Adabi Tanqeed Aur Usloobiyaat

Some people have come to view stylistics as a bogeyman. The way stylistics is now being bandied about in Urdu, both appropriately and inappropriately, reveals that some people are genuinely terrified of it. Nevertheless, stylistics has established enough credibility in a few short years that it is no longer easy to ignore. A modern Urdu critic, who has deliberately turned criticism into a bed of thorns so that people may experience the pleasure of walking with blistered feet, frequently laments that modernism was a fiery rebellion which linguistic critics have now extinguished.

First of all, how many linguistic critics are there in Urdu, and even if there are, how many stylistic essays have they actually written? It is astonishing that this fiery rebellion, whose sacred flames were kept burning by two dozen eminent critics—according to our friend—was extinguished by the feeble writings of just one or two linguistic critics. If this is true, then there must certainly be something special about stylistics. Because something that can cool down heated trends can also sow warm sparks in cold ground, whereas the reality is that stylistics makes no such claim. There is another colleague who suffers from the disease of speaking from a high pedestal, as if divine revelations are descending solely upon him. He never tires of crying out for the ethics of criticism, even though he has mastered the art of turning literary hypocrisy into an art form. To him, intellectualism simply means continuing to make snide remarks about stylistics, thereby soothing the wounds of his own inferiority complex.

A critic is somewhat understandable, as he has the right to play the all-knowing philosopher. However, in this respectable tribe, there is also a prominent creative writer who frequently avenges his failures in fiction through criticism. Even in criticism, he constantly proves his monk-like detachment by badmouthing linguistic criticism. If doing so can benefit his fiction, then linguistic criticism should have no objection to his naivety. Let it be clear that the present essay is not addressed to such intellectuals, because these are enlightened souls; they have reached a stage where every destination ends, except for narcissism.

In this essay, I have touched upon fundamental debates and mentioned the sources and references from which I have gained a great deal, and from which others can also benefit if they so desire. But how can this essay, or the books referenced within it, possibly affect those who already know everything? I request such gentlemen not to waste their time on these pages. Instead, these pages are for those who, like me, possess a scholarly curiosity, are seekers of new knowledge, or wish to learn as much as possible about new linguistic debates. So, let us examine what stylistics is, what it is not, and what its relationship is with literary criticism.

The term stylistics is not very old in criticism. Since the sixth decade of the twentieth century, stylistics has been used for the methodology through which the style of a literary artwork is analyzed on objective, linguistic, and scientific grounds, rather than through the subjective and impressionistic approach of traditional criticism.

Literary criticism has been deeply influenced by the new insights gained from linguistics, sociology, and psychology over the past two decades, particularly by the advancements in Communication Theory. Two new critical disciplines, known as stylistics and structuralism, which have sparked new philosophical debates in the literary world, are the result of these very influences. Historically, the debates surrounding stylistics came first, while structuralist theory and its related concepts, known as Post-Structuralism, emerged later. However, without understanding stylistics or the fundamental principles and rules of linguistics, it is impossible to comprehend structuralist theory or the various philosophical debates that fall under the umbrella of Post-Structuralism.

The objection is often raised that these debates do not clarify where the boundary of stylistics ends and where that of structuralism begins. However, for those who are familiar with linguistics or possess some basic linguistic knowledge, this objection is baseless. Although both stylistic theory and structuralist theory derive their fundamental philosophical principles and rules from linguistics, their scopes of action are entirely different. Stylistics, or literary stylistics, is concerned with the nature of literature or literary expression, whereas the scope of structuralism encompasses all of human life, communication, and every manifestation of human civilization. The philosophical challenge of structuralism is to understand how the human mind perceives reality, and how reality, which exists objectively, is recognized and comprehended.

It should be kept in mind that structuralism is not solely concerned with literature or literary expression. Rather, myths, mythology, ancient traditions, beliefs, customs, manners, and all cultural and social phenomena—such as clothing and attire, lifestyles, food and drink, living habits, and social etiquette—essentially, every phenomenon through which the human mind communicates meaning or perceives reality, falls within the field of structuralism's interest. Since literature is also a manifestation, indeed a highly significant manifestation, of human civilization, it is a subject of special interest in structuralism. This is precisely why literature holds a central position in structuralist debates.

The fundamental concept of stylistics is style. Style is not a new word; it has been prevalent in Western criticism for centuries. In Urdu, the concept of style is relatively new. However, terms such as zaban-o-bayan (language and expression), andaz (manner), andaz-e-bayan (manner of expression), tarz-e-bayan (mode of expression), tarz-e-tahreer (writing style), lehja (tone), rang (color/style), and rang-e-sukhan (poetic style) have long been used to convey style or similar meanings. In other words, questions about the characteristics of a poet's or author's expression, the kind of language used in a particular genre or form, or the nature and characteristics of language in a specific era—these are all debates concerning style. No recognition of literature is complete without style. However, this subject has often been dealt with merely through passing references, though the traces of these debates can certainly be identified within the critical tradition.

