the author’s styles and peculiarities.
(2) Device: The linguistic instrumentality designed to achieve a particular stylistic effect. In the case of this study, the device is Graphology.
(3) Graphology: Graphology is a linguistic level of text analysis that focuses on language in print. It is the study of handwriting (especially as an indicator of the writer's character or disposition).
(4) Pedagogy: The activities of educating or instructing; activities that impart knowledge or skill.
(5) Poetry: Poetry is a genre of literature which arises as a reaction to man’s interaction with nature and the attempt to express such experience in beautiful lexical items. It is a form of literature that uses aesthetic and rhythmic qualities of language to evoke meanings and express thoughts and feelings.
(6) Style: In the context of this research, style is defined as the distinct way of language use which expresses the individuality of the author’s intents, thoughts and ideas. Style refers to the language conventions used to construct the author’s identity and intentions.
(7) Stylistics: Stylistics is an independent genre of linguistics that studies the styles and peculiarities of a written or spoken text.

Chapter Two: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Conceptual Framework

2.1.1 The Concept of Style: Historical Perspectives

Style as a concept is usually perceived as being common and elusive. In spite of this simplicity, style, technically could imply different things to different people. For instance, according to Ogum (2002:22), critics see it as “individuality”, rhetoricians as “the speaker”; philologists as “the latent”; the linguists as “formal structures in function” and the psychologists as “a form of behaviour”. The origin of style is traceable to the Latin word “stilus”, meaning “a pointed instrument used for writing”. This was the perception behind this notion about 2000 years ago. However, in recent times, there is more to style than being “a pointed instrument used for writing”. The definitions of style do not only point to the instrument used by the writer but by extension, to the characteristics of the writing itself in terms of the formal property of the text and how the writer communicates meaning.

Style is most often discussed in the context of literary studies. However, the word ‘style’ in its most general sense of ‘a way of doing things’ is used in multiple contexts. The collocation range of this word enfolds almost every sphere of human activity. The Oxford English Dictionary has recorded as many as twenty-eight different entries under the term style. As a critical concept, style has been the focus of attention for centuries and has been studied from various perspectives. Different schools of thought worked in explaining and understanding this term, which put a large number of definitions which some of them appear to be overlapping while others seem to be contradictory. As a literary critical term, ‘style’ denotes a characteristic use of language. Style has been variously defined according to its orientation in the writer’s personality, the impressions of the reader, an individual text and the collective features of a genre.

The origin of the concept of style can be traced back to the classical school of rhetoric, which regards style as a part of the techniques of persuasion and discusses it under oratory. According to classical tradition, oratory is the art of discovering all possible means of persuasions. A branch of rhetoric in ancient Greece, ‘eloctio’ was specially related to the relation between form (vorba) and content (res) and the characteristic features of literary language. The discipline has originated the popular dualist approach to style based on the dichotomy between form and content. All the ‘rhetorical’ notions of style, which persisted through many succeeding centuries, hold this dualist view as against the monist one (Leech and Short, 1881, cited in Akwanya, 2006).

However, there are many figurative descriptions of this view of style during the history of Renaissance and Neo-Classical periods. Puttenham a Renaissance scholar, compares style to flowers, jewels, embroidery. For Samuel Wesley, it is a ‘dress of thought’. Alexander de pope describes stylistics as the equivalent of ‘true wit’, which consists in ‘what oft was thought, but never so well expressed’ and other definition as well. All these definitions or descriptions reflect an artificial and ornamental view of style. In all these centuries, style was focus on the doctrine of ‘decorum’. Three main types of style were learned: grand, middle and plain, (Enkvist (1973). The traditional dualistic view later clashed with the monist organic view of style of the new critics. For them, the underlying thought can never be separated from its final verbal form and that the only means of reading the writer’s mind is the completed text, which is a product of the synthesis of thought and style. This traditional understanding of style has other weaknesses of being prescriptive and not descriptive in its nature and scope. It is interested in providing only a ‘set of maxims’ which should be rigorously producing certain effects. It is full of words having fixed meaning and certain types of structures are invariably associated with certain effects (Leech, 1969).

