Towards an integrated corpus stylistics

Open access

Abstract

Over recent years, the use of corpora in stylistic analysis has grown in popularity. However, questions still remain over the remit of corpus stylistics, its distinction from corpus linguistics generally and its capacity to explain complex stylistic effects. This article argues in favour of an integrated corpus stylistics; that is, an approach to corpus stylistics that integrates it with other stylistic methods and analytical frameworks. I suggest that this approach is needed for two main reasons: (i) it is analytically necessary in order to fully explain stylistic effects in texts, and (ii) integrating corpus methods with other stylistic tools is what will distinguish corpus stylistics from corpus linguistics. My argument is supported by reference to examples from Mark Haddon’s no vel The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time and the HBO TV series Deadwood. Both these examples rely for their explanation on a combination of corpus stylistic analytical techniques and other stylistic methods of analysis.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • ADOLPHS S. 2006. Introducing electronic text analysis. London: Routledge.

  • AI H. and LU X. 2013. A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students’ writing. In: A. Díaz-Negrillo N. Ballier and P. Thompson eds. Automatic treatment and analys is of learner corpus data Amsterdam: John Benjamins pp. 249-264.

  • BALLY C. 1909. Traité de stylistique française. Heidelberg C. Winter.

  • BEDNAREK M. 2012. “Get us the hell out o f here”: key wo rds and trigrams in fictional television series. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics vol. 17 no.1 pp. 35-63.

  • BRANSFORD J. D. and JOHNSON M. K. 1972. Contextual prerequisites for understanding: some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior vol. 11 pp.717-26.

  • BUSSE B. and MCINTYRE D. 2010. Language literature and stylistics. In: D. McIntyre and B. Busse eds. Language and Style. Basingstoke: Palgrave pp. 3-14.

  • CARTER R. 2010. Methodologies for stylistic analysis: practices and pedagogies. In: D.McIntyre and B. Busse eds. Language and Style: In Honour of Mick Short. Basingstoke: Palgrave pp. 34-46.

  • COUPLAND N. 2007. Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • CRYSTAL D. and DAVY D. 1969. Investigating English style. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Deadwood. (US) (2004-06) HB0. Writer: David Milch. Directors: Various.

  • DEMJEN Z. 2015. Sylvia Plath and the language of mental states. London: Bloomsbury.

  • DUCHAN J. F. BRUDER G. A. and HEWITT L. E. eds. 1995. Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • EYSENCK M. W. and KEANE M. T. 2010. Cognitive psychology: A student’s handbook. 6t h edn. New York: Psychology Press.

  • FEENEY M. 2004. Talk pretty: the linguistic brilliance o f HBO’s Deadwood. Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/television/2004/05/talk_pretty.html. Accessed 28 November 2015.

  • FISCHER-STARCKE B. 2007. Corpus linguistics in literary analysis: Jane Austen and her contemporaries. London: Continuum.

  • FOWLER R. 1977. Linguistics and the novel. London: Methuen.

  • FOWLER R. 1996. Linguistics criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • GRIES S. TH. 2010. Corpus linguistics and theoretical linguistics: a love -hate relationship? Not necessarily.... International Journal of Corpus Linguistics vol. 15 no. 3 pp.327-43.

  • HADDON N. 2005. The curious incident of the dog in the night-time. London: Jonathan Cape.

  • HARDIE A. and MCENERY T. 2010. On two traditions in corpus linguistics and what they have in common. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics vol. 15 no.3 pp.384-94.

  • HARRISON C. NUTTALL L. STOCKWELL P. and YUAN W. eds. 2014. Cognitive grammar in literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • HO Y. 2011. Corpus stylistics in principles and practice. London: Continuum.

  • HONGA H. KIMB S. and CHUNGA M. 2014. A corpus-based analysis of English segments produced by Korean learners. Journal of Phonetics vol. 46 pp. 52-67.

