The second tended simply to disaster. [Harris, 1994:
187].
T he short fiction piece was hindered by copying literally the novel within the limited space it offered the writer to create a realistic world. I t tried to translate a vision for which the short fiction piece simply could not be appropriate. T he closer the tale approached the novel, the further it was forced to move from the essentially ahistorical, sonnet-like, and highly focused vision which is characteristic of the true short story.
[ ibid]. H arris here points to some structural and thematic features characteristic of the short story as opposed to the novel: ahistorical rather than tied to an historical context, a greater focus as opposed to a looser narrative form like the novel, and the suggest of a structure closer to poetry (sonnet-like) rather than the novel.
In addition, the shorter form strove «to accommodate realism at the end of the nineteenth century, focused on an experience under the influence of a particular mood and therefore depended more on tone than on plot as a principle of unity» [May, 1994:
200, italics in original].
Some critics also believe that the shorter form also showed differences in choices about subject and theme. Harris, for example, quotes the Irish short-story master Frank O’Connor, who also agrees with Pratt when he states the short story is the natural vehicle for the presentation of the «defiant, those outside conventional society» (O'Connor, qtd. in Harris 1994:
188). Pratt uses a broader concept: «new subject matters.» While the novel adheres to the «concept of a civilized society,» the short story «remains by its very nature remote from the community — romantic, individualistic, and intransigent» (O'Connor, qtd. in Harris, 1994:
188).
Graham Good even believes that the differences in formal structure follow from the different thematic choices. In his paper «Notes on the Novella,» comparing the novel and the short story, again refers to O’Connor’s view: «Where the novel concerns individuals within society, the short story treats groups which are outside it, or at any rate outside the normal social experience to be expected of the reader. The formal differences between the two genres stem from this» [Good, 1994:
156].
As Good points out, however, «tale» and «story,» older terms, were interchangeable and were actually used to denote short prose of around five up to a hundred pages [Good, 1994 148], but the usage of those terms was eroded in the late nineteenth century by the magazine term «short story,» which, with its connotations of abruptness and curtailment, tended to confine itself to the lower end of this range — short story manuals still preach an ascetic brevity, attained by diligent cutting and paring away the fat, until the art comes to seem one of pure omission. [Good, 1994:
148].
Therefore, some contemporary critics have gone even beyond the feature of length to suggest other criterial features that characterize modern literature, such as the «ironic style» — a «style that, even as it seems realistic on its surface, in fact emphasizes the radical difference between the routine of everyday reality and the incisive nature of story itself as the only means to know true reality» [May, 1994: 211).
Brander Matthews is said to be the first critic to have identified the short story as a separate genre from the novel in 1901. He was the first one to call it so, in spite of the fact that it was successfully produced and developed throughout the whole nineteenth century in the United States, in America [Shapard and Thomas, 1986].
Ejxenbaum, in his study «O. Henry and the Theory of the Short Story,» states that the story, precisely as small form (short story), has nowhere been so consistently cultivated as in America. Until the middle of the nineteenth century, American literature, in the minds both of its writers and readers, was merged with English literature and largely incorporated into it as a «provincial» literature. [Ejxenbaum, 1994:
82−83, italics in original].
Brander Matthews also spends most of his essay, «The Philosophy of the Short-Story,» by drawing differences between the novel and the short-story, which he insists on hyphenating. «A true Short-Story is something other and something more than a mere story which is short» [Matthews, 1994:
73]. Among the many differences the author stresses one may cite a unity that the short story has and the novel cannot have: «A Short-story deals with a single character, a single event, a single emotion, or the series of emotions called forth by a single situation. The Short-story is the single effect, complete and self-contained, while the Novel is of necessity broken into a series of episodes. Thus the Short-story has, what the Novel cannot have, the effect of „totality,“ as Poe called it, the unity of impression». [Matthews, 1994:
73].
Thus, contemporary genres such as the short-short story, which are not steadfast but are in constant mutation, will never fulfill the prerequisites for a neat classification of generic identity.
Conclusion
The research carried out has proved the significance of repetition in literary works as stylistically marked recurrent use of the same words.