2.1.2 Stylistics and its central concerns

Stylistics as a branch of literary criticism emerged in continental Europe in the early twentieth century. It was found to be in conformity with the critical thought of the time. The nineteenth century, being characterized by revolutionary discoveries in the natural science and the rise of social science, such Sociology and Anthropology, provided a suitable atmosphere for the emergence of an objective and analytical method of inquiry. Stylistics then, is the outcome of the application of objective and analytical method of inquiry in the field of literary criticism. Viewed in its historical perspective, however, stylistics may be said to have been influenced by the continental movements mainly by the school of New Criticism, Russian formalism and Prague school, French structuralism and modern linguistics which paved the way for stylistics and later contributed to its development.

Stylistics is the “science” of style. In other words, it is the scientific study of style. Toolan (1998) defines it as the study of the language in literature. It is basically concerned with the understanding of technique or the craft of writing. It therefore becomes the duty of a stylistician to bring about the close examination of the linguistic particularities or peculiarities of a literary work, an understanding of the anatomy and functions of the language.

Longe and Ofuani (1996:359) see it as “solely concerned with the investigation of the artistry of language usage in literature”. Ndimele (2001:15) defines stylistics as “a branch of linguistics which studies the application of linguistics to the study of literature”. Stylistics is only a part of applied linguistics family and not a core branch; this is because it is concerned with the practical methods of assisting in the explanation of intuitive reader responses to a work of literature without any criticism of badness or goodness of the writing.

While Anagbogu et al (2010:33) define stylistics as “the application of the knowledge of linguistics to literary appreciation”, Leech (2008:1) defines it as “the linguistic study of literary texts”. In a more generalized perspective, Enkvist (1973:11) regards it as discipline “concerned with the theory and analysis of style”(qtd. in Asher and Simpson 4378). But these definitions appear too eclectic. Leech and Short (2007:11) see it as “the linguistic study of style” or “the study of language as used in literary texts, with the aim of relating it to its artistic functions” (13).

Finally, Wellek and Warren (1977: 176) opine that “linguistic study becomes literary only when it serves the study of literature; when it aims at investigating the aesthetic effect of language” (Eyoh 2005). Literary work is the field par excellence of stylistics. So, stylistics is a bridge science, creating a bond between linguistics and literature (Akwanya 2006:163). In other words, it synergizes or sits athwart the boundary between linguistics and literature; ensuring their interdependence. This is because “a linguist deaf to the poetic function of language and a literary scholar indifferent to linguistic problems and unconversant with linguistic method are equally flagrant anachronisms” as opined by Jakobson in Onwukwe (2009: i).

On this note therefore, it becomes problematic demarcating literature from language and vice versa as students are made to specialize in either of them. The inseparable nature of language and literature makes it is impossible for one to specialize in literature without being competent in the language in which the literature is written. Equally, the mastery of the various levels of linguistics – phonetics/phonology, syntax, semantics and morphology would be unnecessary if the person cannot make a resourceful or creative use of the levels of linguistics mastered. Hence stylistics comes to create a mutual relationship between language and literature so as to be competent in both of them.

In summary, Stylistics is concerned with the writer’s deployment of the formal properties of a text and how readers interact with the language of (literary and non-literary) texts in order to explain how we understand, and are affected by texts when we read them.

2.1.3 Pedagogical Stylistics

Pedagogical stylistics has at least two facets. One embraces the pedagogical usefulness and potential of stylistics for teaching (the language of) literature. The other includes the role of stylistics in L1 and L2 pedagogies, that is, the teaching and learning of (English) language through literature. Behbood (2015) emphasizes that pedagogical stylistics examines the language of literature in both sentence level and the whole texts to encourage students develop their awareness of the connection between language and literature. The complex developments within literary criticism over the last 20 years have affected the interplay between literature, language and language education in the language classroom. Reflections on the author’s intentions, textuality, measurements of responses of readers as well as discussions about literary texts to be included in the canon formation influence approaches to the way literature is taught and the view that in learning a foreign language its literature should be read.

