{"title":"书评:《政治英语:语言与政治的衰落》","authors":"K. Wales","doi":"10.1177/09639470211040722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"beat poets, Dante and Petrarch, and the Confessions of St Augustine. All this of course establishes Dylan as a major artist. In contrast to these three dominant approaches to Dylan’s work, then, Hampton’s approach consists in exploring how ‘songs are made and how specific literary and musical techniques work to generate particular manifestations of style in song’ (p. 13). This emphasis on ‘style’ is of course from a stylistic viewpoint extremely promising. However, Hampton has a literary-critical rather than a stylistic understanding of ‘style’, seeing it in terms of how ‘artists manipulate different levels or historically defined registers of representation’ (p. 13), and of ‘the conventions that dominate a particular moment’ (p. 16). Despite his emphasis on ‘close analysis’ (p. 9), however, Hampton has disappointingly little to say about how Dylan’s songs really work–as complex linguistic phenomena. Hampton’s focus is primarily on how Dylan relates to other artists, and the trajectory of his analyses is always towards the thematic or meaningful level of the songs. As a consequence, he does not deal in any great depth with how Dylan creates meaningful effects by manipulating the sonic and syntactic levels of language. One important feature of Dylan’s work to which Hampton pays little or no attention, for example, is the way that Dylan manipulates his singing voice in order to create sonic ambiguity: it is very often simply impossible to be sure of what he is singing. For instance, the song ‘Tangled Up in Blue’ (the song to which Hampton devotes the most attention) contains a number of sonically ambiguous lines: does Dylan sing, ‘They never did like mama’s homemade dress, papa’s banquet wasn’t big enough’ (as I always thought) or ‘They never did like mama’s home address, papa’s bank book wasn’t big enough’ (as the official lyrics attest)? My point is that an approach rooted in stylistics rather than the close-analysis tradition of literary criticism would be able to say much more about how Dylan’s songs really work. Hampton’s book, then, is a timely reminder of why Dylan’s work matters, and his approach manages to avoid the usual pitfalls of Dylan criticism. It made me appreciate once more the depth and complexity of Dylan’s oeuvre (which has been the soundtrack to most of my life), and provided me with new insights into many of the songs. It certainly differs from, and is better than, most other work on Dylan. But there is still a book on Dylan to be written from the more fruitful perspective of stylistics.","PeriodicalId":45849,"journal":{"name":"Language and Literature","volume":"30 1","pages":"301 - 305"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book Review: Political English: Language and the Decay of Politics\",\"authors\":\"K. Wales\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09639470211040722\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"beat poets, Dante and Petrarch, and the Confessions of St Augustine. All this of course establishes Dylan as a major artist. In contrast to these three dominant approaches to Dylan’s work, then, Hampton’s approach consists in exploring how ‘songs are made and how specific literary and musical techniques work to generate particular manifestations of style in song’ (p. 13). This emphasis on ‘style’ is of course from a stylistic viewpoint extremely promising. However, Hampton has a literary-critical rather than a stylistic understanding of ‘style’, seeing it in terms of how ‘artists manipulate different levels or historically defined registers of representation’ (p. 13), and of ‘the conventions that dominate a particular moment’ (p. 16). Despite his emphasis on ‘close analysis’ (p. 9), however, Hampton has disappointingly little to say about how Dylan’s songs really work–as complex linguistic phenomena. Hampton’s focus is primarily on how Dylan relates to other artists, and the trajectory of his analyses is always towards the thematic or meaningful level of the songs. As a consequence, he does not deal in any great depth with how Dylan creates meaningful effects by manipulating the sonic and syntactic levels of language. One important feature of Dylan’s work to which Hampton pays little or no attention, for example, is the way that Dylan manipulates his singing voice in order to create sonic ambiguity: it is very often simply impossible to be sure of what he is singing. For instance, the song ‘Tangled Up in Blue’ (the song to which Hampton devotes the most attention) contains a number of sonically ambiguous lines: does Dylan sing, ‘They never did like mama’s homemade dress, papa’s banquet wasn’t big enough’ (as I always thought) or ‘They never did like mama’s home address, papa’s bank book wasn’t big enough’ (as the official lyrics attest)? My point is that an approach rooted in stylistics rather than the close-analysis tradition of literary criticism would be able to say much more about how Dylan’s songs really work. Hampton’s book, then, is a timely reminder of why Dylan’s work matters, and his approach manages to avoid the usual pitfalls of Dylan criticism. It made me appreciate once more the depth and complexity of Dylan’s oeuvre (which has been the soundtrack to most of my life), and provided me with new insights into many of the songs. It certainly differs from, and is better than, most other work on Dylan. But there is still a book on Dylan to be written from the more fruitful perspective of stylistics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language and Literature\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"301 - 305\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language and Literature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09639470211040722\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language and Literature","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09639470211040722","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