The analysis of scientific literature has proved wide range of functions of repetition fulfilled in a literary prose and poetry such as thematic, structuring and semantic.
Besides, repetition has been proved to be extremely important in cognitive and pragmatic aspects of literature perception by the reader as it helps to convey various emotions of characters, to intensify tension in the climax etc.
The given review has also considered types of repetitions which have been specified for poetry and prose in their own ways.
Finally this chapter tells about peculiar features of short story genre as the main analysis of repetition usage is to be made on great short stories written by British and American writers. The review has proved diverse nature of the genre and its differences from similar types of literary works.
References
ΠΡΠ½ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ΄, Π. Π. Π‘ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠ° ΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°Π½Π³Π»ΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠ°. — ΠΠΎΡΠΊΠ²Π°, 1990.
E jxenbaum, B.M. O. H enry and the Theory of the Short Story.
T rans. I. R. T itunik. T he New Short Story Theories. E d.
C harles May. — A thens: Ohio UP, 1994. 81−88.
Galperin, I. R. Stylistics. — Moscow: High School, 1997.
G ood, Graham. N otes on the Novella.
T he New Short Story Theories. E d. C harles May. -A thens: Ohio UP, 1994.
— P.147−164.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English. — London and New York: Longman, 1996.
H arris, Wendell V. V ision and Form: The English Novel and the Emergence of the Short Story. T he New Short Story Theories. E
d. C harles May. — A thens: Ohio UP, 1994. -P. 182−191.
Hawthorn, J. A Concise Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory. (Third Ed.). -London: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Kristeva, J. Word, dialogue, and the novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader. -New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
Kukharenko, V. A. A Book of Practice in Stylistics., — Moscow: High School, 1986.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. Philosophy In The Flesh. — NY: Basic Books, 1999.
Leech, G. N. and Short, M. H. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. — London, Longman, 1981.
M atthews, Brander. T he Philosophy of the Short-Story. T he New Short Story Theories.
E d. Charles May. — A thens: Ohio UP, 1994.
— P.73−80.
M ay, Charles E. C hekhov and the Modern Short Story.
T he New Short Story Theories. E d. C harles May. — A thens: Ohio UP, 1994.
— P.199−217.
M ay, Charles E. T he Nature of Knowledge in Short Fiction.
T he New Short Story Theories. E d.
C harles May. — A thens: Ohio UP, 1994. — P.131−143.
Nash, W. Rhetoric: The Wit of Persuasion, — Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1999.
P ratt, Mary Louise. T he Short Story: The Long and the Short of It. T he New Short Story Theories.
E d. C harles May. — A thens: Ohio UP, 1994.
— P.91−113.
Shapard, R., and Thomas, J. Sudden Fiction: American Short-Short Stories. — Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith Publisher, 1986.
S hepherd, S. C. F unctions of repetition: Variation in narrative and conversational discourse.
// I n J. A. E dmondson, C. F eagin, and P.
M ulhausler (Eds.), Development and diversity: Language variation across time and space, 1990. — P.629−638.
S herzer, J. S emantic systems, discourse structures, and the ecology of language.
I n R.W. Fasold, and R. W. S huy (Eds.), Studies in language variation: Semantics, syntax, phonology, pragmatics, social situations, ethnographical perspectives. — W ashington, D. C.: G eorgetown University Press, 1997.
— P. 283−293
Short, M. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. — London: Longman, 1996.
Tannen, D. Talking voices: repetition, dialogue, and imaginary in conversational discourse. -Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
T annen, D. R elative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. //I
n D. R. O lson, N. T orrance, and A.
H ildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning (124−147). — New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Verdonk, P. and Weber, J. Twentieth Century Fiction. — Rorthledge, 1995.
Watt, Ian. The Rise of the Novel. — Berkeley and Los Angeles: U of California P, 1994
Yemeneci, A. Categories and functions of repetition in Turkish oral narratives. // University Journal of Education, 2002.
Yule, G. Pragmatics. — Oxford University Press, 1997
Sourses
Shakespeare, W. The Sonnets and Narrative Poems. Published by David Campbell Publishers: London, 1992.
Dictionaries
Wales, K. A Dictionary of Stylistics. — London: Longman, 1999.