In turn, because of the role of English in the world and the status of World Englishes, there has been a growing awareness of the need for highly profiled environments in which English is taught as a Foreign Language (EFL), for example. Research in second and foreign language studies and in pedagogical stylistics has increased immensely. The pedagogical aim of stylistics in teaching (literary) language and how this language functions is based on how we as readers – native and non-native – come from the word on the page to its meanings, Bex (1999). Stylistics as a method can help explain how a particular use of language works within a text for both the native and the non-native speaker and how texts are interpreted and understood by the reader. According to Carter and Stockwell (2008), pedagogical stylistics developed in the 1970s and became very practical as one way of evading the attacks leveled at stylistics. To a large extent, language was then taught also using literary texts which represented a rather attractive option for some L2 learners as contemporary literature was often chosen. Some language teachers were of the opinion that works that prominently made a foregrounded use of linguistic tools were especially suited to show language in action. For others the former would only be appropriate for advanced learners. But also lately a more concerned view has been voiced which stresses that stylistics has contributed to methodologies in the teaching of literature and that, therefore, L1 and L2 methods are embedded in stylistics.

Pedagogical stylistics is intrinsically linked with the teaching of the linguistic features of written texts as a means of enhancing students’ understanding of literature and language. It is based on the premise that stylisticians who are involved with teaching should be aware of the pedagogical orientation and reading paradigms which inform their practice. It is also a theoretical dimension to research undertaken into practice in the stylistics classroom. Pedagogical stylistics emphasizes that the process of improving students’ linguistic sensibilities must include greater emphasis upon the text as action; that is, upon the mental processing which is such as proactive part of reading and interpretation; and how all of these elements – pragmatic and cognitive as well as linguistic – function within quite specific social and cultural contexts. The knowledge gained from the study of pedagogical stylistics will help students in understanding how language, grammar and rhetoric function in texts. It will follow these steps: firstly, students will acquire the knowledge that leads them to comprehend the basic grammatical and rhetoric concepts. Secondly, it will boost their practical knowledge, whereby students are able to analyze texts with the tool they have acquired at the first stage. The third stage is when students go into a mode of synthesizing all they have learned, which, in turn, allows them to move on to the production stage. Such a process is valuable, for example, in the contemporary creative writing classroom.

2.1.4 Approaches to stylistic analysis

There are three major approaches to the study of stylistics, Ogunsiji and Farinde (2013) observe. They include: linguistic stylistics; literary stylistics and literary linguistic stylistics.

2.1.4.1 Linguistic Stylistics

This approach lays emphasis on the description of the formal pattern in a text using a linguistic basis. The application of linguistics in stylistics is intended to create awareness about the internal use of language in a text. The description of formal patterns can help in objectifying stylistic analysis as well as enabling the critic or readers to discipline their intuitive responses to text. Linguistic stylistics does not deny the fact that intuition plays a major role in textual interpretation; neither does it prevent an analyst from expressing his intuition in the analysis. All it claims is just that the process of arriving at the intuition must be made explicit and be backed up with the necessary tangible linguistic evidence.

2.1.4.2 Literary Stylistics

Literary stylistics focuses exclusively on literary texts. In its application to literary texts, it specifically focuses on the meaning and value attached to the text. Literary stylistics is sometimes referred to “Literary Criticism”. Albeit literary stylistics occasionally may involve the rudimentary analysis of the structure and form of a literary text, it however readily employs the use of literary categories in the analysis of the text.