In contrast to this tradition, modern linguistics has introduced a new concept of stylistics. A fundamental point must be clarified here: the concept of style in modern stylistics differs from the one prevalent in Western literary criticism or influenced by it. It also differs from the concept rooted in the Eastern literary tradition of rhetoric and figures of speech (ilm-e-badi-o-bayan). Furthermore, it is distinct from the subjective or impressionistic notions we often form in our minds. In the Eastern tradition, literary style is essentially defined by the application of rhetorical devices in poetry and literature to achieve literary beautification. In other words, it is an element that enhances the beauty and charm of literary expression. Style is viewed as an ornament that increases the attractiveness, appeal, and impact of a text. Therefore, according to the Eastern tradition, style is not an intrinsic necessity, but rather an embellishment that can be added.

Thus, the first major difference between the traditional and modern concepts of style—that is, the perspective of stylistics—is that stylistics views style not as an additive element, but as a fundamental one. Style is an essential, indispensable component of literary expression. It is an integral part of the creative process through which language elevates itself to the level of literature. Literary style is not mere linguistic decoration or ornamentation that can be mechanically applied or removed; rather, style is inherently embedded in the very fabric of literary expression.

Stylistics is a branch of Descriptive Linguistics that examines the nature, elements, and characteristics of literary expression. Because linguistics is a social science, stylistics approaches the question of style objectively rather than impressionistically. It analyzes style with a degree of precision and presents its conclusions with reasoned, scientific accuracy.

The fundamental premise of stylistics is that any thought, idea, emotion, or feeling can be expressed in language in multiple ways. Language offers complete freedom in choosing one's mode of expression. A poet or author exercises this freedom at every step. This choice can be both conscious and unconscious, influenced by personal taste, temperament, individual preferences, the demands of the genre or form, and the author's perception of the reader. Ultimately, style is the act of selecting one specific mode of expression (a choice that rests with the author) from all the possible avenues of creative expression that currently exist or could potentially exist.

It should also be noted that this concept of style not only differs from traditional views but also fundamentally clashes with the school of modern criticism known as New Criticism. In stylistics, considering all possible modes of expression naturally incorporates concepts of time, space, and society—elements for which New Criticism leaves no room. New Criticism views language as static because its approach is synchronic (bound to a single point in time), whereas stylistics considers the past, present, and future of language, encompassing all its possibilities. In other words, while the concept of style in stylistics is analytical and objective, it remains open to historical and social dimensions, unlike New Criticism. According to New Criticism, a work of art is self-sufficient and autonomous; everything that matters exists within the text itself, and nothing outside of it holds relevance. Stylistics, while also focusing intently on the text, refuses to accept the historical and social limitations imposed by New Criticism.

Literary stylistics employs analytical methods to determine and classify the nature of various modes of creative expression. It highlights how an artist selects their specific mode of expression from all available linguistic possibilities, and identifies the distinct characteristics of the resulting style. It asks: What specific linguistic features allow a particular mode of expression to be distinctly recognized? How much does an author's or poet's style deviate from the standard, natural norm of linguistic expression? In a given style, which linguistic features recede into the background, and which are brought to the forefront? In stylistics, this latter process is known as Foregrounding.

By classifying the natural norms of language, one can evaluate a specific text or texts, or conduct a comparative study of selected works. A stylistic analysis can be performed at any level of language. In linguistics, there are four primary levels of language:

- Phonology

- Morphology

- Syntax

- Semantics

Language is constituted by the combination of these four levels. In purely linguistic analyses, any single level can be examined in isolation. However, in the analysis of literary expression, a holistic concept of language is inherent at every level. Therefore, meaning is the word, and the word is the meaning. The basic unit of meaning is the morpheme or utterance (kalima), which consists of a word or a group of words, while the word itself is made up of a sound or a combination of sounds. Thus, in a stylistic analysis—even if it is not explicitly stated and the scientific focus is restricted to just one level (as I have deliberately done in my essays Asloobiyat-e-Anees [The Stylistics of Anees] and Iqbal Ka Sotiyati Nizam [Iqbal's Phonological System])—the holistic concept of language, including its meaning, remains latent. It is not necessarily excluded, contrary to what is commonly assumed out of misunderstanding.

In short, the purpose of a stylistic analysis is to identify the specific linguistic distinctions that make it possible to recognize a particular literary work, author, poet, form, genre, or era. These distinctions can be of several types:

(1) Phonological: Distinctions established by the sound system, such as the characteristics of rhyme and refrain (radeef and qafiya), features of retroflexion, aspiration, or nasalization, and the ratio of consonants to vowels, etc.

(2) Morphological/Lexical: The relative frequency of specific types of words; the frequency and proportion of nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc.; and the use of compound constructions (tarakib).

(3) Syntactic: The specialized use of a particular part of speech, the arrangement and syntax of words within a sentence, etc.

