Stylistic Analysis In Language

Stylistic texture as part of the implicit characterization process is established as a characteristic of the literary text. First, the reader/audience is faced with the question of the way individual sentences of a speech relate to one another. Whether they are connected in a strictly logical way, whether they form a more associative series, they always emphasize the structure of a character’s level of awareness. All significant deviations from the normal frequencies in the areas of syntactic and lexical selection and combination can also serve to delineate a character: the frequency of certain sentence types (such as statements or questions), the predominance of active or passive forms, the use of parallelisms and antitheses, an abstract or

The concept of monologue may be ambiguous. The only thing that the various standard definitions of monologue actually have in common is the fact that they define it as the opposite of dialogue and that they, therefore, assign every dramatic utterance to one or other of these two formal categories. The definition of monologue depends therefore on how the contrast between monologue and dialogue is understood. According to Pfister, there are several criteria to take into consideration when debating this problem. First, there is the situational criterion, which refers to the speaker’s solitude. It means that there are no actual addressees on stage and that the character is left to talk to himself. Then, there is the structural criterion which refers to the length and degree of autonomy of a particular speech. According to the first criterion, a longer report or a long speech are not monologues since they are addressed directly to other characters on stage. However, according to the second criterion, they are monologues, since they are self-contained, autonomous speeches of a reasonable length. Another terminology distinguishes between these two concepts and describes the first type as a soliloquy and the second as a

It is a kind of talking to oneself, not intended to affect others.”
According to J. Mukarovsky, a dialogue always rests on the polarity or suspense between “several or at least two contextures” which “interpenetrate and alternate in dialogic discourse”:
“Because there is more than one participant in a dialogue, there is also a manifold contexture: although each person’s utterances alternate with those of the other person or persons, they comprise a certain unity of meaning. Because the contextures which interpenetrate in this way in a dialogue are different, often even contradictory, sharp semantic reversals occur on the boundaries of the individual replies. The more vivid the dialogue, the shorter the individual replies, and the more distinct the collisions of the