2.1.4.3 Literary Linguistic Stylistics

This can be seen in two ways. The first is the analysis of a literary text via a linguistic means. The second however, is the analysis of a literary text via both means provided by linguistic or literary studies. In connection with the latter conception, stylistics critics have criticized the procedure of some linguistic stylisticians who pride themselves in the elaboration of form in textual analysis at the expense of the message and values (content) of the text. Secondly, critics also criticize a literary approach which over concentrates on textual values. A purely linguistic approach will only serve as good academic experience without benefiting experience, whereas, a purely literary work will lose sight of relevant forms of language which conceal within their patterns of experience, Ogunsiji and Farinde (2010)

2.1.5 Between Stylistic Analysis and Literary Criticism: A Conceptual Separation

Verdonk (2002) in his observation puts it that style does not arise out of a vacuum rather, its production, purpose, and effect are deeply embedded in the particular context in which both the writer and the reader of the text play their distinctive roles. He further opines that the critic should be able to draw a distinction between the two types of context: linguistic and non-linguistic context. What then is the difference? Linguistic context refers to the surrounding features of language inside a text, like the typography, sounds, words, phrases, and sentences, which are relevant to the interpretation of other such linguistic elements. Furthermore, he believes that the nonlinguistic context is a much more complex notion since it may include any number of text external features influencing the language and style of a text. Analysis in stylistics, therefore involves a range of general language qualities, which include diction, sentence patterns, structure and variety, paragraph structure, imagery, repetition, emphasis, arrangement of ideas and other cohesive devices.

Stylistics, Literary Criticism and Practical Criticism have certain things in common. Stylistics studies and describes the formal features of the text, that is, the levels of expression vis-à-vis the content, thus bringing out their functional significance for the interpretation of the work. The stylistician may rely on his intuition and interpretative skills just as the literary critic, but the former tries to keep at bay, vague and impressionistic judgment Isidore, (2010:35). According to what is mentioned above, it can be concluded that both subjective and objective evidences are used by the stylistician. Subjective evidence relates to the stylistician’s intuitions and interpretive skills (in this aspect, as mentioned above, there is a similarity between a literary critic and stylistician).Objective evidence comes from investigating the form of the language in a text and here there is no room for intuition and this objective evidence can be considered a basis which prevents from vague and incorrect interpretations. This assertion aligns with the view of Nkopuruk and Odusina (2019). To them, Objectivity posits that, such observations and analyses made by a critic should always be backed with tangible linguistic evidence away from intuitive response. Although this assertion may raise a seeming contrast between the terms linguistic stylistics and literary stylistics, a definition of these terms provided by Isidore can remove this confusion: Stylistics is the scientific study of style. Any such study that leans heavily on external correlates with none or just a smattering of attention to the ‘rules guiding the operation of the language’ can be regarded as literary stylistics. The converse of this premise (i.e. a study that relies heavily on the rules guiding the operation of the language in the explication of a literary text) is what we regard here as linguistic stylistics (2010:36).

Therefore, we have basically , two types of stylistics: literary and linguistic stylistics. To make a judgment about something, we need different evidences. As far as a literary text is concerned, two evidences, internal and external evidence, can help us to come to an appropriate interpretation of a text. Therefore, to interpret a text stylistically both external and internal evidence are needed. According to the definition provided above by Isidore (2010), the literary stylistics can take the form of external evidence and the linguistics study can take the form of internal evidence. In summary, both literary and linguistic stylistics should be considered for the process of stylistic analysis to come to a stylistically appropriate interpretation.