(4) Rhetorical: Distinctive figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, metonymy, allegory, symbol, imagery, etc.

(5) Prosodic: The specialized use and distinct features of poetic meters (awzan and beher), metrical variations (zihafat), etc.

Stylistics experts who emphasize scientific methodology and objectivity rely on quantitative statistics to determine the relative frequency and proportion of linguistic features. Today, with the use of computers for such analyses, results are being extracted with even greater accuracy and certainty. Some experts also base their analyses on morphological and linguistic concepts—for instance, the distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic forms, or the differences and distinctions between surface and deep structures based on Chomsky's generative grammar.

The possibilities for expression within a language are limitless. An author selects only a few from these myriad possibilities. This selection is an integral part of the author's linguistic process and forms the foundation of their stylistic identity. Through stylistic analysis, an author can be identified just as precisely as a person is recognized by the lines on their palms. Stylistics allows us to trace the fingerprints of an author's linguistic expression, thereby establishing their identity conclusively. Just like individuals, literary genres also possess distinct temperaments. Consequently, stylistics can help us determine the stylistic distinctions between various genres and understand how they differ from one another at the level of expression.

Beyond individuals and genres, stylistic analysis possesses yet another dimension. Because the linguistic modes of expression evolve from one era to the next, stylistics can help us determine which style was prevalent in a specific period, or what linguistic choices were available during that time. Identifying these linguistic distinctions provides invaluable assistance in understanding the creative process behind literary expression and in establishing the foundations of literary individuality. Literary expression is, in many ways, akin to dance and music. On the surface, dance and melody create an enchanting atmosphere of joy and ecstasy, often leading us into a state of self-forgetfulness where we lose ourselves completely. However, if we look closely beneath the surface, we find an underlying web of rhythm and phonetic distinctions—seemingly complex, yet fundamentally simple. It resembles a tapestry woven with diverse colors, or a beautifully vibrant mosaic composed of geometric designs.

In literary expression, linguistic distinctions create various intricate designs beneath the surface-level words. Recognizing these patterns is the primary task of literary stylistics. If prosodic analysis is used to draw generalizations about a specific poetic form or genre, or to help determine the linguistic characteristics of an author or a literary work, such analyses fall squarely within the domain of stylistics.

When drawing conclusions in stylistics, one must remain aware of a specific pitfall: stylistic analysis is not merely the formalistic analysis upon which New Criticism relies. According to stylistics, a literary work is not just a collection of words or a mere Verbal Construct. Nor is it simply a Set of Messages, mere data, or Pure Semantic Information. Instead, its true nature lies somewhere between the two, and stylistics employs the term Discourse to define it.

A prime example of the objections raised against stylistic analysis can be found in Michael Riffaterre’s essay, which critiques Roman Jakobson and Claude Lévi-Strauss’s analysis of Charles Baudelaire’s sonnet Les Chats (See Structuralism, ed. Jacques Ehrmann, 1966). Riffaterre posed a crucial question: while stylistics can identify the distinguishing linguistic features of a literary work, how does it determine which specific features make the work aesthetically more effective, and how are these evaluated? Later stylisticians responded by pointing out that this objection is rooted in misplaced expectations. Stylistics does not engage with aesthetics in the same way that literary criticism does. Stylistics provides data, not perspective; aesthetic evaluation is simply not its function.

The sole task of stylistics is to conclusively identify linguistic distinctions. Evaluating their aesthetic value is the domain of literary criticism. Such expectations should be directed toward literary criticism, not stylistics. As for the relationship between stylistics and literary criticism, I have clarified on numerous occasions that stylistics is not a substitute for literary criticism. There is a widespread misconception in Urdu circles that stylistics aims to replace literary criticism. As Ghalib once said:

Zid ki hai aur baat magar khu buri nahin

[Stubbornness is another matter, but the disposition is not bad]

Getting agitated over stylistics under the false assumption that it seeks to replace literary criticism is sheer ignorance. This reaction typically comes from those who are entirely unfamiliar with the function of linguistics, or who are simply intimidated by linguistics and stylistics.

It is often observed that any new field of knowledge threatens established monopolies. Consequently, some detractors resort to sarcasm and mockery. However, a far greater number of people openly adopt an unscholarly or anti-intellectual attitude without even trying to understand the subject. Such individuals deserve our sympathy, for they have made no sincere or honest effort to comprehend the underlying issues and debates. These gentlemen are perhaps unaware that adopting an unscholarly attitude and resorting to mere rhetoric only exposes their own intellectual poverty and frustration. Stylistics has never claimed to be literary criticism, nor does it claim to be a substitute for it. What is undeniably clear, however, is that stylistics can assist criticism and illuminate it with new insights.

