The ‘indisciplinarity’ of stylistics

This paper aims at showing why the stylistician can be construed as a prolific “impostor” in a most positive sense: pledged to no specific linguistic prophet, she can opt for different theoretical linguistic tools (in the sphere of pragmatics, critical discourse analysis, cognitive grammar, etc.) de...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Sorlin Sandrine
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sciendo 2014-12-01
Series:Topics in Linguistics
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2014-0008
id doaj-b9c5e2fffa1244458bf560cf47e51faa
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b9c5e2fffa1244458bf560cf47e51faa2021-09-05T21:24:14ZengSciendoTopics in Linguistics1337-75902199-65042014-12-0114191510.2478/topling-2014-0008topling-2014-0008The ‘indisciplinarity’ of stylisticsSorlin Sandrine0Aix-Marseille University / LERMA / IUF, FranceThis paper aims at showing why the stylistician can be construed as a prolific “impostor” in a most positive sense: pledged to no specific linguistic prophet, she can opt for different theoretical linguistic tools (in the sphere of pragmatics, critical discourse analysis, cognitive grammar, etc.) depending on her object of study and what her research question is. The liberty claimed by the stylistician explains why stylistics is the “undisciplined” child of linguistics, shirking any clear definition of its boundaries. It will be argued that stylistics can only exist as a cross-disciplinary field given its conception of language as fundamentally contextualized. If it was a discipline determined by clear-cut pre-established boundaries, stylistics would be far more “disciplined” but would run the risk of serving only itself. The broad goal of this paper is thus to evince that the “indisciplinarity” of stylistics constitutes its very defining essence. With this aim in mind, it will demonstrate what stylistics owes to other disciplines, what it shares with similar language-based disciplines and what it can offer to other fields or practices of knowledge.https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2014-0008porous disciplinary boundariespositive imposturepragmatic stylisticscritical stylisticscognitive stylisticsliterary stylisticsstylistic sociolinguistics
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Sorlin Sandrine
spellingShingle Sorlin Sandrine
The ‘indisciplinarity’ of stylistics
Topics in Linguistics
porous disciplinary boundaries
positive imposture
pragmatic stylistics
critical stylistics
cognitive stylistics
literary stylistics
stylistic sociolinguistics
author_facet Sorlin Sandrine
author_sort Sorlin Sandrine
title The ‘indisciplinarity’ of stylistics
title_short The ‘indisciplinarity’ of stylistics
title_full The ‘indisciplinarity’ of stylistics
title_fullStr The ‘indisciplinarity’ of stylistics
title_full_unstemmed The ‘indisciplinarity’ of stylistics
title_sort ‘indisciplinarity’ of stylistics
publisher Sciendo
series Topics in Linguistics
issn 1337-7590
2199-6504
publishDate 2014-12-01
description This paper aims at showing why the stylistician can be construed as a prolific “impostor” in a most positive sense: pledged to no specific linguistic prophet, she can opt for different theoretical linguistic tools (in the sphere of pragmatics, critical discourse analysis, cognitive grammar, etc.) depending on her object of study and what her research question is. The liberty claimed by the stylistician explains why stylistics is the “undisciplined” child of linguistics, shirking any clear definition of its boundaries. It will be argued that stylistics can only exist as a cross-disciplinary field given its conception of language as fundamentally contextualized. If it was a discipline determined by clear-cut pre-established boundaries, stylistics would be far more “disciplined” but would run the risk of serving only itself. The broad goal of this paper is thus to evince that the “indisciplinarity” of stylistics constitutes its very defining essence. With this aim in mind, it will demonstrate what stylistics owes to other disciplines, what it shares with similar language-based disciplines and what it can offer to other fields or practices of knowledge.
topic porous disciplinary boundaries
positive imposture
pragmatic stylistics
critical stylistics
cognitive stylistics
literary stylistics
stylistic sociolinguistics
url https://doi.org/10.2478/topling-2014-0008
work_keys_str_mv AT sorlinsandrine theindisciplinarityofstylistics
AT sorlinsandrine indisciplinarityofstylistics
_version_ 1717780739966107648