Furthermore, Enkvist (1973: 92) observes that linguistic stylistics differs from literary criticism where brilliant intuitions and elegant, often metaphoric, verbalizations of subjective responses are at a premium. Stanley E. Fish’s article “What is Stylistics and why are they Saying such Terrible Things about it?” in Essays in Modern Stylistics (1981) says: Stylistics was born of a reaction to the subjectivity and imprecision of literary studies. For the appreciative raptures of the impressionistic critic, stylisticians purport to substitute precise and rigorous linguistic descriptions, and to proceed from those descriptions to interpretations for which they claim a measure of objectivity. Stylistics, in short, is an attempt to put criticism on a scientific basis. Generally speaking, both linguistic stylistics and literary criticism are concerned with the quest for matter and manner in a literary work of art. Like literary criticism, stylistics is interested in the message of the work, and how effectively it is delivered. Both linguistic stylistics and literary criticism rigorously analyze and synthesize a work of art with a common aim of presenting both the merits and the demerits of the work, and in so doing, elucidate the work. In spite of such common factor existing between linguistic stylistics and literary criticism, one finds that there lies a difference in their modus operandi, and consequently a difference in their evaluations. Whereas linguistic stylistics begins and concludes its analysis and synthesis from the literary text itself, rigorously examining how a special configuration of language has been used in the realization of a particular subject matter, quantifying all the linguistic means (including imagery) that coalesced to achieve a special aesthetic purpose; literary criticism does not suffer that restriction to the work of art under analysis. In its own analysis, it intermittently works on the text, but occasionally wanders off and brings in extra-linguistic, extra-textual material (may be from philosophy, psychology, biography, social history, etc.) to bear on the work. The result is that, whereas linguistic stylistics comes up with a somewhat objective evaluation, based on realistic criteria; literary criticism comes up with that which is generally imaginative, speculative, subjective, and impressionistic (Isidore, 2010:30).

Finally, here lies the major difference between linguistic stylistics and literary criticism – a point more lucidly corroborated by Leech and Short (1981) while discussing “Style, Text and Frequency”: Aesthetic terms used in the discussion of style (urbane, curt, exuberant, florid, lucid, plain, vigorous, etc.) are not directly referable to any observable linguistic features of texts, and one of the long-term aims of stylistics must be to see how far such descriptions can be justified in terms of descriptions of a more linguistic kind. The more a critic wishes to substantiate what he says about style, the more he will need to point to the linguistic evidence of texts; and linguistic evidence, to be firm, must be couched in terms of numerical frequency. So, quantitative stylistics on the one hand may provide confirmation for the ‘hunches’ or insights we have about style.

On the other, it may bring to light, significant features of style which would otherwise have been overloaded, and so lead to further insights; but only in a limited sense does it provide an objective measurement of style. Moreover, the role of quantification depends on how necessary it is to prove one’s point… intuition has a respectable place both in linguistics and criticism.

2.1.6 Linguistic Levels of Stylistic Analysis

Many scholars have all shared their diverse views about the levels of stylistic analysis. Such levels, Crystal and Davy (1969); Turner (1973); Leech and Short (1981); among other recent scholars such as Alabi (2008); Wales (2011); Khan and Jabeen (2015) observe as being indispensable tools in analyzing a text whether spoken or written. However, this research focuses on written forms. Analysis in stylistics therefore involves a range of general language qualities, which include sentence patterns, structure and variety, paragraph structure, imagery, repetition, emphasis, arrangement of ideas and other cohesive devices. The levels of stylistic analysis according to Khan and Jabeen (2015) are basically lexical, syntactic or grammatical, phonological, semantic, context and graphological. Detailed explanations of these levels are given below

2.1.6.1 Lexical Level

Lexis simply refers to words in language. It has to do with the entire words and phrases of a particular language. Ogunsiji & Farinde (2013) observe this level as that of word choice. Our choice of words is however unique. This is because they could be conditioned by diverse factors like heredity, training and even experience. A lexical study of style involves the identification of the constituents/features of a word in a sentence. It can be used to derive stylistic effect in an advertisement. Khan and Jabeen (2015:128) see the lexical level of stylistics analysis as the study of the way in which individual words and idioms tend to pattern in different linguistic contexts on the meaning level in terms of stylistics.