Stylistics is equipped with the tool of scientific linguistic analysis of a text; it does not possess the intuitive eye of literary taste. Whenever we read a literary work, we form an impression of it based on our temperament, knowledge, and sensibilities—in other words, our literary taste. This aesthetic impression serves as the actual starting point of literary criticism. Its nature is purely subjective, reflecting our own state of mind, and this impression can be either right or wrong. It is at this juncture that the work of stylistic analysis begins. This process is purely objective, meaning that stylistics serves as an objective tool in the hands of literary criticism. As the objective data provided by the analysis comes to light, it becomes evident whether the initial subjective impression was on the right track or not.

If the initial impression was misguided, stylistics can formulate an alternative or even contradictory hypothesis, restarting the analysis to test this new premise. However, once it is verified that the analytical journey is on the right path, the data gathered gradually makes the initial aesthetic impression clearer and more refined. New insights regarding linguistic characteristics begin to emerge, ultimately leading to a definitive understanding of the linguistic nature of the creative process and the distinguishing features of the literary work. At this point, the task of stylistics concludes, and the work of literary criticism and aesthetics begins. The appreciation and evaluation of literature are the responsibilities of literary criticism and aesthetics, not of stylistics.

Stylistics can acquaint literary criticism with the secrets of linguistic artistry, the subtle nuances of the creative use of words, and the fine lexical and semantic distinctions. Richard Dutton insists that stylistics can achieve this without the artificial constraints imposed by the school of New Criticism—meaning that stylistics does not analyze a literary work in a vacuum. Furthermore, stylistics does not establish preferences based on the presence of ambiguity, symbolism, imagery, paradox, or irony. While it certainly discusses all of these elements, it never dictates that a particular mode of expression is superior or inferior, or that one style is better or worse than another. Instead, stylistics fulfills its responsibility by identifying and defining the linguistic characteristics of expression exactly as they are, leaving the task of determining literary merit and hierarchy to literary criticism.

However, the greatest weakness of stylistics is that applying it to extensive literary works is exceedingly difficult. For instance, analyzing a ghazal or a poem is relatively easy, whereas analyzing a novel or a short story is quite challenging. Analyzing prose presents the added difficulty of deciding which part of the text should be considered representative and which should be overlooked. For a comprehensive analysis, having a limited corpus works in its favor. Stylistics also invites criticism because it employs specialized terminology derived entirely from linguistics, which literary critics are often unfamiliar with (and in Urdu, there is no shortage of those who take pride in their ignorance). Consequently, this creates inherent difficulties in communication. If this is the state of average critics, one can only imagine the nature of its relationship with the general reader. Evidently, stylistics remains beyond the grasp of the common reader. This disconnect from the reader is the price stylistics inevitably pays for its scientific foundations.

Upon closer consideration, every academic discipline or science has its own terminology. To benefit from a particular field of knowledge, one must understand its terminology; otherwise, the key to that discipline remains elusive, and we cannot draw any advantage from it. The same holds true for stylistics. Terms are essentially the core concepts upon which any discipline is built. While these terms can be simplified and explained, they cannot be entirely discarded. Therefore, a certain price must be paid to maintain the scientific rigor of the discipline. However, no price is so steep that it warrants abandoning the objective, scientific foundations provided by stylistics.

Purely stylistic studies generally prioritize stylistic identification. Once they have fingerprinted the linguistic characteristics of an author or a literary work, they refrain from offering any further commentary or judgment. However, there is also no shortage of studies that correlate stylistic facts—derived from statistics and relative frequency—with the author's psyche or their psychological and intellectual preferences. These studies draw conclusions about how an experience undergoes linguistic transformation. See, for example:

LEO SPITZER, LINGUISTICS AND LITERARY HISTORY, 1968

Other studies explore the relationship between stylistic distinctions and an author's ideology, their philosophy of life, or their attitude toward reality. See, for example:

ERICH AUERBACH, MIMESIS, 1953

Still others examine the connection between linguistic characteristics and aesthetic or emotional impact. See, for example:

(Previously cited: MICHAEL RIFFATERRE)

In any case, there are multiple approaches and trends in this regard. One common approach is what René Wellek terms The Imperialism of Modern Linguistics—that is, expanding the boundaries of stylistics to such an extent that it can be applied to everything within literary criticism, essentially treating stylistics as a panacea. Obviously, this approach is flawed. Stylistics is only useful up to its natural limits. Discussing this issue, Stanley Fish—in

(WHAT IS STYLISTICS AND WHY ARE THEY SAYING SUCH TERRIBLE THINGS ABOUT IT, APPROACHES TO POETICS, ED., SEYMOUR CHATMAN, 1973)

—explains that true stylistics, which he terms Affective Stylistics, recognizes that when a reader engages with a text, they do not process style and meaning separately. Instead, the word, the phrase, the form, and the meaning all collectively and simultaneously impact the reader's mind. Thus, the reader's mental reaction is a Total Response, not a fragmented one. It is simply impossible to separate the discussion of style from that of meaning; therefore, genuine stylistics is that which encompasses the reader's total response. In short, both viewpoints exist, and each side has presented well-reasoned arguments in support of its claims. For further clarification on the premise that style cannot be separated from meaning, see:

BENNISON GRAY, STYLE: THE PROBLEM AND ITS SOLUTION, 1969, AND STYLISTICS: THE END OF A TRADITION, JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS AND ART CRITICISM, 31, 1973.

