Staking everything on it: A Stylistic Analysis of Linguistic Patterns in “Hills Like White Elephants”

I. Introduction

The essay performs a statistical analysis of the grammatical patterns in "Hills Like White Elephants" as a means of opening new avenues for its interpretation. The story's careful deployment of pronouns and use of repetition bridge its disparate themes, In addition, the ambiguous, repetitious language deepens the significance and raises the stakes of the couple's argument. These linguistic patterns underscore the emotional violence, broaden the significance, and complicate the closure of that argument.

"HILLS LIKE WHITE ELEPHANTS" is, if taken literally, a story in which little actually "happens": a couple has drinks at a train station in Spain and argues about something rather vague. A useful approach to such an enigmatic text is to examine the very language of which it is made. The story is, after all, a textual artifact, one that historically has been subjected to intensely close reading. A stylistic analysis of "Hills Like White Elephants" will enable us to see how, at the textual level, the story is able to manufacture such a rich interpretative web from ostensibly gossamer materials.

II. Body

a. Repetition of sentences:

It is through this repetition that much of the argument is played out. Within the economy of this short story, barely 1,500 words long, repeated items are notable. For example, the phrase "like white elephants," occurring five times, is lent particular significance by its titular status. The title describes the hills as being "like white elephants" rather than as "hills [that look] like white elephants."

This precise choice leaves the comparison based upon value rather than appearance. Jig even qualifies the description, stating that the hills "don't really look" like them except "through the trees". As with all of the story's repetitions, this instance creates significance by establishing a pattern and then deviating from it. The final repetition of "like white elephants" breaks the established pattern by shifting the comparison's focus from hills to a highly general noun, "things": "But if I do it, then it will be nice again if I say things are like white elephants, and you'll like it?". Thus, because the comparison is titular and repeated, and eventually becomes non-specific, it invites the substitution of other words for "hills."

The man repeats six variations on "I don't want you to do it if you don't really want to”. His fourth variation--"I don't want you to do it if you feel that way" alters and further specifies the conditions he sets for allowing her refusal. He requires that she "care about [herself]". And the fifth, interrupted repetition begins with an adversative conjunctive phrase--"But you've got to realize...” The repetitions, as well as the addition of this phrase, emphasize the man's persistence and power to change the conditions of agreement, as well as Jig's reluctance or inability to want or feel as he directs.

b. Lexical repetition:

In terms of lexical repetition, one instance is notorious: "Would you please please please please please please please stop talking?” This sounds like a command. However, it is made optative--it asks, rather than demands--by its modal use of "would" and the repetition of "please," emphasizing both the urgency of the request and its powerlessness. The strangeness of this sentence on the page goes beyond the conventions, as Gregory describes them (111), of writing meant to represent natural conversation. Its singular "oddness" its placement at the argument's end, and the fact that it is articulated as a request rather than a command, makes the sentence a central and prominent illustration of Jig's powerlessness, as well as her ardor.

c. Prominence of Question and answer:

Much of the dialogue in "Hills Like White Elephants" is a trading of questions and answers in which Jig asks a total of seventeen questions, thirteen of Which are polar, yes-no questions. The man asks only four questions, three of which he does not ask until the text is nearly finished. Hence the polarity of her questions-the man defines what is true, correct, or permissible by answering "yes" or "no". Authority shifts briefly from the man to Jig when she says "And we could have everything and every day we make it more impossible". He has to ask "What did you say?" and she defines the operation's consequences for him, that they cannot have everything (SS 276). But authority shifts back to the man when he refuses to stop talking, and Jig's final questions ask permission, as optative imperatives, to end the conversation. In her inability to demand an end, she can only threaten to scream.

d.words describing purely cognitive functions:

The story contains a large quantity of words describing purely cognitive functions. A list of forty-nine such uses includes "want" (17 times), "know" (12), "feel" (6), "care" (5), "think" (3), "realize" (3), "worry" (2), and "am willing" (1). The number of cognitive terms suggests that the text is focused on personal desire and the use of knowledge's authority in its pursuit.

III. Conclusion

In the story it was clearly shown that the man is the authority in the conversation. With the use of stylistic analysis we can infer through the analysis that the man is superior to the woman. That is the goodness of having a stylistic analysis. The readers can infer what the story is about by looking into the language in the story, which in a way did not deviate from its original theme when analyzed in literature.
I can say that in every relationship there should always be an open communication, a time to listen and be heard. A good conversation can happen or occur in a subtle and calm way. We should not let our emotions overpower our decisions and actions in life.

reference:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-567177/Staking-everything-on-it-a.html