2.1.6.2 Syntactic/Grammatical Level

This level of analysis involves both syntax and morphology. For Khan and Jabeen (2015:128), “the aim is to analyze the internal structure of sentences in a language and the way they function in sequences, clauses, phrases, words, nouns, verbs etc. need to be distinguished and put through an analysis to find out the foregrounding and the derivation”. “Syntax is the study of the pattern of arrangements of how words combined to form phrases, clauses, and sentences” (Jolayemi 2008). Here, the syntactic functions of different parts of speech will be analysed. Syntactic functions such as nouns (as subjects, objects, appositives, tenses etc.); adverbs as modifiers, determinants and so on will be investigated. Morphology to Jolayemi (2008) is the study of word-formation, in other words, the study of how morphemes (smallest units of a word) whether free or bound form words. There are various morphological processes. However, the ultimate notion of morphology is the transposition of words. Detailed evidence of the morphological level will be sought in the selected bank adverts viz-a-viz their stylistic functional relevance.

2.1.6.3 Graphological Level

This level is seen as the study of language patterns in print. Khan and Jabeen (2015:128) see this as the analogous study of a language’s writing system and formalized rules of spellings. Leech (1969:39) notes that graphology transcends orthography as it refers to the whole writing system. In the same vein, it is referred to as a level of linguistic analysis which focuses on the layout of texts, the size or shape of words and any other feature that is graphical or orthographical (Yeibo and Akerele 2014). The importance of graphology in a text is to capture the eye of the reader. Graphology offers the reader a solid impression by communicating the exact mind of the writer. Graphological devices include punctuation (comma, full stop, colon, semi-colon, and quotation marks, etc.), paragraphing, spacing, foregrounding of structures and so on. All these devices have stylistic effects.

Alabi (2008:172) categorically offers an insight into the use of punctuation marks. He notes that quotation marks are used to demarcate direct utterances; commas separate sentential elements for a short pause, semi-colon are also used to pause but longer than that of comma, question marks ends a question for emphasis sake and so on. Foregrounding is a deliberate act of making a feature prominent or important. It is used in order to catch the attention of the audience instantly. Alabi made examples of “lower case letters”, bold print, CAPITALIZATION, italics, underlining as cases of foregrounding. Evidence of foregrounding and other instances of graphology in writing will be investigated in subsequent sections.

2.1.6.4 Phonological Level

Khan and Jabeen (2015) say that this level of stylistic analysis is concerned with the study of the sound system of a given language, that is; the formal rules of pronunciation. This level is concerned with how sound devices function in achieving stylistic significance in texts. Example of phonological devices include: alliteration, assonance, consonance and phonaesthesia. This level according to Alabi (2008) is the level of sounds and sounds combination. Thus, if one says some sounds are similar or dissimilar, one must provide the textual or linguistic evidence. However, such a deliberate use of sounds will also have meaning since one does not use language in a vacuum. Because language is primarily spoken, this level is the richest and most important (Ogunsiji and Farinde, 2013).

2.1.6.5 Context Level:

The context level can also be referred to as the pragmatic level of stylistic analysis. This level sees context as the spine of meaning. It deals with culture and it encompasses social context, age group context, racial context, ideological context as well as political and religious contexts. For instance, a word may be meaningful to some culture while it may not to another. Since stylistics also concerns itself with the sociocultural context which reading and writing take place, contextual factors such as the cultural background of the reader and the situation in which the text is read must be taken into consideration when analyzing a text at the level of context.

2.1.6.6 Semantic Level

Put simply, this level is concerned with the meaning of words and sentences. At the semantic level, words may be used to produce denotative, connotative, collocative, affective, thematic, or stylistic meanings based on the speaker’s or writer’s intention. Certain characteristic use of words may help us to identify the context of a text, its genre, its communicative purposes, its author, and so on. This level is often referred to “stylistic meaning”.

2.1.7 The Concept of Graphology

Graphology is viewed as a linguistic level of analysis that concerns with the study of graphic aspects language. Put simply, Graphology is the study of language in print. The concept of graphology as a linguistic level of analysis is particularly prominent in stylistics and multimodality. It is as new as stylistics itself. It was first introduced into use in linguistic studies in the sixties by McIntosh in the year 1961. McIntosh in his paper entitled “Graphology and Meaning” opined thus: “I have used the word ‘graphology’ in a sense which is intended to answer, in the realm of written language, to that of ‘phonology’ in the realm of spoken language” (McIntosh, 1961 cited in Eva, 2015). In other words, graphology is to written language what phonology is to spoken language. McIntosh’s definition caught on and developed in the sixties and served in its attempt to integrate more levels than the traditional ones when analyzing written texts. It was mainly developed in UK stylistics, and generally applied to the description and study of poetry and literary texts, although this was not always the case (Crystal and Davy 1969).