Conversely, for a reasoned argument supporting the premise that style can be discussed independently and that specific stylistic analyses hold literary validity, see:

E.D. HIRSCH, STYLISTICS AND SYNONYMITY IN THE AIMS OF INTERPRETATION, 1976.

At this point, a brief clarification regarding stylistics in the context of Urdu is also necessary. Although stylistics is now generally discussed in Urdu, and average critics have begun sprinkling in the occasional linguistic term, the actual body of work on stylistics in Urdu is not particularly substantial. While there is a significant number of linguistics experts in Urdu, very few possess the ability to effectively apply linguistics to literary studies. In Urdu, this type of study was pioneered by Masud Husain Khan. Mughni Tabassum employs it in his criticism. Mirza Khalil Baig has also conducted numerous analyses, but the bulk of this work is primarily rooted in phonetics, and to some extent, prosody. Gyan Chand Jain is an expert in linguistics, yet he considers only traditional criticism to be true criticism. On the other hand, Shamsur Rahman Faruqi has no formal background in linguistics, but the influence of stylistics is clearly evident in his linguistic and prosodic discussions.

Here, it is necessary to mention an essay by Gyan Chand Jain, A Glance at Stylistic Criticism (Naya Daur Lucknow, October 1984), and the response it prompted from Mirza Khalil Beg, A Sideways Glance at Stylistic Criticism (Naya Daur Lucknow, April 1989). Gyan Chand Jain based his arguments on a mere handful of Urdu examples. He did not discuss stylistics as an academic discipline, nor did he keep the relationship between stylistics and literary criticism in view, which was expected of him. Based on a few weak examples, one might debate whether stylistics was applied correctly or not, but this does not undermine the objective foundation of the discipline itself. In a letter addressed to me, Jain clarified that his knowledge on the subject was incomplete and that he only had access to Turner's book. The reality is that Turner's book on this subject is not only insufficient but also fundamentally flawed for this purpose, as its primary subject is not stylistics and literary criticism at all.

In the present essay, I have deliberately discussed sources and references in some detail so that serious students of literary criticism realize how vast the scope of stylistic debates is and how far their boundaries extend. Without knowing and understanding these debates or their fundamentals, no serious discussion about stylistics is possible. Since I am frequently asked about literary criticism in the context of stylistics and structuralism, it is necessary that I clarify my own stance, albeit briefly.

The most important point in this regard is that my approach differs entirely from whatever has been written stylistically in Urdu so far. Since Masud Husain Khan was not associated with literary criticism, the examples he presented were mechanical and offer no help in literary evaluation. I have never conducted a stylistic analysis of an isolated literary work—be it a ghazal, a poem, or a short story—as a standalone literary unit. Such an analysis is only possible by keeping the author's entire creative process in view.

Going into detail would require volumes, but to give a few examples, whether it is The Metaphorical and Mythological Roots of Rajinder Singh Bedi's Art, The Art of Intizar Husain: The Fluid Journey of a Dynamic Mind, The Phonological System of Iqbal's Poetry, The Stylistics of Iqbal: In the Light of the Theory of Nominalism and Verbalism, Nazir Akbarabadi: The Cultural Observer, The Stylistics of Anees, or The Stylistics of Mir—I have never discussed a literary work in isolation. Instead, I have examined them within the context of the creative personalities of Mir, Anees, Nazir, Iqbal, Bedi, or Intizar Husain, attempting to determine the poet's or author's creative individuality or stylistic identity. Even when the analysis of an individual work has come up, it has either been in the context of literary individuality and the linguistic distinctions of the creative process, or I have utilized stylistic analysis to clarify a specific literary issue. This can be seen in essays like The Element of Irony in Premchand's Art or The New Short Story: Symbol, Allegory, and the Essence of the Narrative.

It is evident that while conducting an isolated stylistic analysis of a literary work is relatively easy, connecting a work or works to the author's or poet's creative state, identifying individual linguistic distinctions, or analyzing them within the context of a specific genre or era is an equally difficult and painstaking task. Whatever modest work I have done is of this latter nature. This is a fundamental difference, and since this critical distinction is generally overlooked—and all linguistic criticism is painted with the same brush—it was necessary to clarify it.

The second major difference is that while others have primarily concerned themselves with the criticism of poetry, I have also employed stylistics in the study of fiction, and whatever examples I have presented—good or bad—are there for all to see.

The third point is that although I have drawn upon phonetics, I have not relied solely on the phonological level; I have also utilized the lexical and syntactic levels. Setting aside the essays on Zakir Sahib's Prose and Khwaja Hasan Nizami, the entire discussion in the analyses of The Stylistics of Iqbal and The Stylistics of Mir is lexical and syntactic. Had this not been the case, the conclusions drawn would never have emerged.