  • HOOVER D. CULPEPER J. and O’HALLORAN K. 2014. Digital literary studies: Corpus approaches to poetry prose and drama. Abingdon: Routledge.

  • HUGHES G. 2006. An encyclopedia of swearing: The social history of oaths profanity foul language and ethnic slurs in the English-speaking world. Armonk NY: M. E. Sharpe.

  • JEFFRIES L. 2007. Textual construction of the female body. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • JEFFRIES L. 2010. Critical stylistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • JEFFRIES L. and MCINTYRE D. 2010. Stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • LEECH G. and SHORT M. 1981. Style in fiction. London: Longman.

  • LEECH G. and SHORT M. 2007. Style in fiction. 2nd edition. London: Pearson.

  • LOUW B. 2011. Philosophical and literary concerns in corpus linguistics. In: V. Viana S. Zyngier and G. Barnbrook eds. Perspectives on corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins pp. 171-96.

  • MAHLBERG M. 2013a. Corpus stylistics and Dickens’s fiction. Abingdon: Routledge.

  • MAHLBERGM. 2013b. Corpus analysis of literary texts. In: C. A. Chapelle ed. Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

  • MAHLBERG M. and MCINTYRE D. 2011. A case fo r co rpus stylistics: Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale. English Text Construction vol. 4 no. 2 pp. 204-27.

  • MCINTYRE D. 2006. Point of view in plays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • MCINTYRE D. 2007. Deixis cognition and the construction of viewpoint. In: M. Lambrou and P. Stockwell eds. Contemporary stylistics London: Continuum pp. 118-30.

  • MCINTYRE D. 2012. Corpora and literature. In: C.A: Chapelle ed. Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

  • MCINTYRE D. 2015. Dialogue: credibility versus realism in fictional speech. In: V. Sotirova ed. The Bloomsbury companion to stylistics. London: Bloomsbury.

  • MELIA D. F. 1974. Review of essays on style and language edited by Roger Fowler. Foundations of Language vol. 11 pp. 591-94.

  • PALA 2013. Annual conference of the Poetics and Linguistics Association. University of Heidelberg Germany. http://tinyurl.com/njctuxk

  • PIAO S. WILSON A. and MCENERY T. 2002. A multilingual corpus toolkit. In: AAACL 2002 Conference. Indianapolis Indiana USA.

  • POLCHINSKI J. 1998. String Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • SANDFORD A. and EMMOTT C. 2012. Mind brain and narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • SEGAL E. M 1995. Narrative comprehension and the role of deictic shift theory. In J.F. Duchan G.A. Bruder and L.E. Hewitt L. E. eds. Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates pp. 61-78.

  • SEMINO E. 2007. Mind style 25 years on. Style vol. 41 no.2 p. 153-73.

  • SEMINO E. and SHORT M. 2004. Corpus stylistics: Speech writing and thought presentation in a corpus of English writing. London: Routledge.

  • SHORT M. 1996. Exploring the language of poems plays and prose. London: Longman.

  • SINCLAIR J. 1966. Taking a poem to pieces. In: R. Fowler ed. Essays on style and language. London: Routledge pp. 68-81.

  • STOCKWELL P. 2010. The eleventh checksheet of the apocalypse. In: D. McIntyre and B. Busse eds. Language and Style: In Honour of Mick Short. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

  • STOCKWELL P. 2013. Creative reading wo rld and style in Ben Jonson’s “To Celia”’. In: M. Borkennt B. Dancygier and J. Hinnell eds. Language and the creative mind. Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.

  • STOCKWELL P. and MAHLBERG M. 2015. Mind-modelling with corpus stylistics in David Copperfield. Language and Literature vol. 24 no.2 p. 129-47.

  • TOOLAN M. 2007. Narrative progression in the short story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • VENDLER H. 1966. Review of essays on style and language edited by Roger Fowler. Essays in Criticism vol. 16 no. 4 pp. 457-63.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 604 226 18
PDF Downloads 389 175 24