In the later years, Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens (1964:50) expanded the concept of graphology to include spellings, punctuations, capitalizations, italicizations and many other graphic resources related matters in language. This move however, has given rise to many other linguists like Vachek (1973) Sampson (1985), Coulmas (1991, 1999), Harris (1995) and Eva (2015) who also have researched about the concept of graphology with focus on the properties of alphabets and their historical evolution. How graphological deviation may affect an author’s meaning and produce aesthetic effects has been the major focus of scholars within the stylistics jurisdiction in recent times. For instance, according to Van Peer (1993) typographic foregrounding as well as its evolution is viewed as a poetic device while Nanny (2001) views the iconic properties of verses according to their length. Given the recent relevance of pictures and images in communication, there is an attempt, currently, to integrate some graphological elements into the study of communication modes. In order to highlight the semiotic potential of type-face, (Van Leeuwen & Jewitt, 2001) have delved into the creation of meaning through certain graphological elements such as typography, print layout as well as colour.

Despite all these studies, literature in this field is yet to outline or categorize a standard parameter for graphological analysis, which is one of the major concerns of the present study. Together with this setback, there is also a general consensus that graphology is neither relevant nor interesting in itself and, to some extent, a greater number of people still misunderstand the real meaning of this word (Eva, 2015). In view of these controversies surrounding the concept of graphology, this section of the study provides an in-depth insight into the linguistic nature of this term as well as explaining how the concept has evolved from once being simply analogous to phonology, to later becoming a complete and independent principle comprising many different elements.

Graphology, unlike other linguistic genres such as syntax, phonetics or morphology, is a controversial concept whose meaning tends to be blurred. According to (Eva, 2015:2), this confusion is occasioned by two factors: the non-linguistic meanings attached to this concept and the varied treatment the word has received from dictionaries, manuals and works of reference in general. Wales (2001) has attempted a seemingly clearest and most complete definition of graphology so far, since it clarifies its meaning and incorporated many other features beyond the letters of alphabet, for example: punctuation and spacing.

(Eva, 2015) observes that the very first problem when dealing with graphology is its unclear meaning. This confusion with vague meaning may be due to its double filiation, i.e graphology as it concerns the study of writing systems, and as it also concerns character analysis based on handwriting. On most occasions, it is this non-linguistic use of the term that most commonly comes to mind when using the word graphology, as recorded in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (2011). It views graphology as the inference of character from a person’s handwriting. The theory underlying graphology is that handwriting is an expression of personality; hence, a systematic analysis of the way words and letters are formed can reveal traits of personality. (Harris, 1995) Graphologists note such elements as the size of individual letters and the degree and regularity of slanting, ornamentation, angularity, and curvature. Other basic considerations are the general appearance and impression of the writing, the pressure of upward and downward strokes, and the smoothness of the writing. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011)

This non-linguistic meaning is further complicated by the uneven treatment that graphology has received from previous researchers. While some research has directly ignored its linguistic meaning and just concentrated on its psychological aspects, other studies have reflected its linguistic nature. In this sense, the Oxford English Dictionary (2013) elaborately defines the linguistic side of graphology as “the study of written and printed symbols and of writing systems”. Although this definition appears in fourth position, there is however, a third possibility when defining graphology which consists of giving prominence to its linguistic value.