The fourth and final point is that although I have undoubtedly presented some highly technical analyses (for instance, The Phonological System of Iqbal's Poetry or The Stylistics of Anees), this is not my usual approach. A few technical analyses were necessary to prove that criticism, which is a subjective and mental process, can be established on scientific, objective foundations. I admit that these analyses were not meant for general readers. However, they were conducted deliberately, and their purpose was to elucidate the scientific and objective foundations of criticism. Generally, I have taken a different path, presenting stylistics by integrating it into literary criticism. This is also due to my own literary temperament.

Aside from the criticism of fiction, a relatively detailed example of this approach is the treatise The Stylistics of Mir, which clearly demonstrates that my general method is to blend stylistics with literary criticism. In The Stylistics of Mir, all literary discussions derive their intellectual nourishment from stylistic analysis. This stylistic analysis is syntactic, morphological, and phonological, yet the analysis largely remains invisible to the eye. Even when it does surface, it is not overburdened with technical details, ensuring that the reader is never left behind. I call this Comprehensive Literary Stylistics.

In other words, my mental response in literary study is such that I do not study style and meaning separately. Rather, sound, word, phrase, form, and meaning all operate collectively and simultaneously. Unless there is a specific need to isolate a single linguistic level to clarify or trace a particular point, my mental response is holistic, not fragmented. And even if it becomes necessary to isolate a specific level, the prevailing awareness during this process remains that separating these levels is merely a means to reach the core of the discussion. Otherwise, in itself, it is an artificial process; every level—that is, every part—combines with its whole to form a linguistic unity, which then becomes effective in communicating the pleasure of meaning.

Thus, for me, stylistics is merely a tool, not the entirety of criticism by any means. It can offer invaluable assistance in the critical process. This is because stylistics can test the validity of opinions formed on impressionistic and aesthetic grounds, thereby providing criticism with a solid, analytical, scientific, and objective foundation. The only justification for explicit technical analyses is that critical conclusions can be drawn from them. However, if the essence of stylistics has taken root in the mind, then non-technical analysis flows alongside the stream of consciousness and feeling during the reading of a text. This is exactly what I call Comprehensive Literary Stylistics.

It is also a fact that in my own critical practice, I draw upon structuralism to align the surface levels of language with the overarching semantic system. Clear examples of this approach can be found in my essays such as The Tragedy of Karbala as a Poetic Metaphor and Faiz's Aesthetic Sensibility and Semantic System, as well as in my writings on fiction. However, structuralism is a separate subject and is best reserved for another time.

As far as sources are concerned, there are hundreds of articles and books on stylistics in English and French. These include works by both linguists and literary critics. Several international seminars and conferences have been held on the subject, and their proceedings contain crucial papers that have played a key role in advancing these debates and establishing stylistics as a formal discipline. The following essay collections serve as standard reference books in this field. To truly understand stylistics, it is essential to consult these works alongside the books referenced earlier:

(1) Thomas A. Sebeok, ed., Style in Language, 1960

(2) Roger Fowler, ed., Essays on Style and Language, 1966

(3) Glen A. Love and Michael Payne, eds., Contemporary Essays on Style, 1969

(4) Donald C. Freeman, ed., Linguistics and Literary Style, 1970

(5) Seymour Chatman, ed., Literary Style: A Symposium, 1971

(6) Howard S. Babb, ed., Essays in Stylistic Analysis, 1972

Several introductory books have also been written on stylistics. In my view, the following are particularly important:

(1) Epstein, E. L., Language and Style, London, 1978

(2) Enkvist, Spencer, and Gregory, Linguistics and Style, Oxford, 1964

(3) Widdowson, H. G., Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature, London, 1988

(4) Chapman, Raymond, Linguistics and Literature, London, 1975

(5) Enkvist, N. E., Linguistic Stylistics, The Hague, 1973

(6) Hough, G., Style and Stylistics, London, 1969

Associating stylistics with any specific country, nation, or ideology stems from a lack of awareness. Scholars from all backgrounds have contributed to its development. The Russian Formalists have played a prominent role in writing about stylistics, while French, British, German, and American linguists have also been at the forefront. The most distinguished names among them include Roman Jakobson, Leo Spitzer, Michael Riffaterre, Stephen Ullmann, and Richard Ohmann. The essays and debates of these and many other significant writers can be found in the books mentioned throughout this article.

Some people have come to view stylistics as a bogeyman. The way stylistics is now being bandied about in Urdu, both appropriately and inappropriately, reveals that some people are genuinely terrified of it. Nevertheless, stylistics has established enough credibility in a few short years that it is no longer easy to ignore. A modern Urdu critic, who has deliberately turned criticism into a bed of thorns so that people may experience the pleasure of walking with blistered feet, frequently laments that modernism was a fiery rebellion which linguistic critics have now extinguished.

