<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P92-1048">
  <Title>A BASIS FOR A FORMALIZATION OF LINGUISTIC STYLE</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="313" end_page="314" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
A SIMPLE EXAMPLE
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> I will use the functional basis of style described above to illustrate how small variations in sentence structure can lead to larger variations in the stylistic goals of a sentence. This will be demonstrated by tracing the analysis of an example sentence through the levels of description of the stylistic grammar.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The first step in the analysis determines which connective primitive elements axe present in the sentence and where they occur in our scale of cohesiveness. Next, the primitive elements axe used to determine which abstract elements axe present.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Finally the abstract elements axe examined to determine the stylistic goals of the sentence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> We start with sentence (4) as above. This sentence contains several connective primitive dements, the most prominent being the conjunct s SQuirk et al. example 12.64, p. 908.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> eAdapted from Halliday and Hasan example 4:57, p. 170.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> ~Quisk etal. example 12.65, p. 909.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> clausal ellipsis noted eaxlier, as well as instances of a conjunct a personal reference (you), a conjunct 2 deictic (my), and a conjunct 1 adversative (if you want). (Although I have completed the analysis for the other cohesive relations, here I am using the preliminary classifications given by DiMaxco and Hirst (1992) for the other connective elements.) Apart from the terminal ellipsis, all of these connective elements are concordant, that is, they represent constructions that conform to normal usage. The terminal ellipsis, due to its excessively high level of cohesiveness, is weakly discordant, a slight deviation from normal usage. Thus, this sentence contains initial and medial concords, followed by a terminal discord. In the terms of the stylistic grammar, this shift from concord to discord is formalized in the abstract element of dissolution.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> The presence of dissolution characterizes the stylistic goal of concreteness, which is associated with sentences that suggest an effect of specificity by an emphasis on certain components of a sentence. In this sentence, the emphasis is created by the terminal discord. The clausal ellipsis requires that a great deal of information be recovered by the reader and because of this it leaves her feeling that the sentence is unfinished.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> The next example, sentence (5), is a modification of (4) and is an example of verbal ellipsis, as in (2).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> (5) You can borrow my pen if you want to Q.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> In this sentence, all of the previous connective elements remain except for the terminal clausal ellipsis. This ellipsis has been replaced by a verbal ellipsis that is conjunct 4, strongly but not excessively cohesive. This replacement consequently eliminates the terminal discord present in the previous sentence, changing it to a strong concord.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> Thus, (5) has initial, medial, and terminal concords, making it a fully concordant sentence. At the level of abstract elements, such a sentence is said to be centroschematic, that is, a sentence with a central, dominant clause with optional dependent clauses and complex subordination. Centroschematic sentences characterize the stylistic goal of clarity, which is associated with sentences that suggest plainness, preciseness, and predictability. In this sentence, the effect of predictability is created by removing the terminal discord, thus resolving the unfulfilled expectations of (4).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> Thus, using the cohesive relations of Halliday and Hasan, it is possible, as I have shown, to provide a formal basis for the connective primitive elements of the syntactic stylistic grammar. These primitive elements can now be used as the components of more-precise abstract elements, with subtle variations in the primitive elements allowing more-expressive variations in the abstract elements  that constitute a sentence. These variations at the abstract-element level of the grammar axe mirrored at the level of stylistic goals by large variations in the overall goals attributed to a sentence.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>