Graphology, however, is an essential part of the description of any written language. The use of the word may be unfamiliar. It has been chosen to parallel ‘phonology’, and the term includes orthography, punctuation, and anything else that is concerned with showing how a language uses its graphic resources to carry its grammatical and lexical patterns (Halliday et al. 1964: 50). Whilst the proposals by McIntosh (1961) and Halliday et al. (1964) were crucial for the expansion of the concept in linguistics and stylistics, they still failed to clarify the elements to be analyzed within this category. For this reason, the definition adopted by this study is that given by Wales (2001: 182-183) in A Dictionary of Stylistics. For her, graphology or graphemics is the study of graphemes and any other element related to the written medium, and of the linguistic system that is manifested through these:

The study of such units [graphemes] in a language is called graphemics or graphology. […] Graphemics also embraces other features associated with the written or graphic medium: punctuation; paragraphing; spacing, etc. Different registers make particular use of such graphological features as: size of print and capitalization in newspaper and advertising lay-outs; different typefaces and sizes in dictionaries such as this one; special lines in poetry, etc. […] Graphology can also refer to the writing system of a language, as manifested in handwriting and typography; and to the other related features […] e.g. capitalization and punctuation. (Wales 2001: 182-183).

The novelty of the definition offered by Wales (2001) lies in the fact that it broadens the spectrum of elements to be analyzed within the category of graphology beyond the letters of the alphabet, which is something that has not been considered until very recently. She also gives equal importance to the writing system itself and to the discipline that focuses on its analysis, since these are the key aspects that define the concept of graphology. In short, Wales (2001) aims to go beyond the traditional perspective in the treatment of graphology.

2.1.8 Levels of analysis within the Graphological Framework: Enquiries into previous Categorization

Various scholars such as Levenston (1992) and Lennard (2005) have attempted series of proposals for a standard pattern of categorization of the elements within the graphological framework of linguistic stylistic analysis. The present study is in a way, an extension of the previous proposals. Notwithstanding the few setbacks that enwrap the proposals of these two scholars, their works constitute a valuable contribution to the study of graphology. Their researches are a positive response and reaction to one of the controversial questions in relation to this level of linguistic analysis: what are the different levels and sub-levels to be included under the term graphology. Their proposals imply a great step forward in linguistics and stylistics studies because they organize graphological features in a systematic and structured way.

Accordingly, Levenston (1992) criticizes the lack of critical approaches to the study of graphology and proposes four major schemes within the graphic representation of language. They include: Spelling, punctuation, typography and layout (see table 1) below.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 1. Levenston’s (1992) proposal on the study of graphological elements

Levenston in his proposal above aligns his thoughts with Firth’s (1957) model of linguistic description, stressing the significance of graphology like that of other linguistic levels such as phonology, semantics, grammar or lexis for the study of literary texts. As a result of this, Levenston (1992) further solicits more attention for graphological elements and though his book is of less theoretical density (Eva, 2015), it became vital since it appeared the only comprehensive approach to the role of graphology in literature. This was before Lennard’s proposal emerged.

However, Lennard’s (2005) proposal differs from that Levenston’s (1992) in its aim and scope. Although both scholars cover the concept of graphology to a considerable extent, Lennard is devoted to composition and punctuation. He labels what we call graphology as punctuation and devotes attention not just to punctuation marks but also to spelling, typefaces or spacing, to mention just a few. Lennard (2005) unlike Levenston also proposes a scheme of eight different descriptive levels that enhance the analysis of matters affecting graphology according to his publication – The Poetry Handbook (2005). According to (Eva, 2015), the scale is organized from the more rudimentary elements —the letterforms that punctuate the blank space in a page— to the more complex ones —the creation of a book as a complete unit of punctuation—.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 2. Lennard’s (2005) proposal on the study of graphological elements

2.1.9 Present study categorization of graphological devices

The present study presents a modification arising from the previously proposed models in the study of graphological elements, the example of Lennard’s (2005) and Levenston’s (1992). The present model is occasioned by the need to accommodate the invading trends of graphology and to stand in the gap created by Levenston’s and Lennard’s. The schemes are grouped into five levels and presented in the table below. A detailed explanation of the model is provided afterwards.

[...]