First of all, how many linguistic critics are there in Urdu, and even if there are, how many stylistic essays have they actually written? It is astonishing that this fiery rebellion, whose sacred flames were kept burning by two dozen eminent critics—according to our friend—was extinguished by the feeble writings of just one or two linguistic critics. If this is true, then there must certainly be something special about stylistics. Because something that can cool down heated trends can also sow warm sparks in cold ground, whereas the reality is that stylistics makes no such claim. There is another colleague who suffers from the disease of speaking from a high pedestal, as if divine revelations are descending solely upon him. He never tires of crying out for the ethics of criticism, even though he has mastered the art of turning literary hypocrisy into an art form. To him, intellectualism simply means continuing to make snide remarks about stylistics, thereby soothing the wounds of his own inferiority complex.

A critic is somewhat understandable, as he has the right to play the all-knowing philosopher. However, in this respectable tribe, there is also a prominent creative writer who frequently avenges his failures in fiction through criticism. Even in criticism, he constantly proves his monk-like detachment by badmouthing linguistic criticism. If doing so can benefit his fiction, then linguistic criticism should have no objection to his naivety. Let it be clear that the present essay is not addressed to such intellectuals, because these are enlightened souls; they have reached a stage where every destination ends, except for narcissism.

In this essay, I have touched upon fundamental debates and mentioned the sources and references from which I have gained a great deal, and from which others can also benefit if they so desire. But how can this essay, or the books referenced within it, possibly affect those who already know everything? I request such gentlemen not to waste their time on these pages. Instead, these pages are for those who, like me, possess a scholarly curiosity, are seekers of new knowledge, or wish to learn as much as possible about new linguistic debates. So, let us examine what stylistics is, what it is not, and what its relationship is with literary criticism.

The term stylistics is not very old in criticism. Since the sixth decade of the twentieth century, stylistics has been used for the methodology through which the style of a literary artwork is analyzed on objective, linguistic, and scientific grounds, rather than through the subjective and impressionistic approach of traditional criticism.

Literary criticism has been deeply influenced by the new insights gained from linguistics, sociology, and psychology over the past two decades, particularly by the advancements in Communication Theory. Two new critical disciplines, known as stylistics and structuralism, which have sparked new philosophical debates in the literary world, are the result of these very influences. Historically, the debates surrounding stylistics came first, while structuralist theory and its related concepts, known as Post-Structuralism, emerged later. However, without understanding stylistics or the fundamental principles and rules of linguistics, it is impossible to comprehend structuralist theory or the various philosophical debates that fall under the umbrella of Post-Structuralism.

The objection is often raised that these debates do not clarify where the boundary of stylistics ends and where that of structuralism begins. However, for those who are familiar with linguistics or possess some basic linguistic knowledge, this objection is baseless. Although both stylistic theory and structuralist theory derive their fundamental philosophical principles and rules from linguistics, their scopes of action are entirely different. Stylistics, or literary stylistics, is concerned with the nature of literature or literary expression, whereas the scope of structuralism encompasses all of human life, communication, and every manifestation of human civilization. The philosophical challenge of structuralism is to understand how the human mind perceives reality, and how reality, which exists objectively, is recognized and comprehended.

It should be kept in mind that structuralism is not solely concerned with literature or literary expression. Rather, myths, mythology, ancient traditions, beliefs, customs, manners, and all cultural and social phenomena—such as clothing and attire, lifestyles, food and drink, living habits, and social etiquette—essentially, every phenomenon through which the human mind communicates meaning or perceives reality, falls within the field of structuralism's interest. Since literature is also a manifestation, indeed a highly significant manifestation, of human civilization, it is a subject of special interest in structuralism. This is precisely why literature holds a central position in structuralist debates.

The fundamental concept of stylistics is style. Style is not a new word; it has been prevalent in Western criticism for centuries. In Urdu, the concept of style is relatively new. However, terms such as zaban-o-bayan (language and expression), andaz (manner), andaz-e-bayan (manner of expression), tarz-e-bayan (mode of expression), tarz-e-tahreer (writing style), lehja (tone), rang (color/style), and rang-e-sukhan (poetic style) have long been used to convey style or similar meanings. In other words, questions about the characteristics of a poet's or author's expression, the kind of language used in a particular genre or form, or the nature and characteristics of language in a specific era—these are all debates concerning style. No recognition of literature is complete without style. However, this subject has often been dealt with merely through passing references, though the traces of these debates can certainly be identified within the critical tradition.

In contrast to this tradition, modern linguistics has introduced a new concept of stylistics. A fundamental point must be clarified here: the concept of style in modern stylistics differs from the one prevalent in Western literary criticism or influenced by it. It also differs from the concept rooted in the Eastern literary tradition of rhetoric and figures of speech (ilm-e-badi-o-bayan). Furthermore, it is distinct from the subjective or impressionistic notions we often form in our minds. In the Eastern tradition, literary style is essentially defined by the application of rhetorical devices in poetry and literature to achieve literary beautification. In other words, it is an element that enhances the beauty and charm of literary expression. Style is viewed as an ornament that increases the attractiveness, appeal, and impact of a text. Therefore, according to the Eastern tradition, style is not an intrinsic necessity, but rather an embellishment that can be added.