击败诗人,但丁和彼特拉克,以及圣奥古斯丁的忏悔录。所有这些当然奠定了迪伦作为一个主要艺术家的地位。与迪伦作品的这三种主要方法相反,汉普顿的方法在于探索“歌曲是如何制作的,以及特定的文学和音乐技巧如何在歌曲中产生特定的风格表现”(第13页)。当然,从文体的角度来看,这种对“风格”的强调是非常有希望的。然而,汉普顿对“风格”有着文学批评而非文体理解,从“艺术家如何操纵不同层次或历史定义的表现形式”(第13页)和“支配特定时刻的惯例”(第16页)的角度来看。然而,尽管汉普顿强调“密切分析”(第9页),但令人失望的是,他对迪伦的歌曲作为复杂的语言现象是如何真正发挥作用的几乎没有什么可说的。汉普顿的重点主要是迪伦与其他艺术家的关系,他的分析轨迹总是指向歌曲的主题或有意义的层面。因此,他没有深入探讨迪伦如何通过操纵语言的声音和句法水平来创造有意义的效果。例如,汉普顿很少或根本不注意迪伦作品的一个重要特征是,迪伦操纵歌声以制造声音模糊的方式:通常根本不可能确定他在唱什么。例如,歌曲“Tangled Up in Blue”(汉普顿最关注的歌曲)包含了许多声音模糊的台词:迪伦唱的是“他们从来都不喜欢妈妈自制的衣服,爸爸的宴会不够大”(正如我一直认为的那样)还是“他们从来就不喜欢妈妈的家庭地址,“爸爸的存折不够大”(官方歌词证明了这一点)?我的观点是,一种植根于文体学的方法,而不是文学批评的密切分析传统,将能够更多地说明迪伦的歌曲是如何真正发挥作用的。因此,汉普顿的书及时提醒人们,为什么迪伦的作品很重要,他的方法成功地避免了迪伦批评中常见的陷阱。它让我再次欣赏迪伦作品的深度和复杂性(这是我一生中大部分时间的原声音乐),并为我对许多歌曲提供了新的见解。它当然不同于,也比大多数其他关于迪伦的作品更好。但从文体学的角度来看,还有一本关于迪伦的书要写。
Book Review: Political English: Language and the Decay of Politics
beat poets, Dante and Petrarch, and the Confessions of St Augustine. All this of course establishes Dylan as a major artist. In contrast to these three dominant approaches to Dylan’s work, then, Hampton’s approach consists in exploring how ‘songs are made and how specific literary and musical techniques work to generate particular manifestations of style in song’ (p. 13). This emphasis on ‘style’ is of course from a stylistic viewpoint extremely promising. However, Hampton has a literary-critical rather than a stylistic understanding of ‘style’, seeing it in terms of how ‘artists manipulate different levels or historically defined registers of representation’ (p. 13), and of ‘the conventions that dominate a particular moment’ (p. 16). Despite his emphasis on ‘close analysis’ (p. 9), however, Hampton has disappointingly little to say about how Dylan’s songs really work–as complex linguistic phenomena. Hampton’s focus is primarily on how Dylan relates to other artists, and the trajectory of his analyses is always towards the thematic or meaningful level of the songs. As a consequence, he does not deal in any great depth with how Dylan creates meaningful effects by manipulating the sonic and syntactic levels of language. One important feature of Dylan’s work to which Hampton pays little or no attention, for example, is the way that Dylan manipulates his singing voice in order to create sonic ambiguity: it is very often simply impossible to be sure of what he is singing. For instance, the song ‘Tangled Up in Blue’ (the song to which Hampton devotes the most attention) contains a number of sonically ambiguous lines: does Dylan sing, ‘They never did like mama’s homemade dress, papa’s banquet wasn’t big enough’ (as I always thought) or ‘They never did like mama’s home address, papa’s bank book wasn’t big enough’ (as the official lyrics attest)? My point is that an approach rooted in stylistics rather than the close-analysis tradition of literary criticism would be able to say much more about how Dylan’s songs really work. Hampton’s book, then, is a timely reminder of why Dylan’s work matters, and his approach manages to avoid the usual pitfalls of Dylan criticism. It made me appreciate once more the depth and complexity of Dylan’s oeuvre (which has been the soundtrack to most of my life), and provided me with new insights into many of the songs. It certainly differs from, and is better than, most other work on Dylan. But there is still a book on Dylan to be written from the more fruitful perspective of stylistics.
期刊介绍:
Language and Literature is an invaluable international peer-reviewed journal that covers the latest research in stylistics, defined as the study of style in literary and non-literary language. We publish theoretical, empirical and experimental research that aims to make a contribution to our understanding of style and its effects on readers. Topics covered by the journal include (but are not limited to) the following: the stylistic analysis of literary and non-literary texts, cognitive approaches to text comprehension, corpus and computational stylistics, the stylistic investigation of multimodal texts, pedagogical stylistics, the reading process, software development for stylistics, and real-world applications for stylistic analysis. We welcome articles that investigate the relationship between stylistics and other areas of linguistics, such as text linguistics, sociolinguistics and translation studies. We also encourage interdisciplinary submissions that explore the connections between stylistics and such cognate subjects and disciplines as psychology, literary studies, narratology, computer science and neuroscience. Language and Literature is essential reading for academics, teachers and students working in stylistics and related areas of language and literary studies.