Thus, the first major difference between the traditional and modern concepts of style—that is, the perspective of stylistics—is that stylistics views style not as an additive element, but as a fundamental one. Style is an essential, indispensable component of literary expression. It is an integral part of the creative process through which language elevates itself to the level of literature. Literary style is not mere linguistic decoration or ornamentation that can be mechanically applied or removed; rather, style is inherently embedded in the very fabric of literary expression.

Stylistics is a branch of Descriptive Linguistics that examines the nature, elements, and characteristics of literary expression. Because linguistics is a social science, stylistics approaches the question of style objectively rather than impressionistically. It analyzes style with a degree of precision and presents its conclusions with reasoned, scientific accuracy.

The fundamental premise of stylistics is that any thought, idea, emotion, or feeling can be expressed in language in multiple ways. Language offers complete freedom in choosing one's mode of expression. A poet or author exercises this freedom at every step. This choice can be both conscious and unconscious, influenced by personal taste, temperament, individual preferences, the demands of the genre or form, and the author's perception of the reader. Ultimately, style is the act of selecting one specific mode of expression (a choice that rests with the author) from all the possible avenues of creative expression that currently exist or could potentially exist.

It should also be noted that this concept of style not only differs from traditional views but also fundamentally clashes with the school of modern criticism known as New Criticism. In stylistics, considering all possible modes of expression naturally incorporates concepts of time, space, and society—elements for which New Criticism leaves no room. New Criticism views language as static because its approach is synchronic (bound to a single point in time), whereas stylistics considers the past, present, and future of language, encompassing all its possibilities. In other words, while the concept of style in stylistics is analytical and objective, it remains open to historical and social dimensions, unlike New Criticism. According to New Criticism, a work of art is self-sufficient and autonomous; everything that matters exists within the text itself, and nothing outside of it holds relevance. Stylistics, while also focusing intently on the text, refuses to accept the historical and social limitations imposed by New Criticism.

Literary stylistics employs analytical methods to determine and classify the nature of various modes of creative expression. It highlights how an artist selects their specific mode of expression from all available linguistic possibilities, and identifies the distinct characteristics of the resulting style. It asks: What specific linguistic features allow a particular mode of expression to be distinctly recognized? How much does an author's or poet's style deviate from the standard, natural norm of linguistic expression? In a given style, which linguistic features recede into the background, and which are brought to the forefront? In stylistics, this latter process is known as Foregrounding.

By classifying the natural norms of language, one can evaluate a specific text or texts, or conduct a comparative study of selected works. A stylistic analysis can be performed at any level of language. In linguistics, there are four primary levels of language:

- Phonology

- Morphology

- Syntax

- Semantics

Language is constituted by the combination of these four levels. In purely linguistic analyses, any single level can be examined in isolation. However, in the analysis of literary expression, a holistic concept of language is inherent at every level. Therefore, meaning is the word, and the word is the meaning. The basic unit of meaning is the morpheme or utterance (kalima), which consists of a word or a group of words, while the word itself is made up of a sound or a combination of sounds. Thus, in a stylistic analysis—even if it is not explicitly stated and the scientific focus is restricted to just one level (as I have deliberately done in my essays Asloobiyat-e-Anees [The Stylistics of Anees] and Iqbal Ka Sotiyati Nizam [Iqbal's Phonological System])—the holistic concept of language, including its meaning, remains latent. It is not necessarily excluded, contrary to what is commonly assumed out of misunderstanding.

In short, the purpose of a stylistic analysis is to identify the specific linguistic distinctions that make it possible to recognize a particular literary work, author, poet, form, genre, or era. These distinctions can be of several types:

(1) Phonological: Distinctions established by the sound system, such as the characteristics of rhyme and refrain (radeef and qafiya), features of retroflexion, aspiration, or nasalization, and the ratio of consonants to vowels, etc.

(2) Morphological/Lexical: The relative frequency of specific types of words; the frequency and proportion of nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc.; and the use of compound constructions (tarakib).

(3) Syntactic: The specialized use of a particular part of speech, the arrangement and syntax of words within a sentence, etc.

(4) Rhetorical: Distinctive figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, metonymy, allegory, symbol, imagery, etc.

(5) Prosodic: The specialized use and distinct features of poetic meters (awzan and beher), metrical variations (zihafat), etc.

Stylistics experts who emphasize scientific methodology and objectivity rely on quantitative statistics to determine the relative frequency and proportion of linguistic features. Today, with the use of computers for such analyses, results are being extracted with even greater accuracy and certainty. Some experts also base their analyses on morphological and linguistic concepts—for instance, the distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic forms, or the differences and distinctions between surface and deep structures based on Chomsky's generative grammar.