In the 1960s and 1970s, the mainstream trend of western science prevailed, and linguistics and constructivism prevailed, which promoted the development of stylistics. The prosperity of modern stylistics is manifested in various schools, such as formal stylistics, functional stylistics, discourse stylistics, social history/cultural stylistics, literary stylistics and linguistic stylistics. The difference between these six schools is based on two different standards. The differences among "formal stylistics", "functional stylistics" and "discourse stylistics" are based on the language patterns adopted by stylisticists. Stylistics is a subject that uses modern linguistic theories and methods to study style. In a sense, its relationship with linguistics is a very close parasitic relationship. The emergence and development of new linguistic theories often give birth to new literary genres. "Formal Stylistics" refers to a literary school that adopts formalistic linguistic theories, such as Saussure's structuralist linguistics, bloomfield's descriptive linguistics and Chomsky's transformational generative grammar. "Functional Stylistics" refers to the stylistic school that adopts systemic functional grammar for analysis; Discourse Stylistics is a stylistic school that adopts discourse analysis model, pragmatics and text linguistics for analysis. Accordingly, the distinction between stylistic schools such as "social history/cultural stylistics", "literary stylistics" and "linguistic stylistics" is mainly based on research purposes. Carter and Simpson pointed out that linguistic stylistics is "to improve the mode of analyzing language through the study of style and language, thus contributing to the development of linguistic theory"; Literary stylistics "aims to provide a basis for better understanding, appreciation and interpretation of author-centered literary works"; Socio-historical/cultural stylistics refers to the genre of stylistic research aimed at revealing the relationship between ideology and power of a text (Carter and Simpson, 1989: 1- 17). In 1960s and 1970s, literary stylistics reached its peak, and many linguists and literary critics turned to literary stylistics (see Chatman, 197 1). Literary stylistics can be divided into broad sense and narrow sense. First of all, it can generally refer to a genre of stylistics whose ultimate goal is to explain the thematic meaning and aesthetic effect of literary texts. Many linguists who claim to study "literary style" regard literary texts purely as materials for language analysis or as experimental sites for testing the feasibility of linguistic theories (which was very common before the 1960s). For the purpose of developing linguistic theory, they focus on expounding and perfecting relevant linguistic models, and only pay attention to the accuracy and systematicness of language description itself, without considering the ideological and aesthetic effects of the works (even if there is one, it is only a passing), which is a typical feature of "language stylistics". However, many people who are engaged in the study of literary stylistics regard stylistics as a bridge between linguistics and literary criticism, and discuss how to produce and strengthen the theme language and artistic effect through the specific choice of language. This is "literary stylistics" in the strict sense. Before the end of 1960s, "literary stylistics" and "linguistic stylistics" both adopted formal linguistic theories, so they were regarded as "formal stylistics" by critics who divided stylistic schools according to linguistic schools.

The rise of literary stylistics coincides with the decline of new criticism. There are two main reasons why literary stylistics, which is inextricably linked with new criticism, can flourish when the former declines. First of all, literary stylistics has armed itself with modern linguistic theories. Secondly, some literary stylists have adopted a more flexible position than the new criticism. Although they are opposed to treating their works as social documents and historical documents, they do not abandon their understanding of the background of their works. Leach once made it clear: "If you want to make a thorough and fruitful analysis of each example, you must understand the background of each poem, including the author's life, cultural background, social background and so on." (Leech, 1969:vii) Compared with the new criticism, although literary stylistics attaches importance to the text, it generally does not exclude the author, and some can consider the problem from the reader's point of view. In addition, literary stylistics, as a revision and supplement to traditional impressionist criticism, fills the space left by the decline of new criticism and plays a great role in language and literature teaching.

Literary Stylistics is a bridge between linguistics and literary criticism, which focuses on how the author expresses and strengthens the theme meaning and aesthetic effect through the choice of language. Linguistic theories and methods are only tools to help this school analyze. They are not limited to adopting a particular linguistic model, but choose one or more suitable linguistic models according to the actual needs of analysis (see Leach, 1969, widdowson, 1975, Turner,1973; Leech and Short, 198 1) Because their purpose is to help literary criticism rather than to help develop linguistic theory, they only pay attention to the linguistic features closely related to the theme meaning and aesthetic effect, so the systematic aspect of language description is often weak. Many linguists or stylisticists from linguists think that such stylistic analysis is not pure. In their view, stylistics should contribute to the development of linguistics. It is not difficult to see that literary stylistics is easily accepted by traditional critics. Most literary stylists organically combine the interpretation of works with the description of language. They often read the works repeatedly, find out the language features related to the theme and aesthetic effect, and then use appropriate linguistic tools to analyze and describe the relevant language structure and clarify its literary significance. In such a stylistic study, the process of description and explanation is inseparable; It describes the language phenomenon related to literary meaning found through reading and interpretation, and the process of language analysis can often strengthen or correct the interpretation results.

Since the early 1970s, functional stylistics has developed vigorously. Functional Stylistics is the abbreviation of Systemic Functional Stylistics, which refers to a stylistic school based on Halliday's Systemic Functional Linguistics. Halliday is one of the founders of functional stylistics. 1969, he read an influential paper "Language Function and Literary Style" at the stylistics seminar held in Italy (Halliday, 197 1). This paper puts forward that "language function theory" is a good tool for stylistic research. The so-called "language function theory" refers to "explaining language structure and language phenomena from the perspective that language plays a certain role in our lives and serves several common needs". Halliday distinguishes three metafunctions of language: the conceptual function of expressing the speaker's experience; Interpersonal function expresses the relationship between the speaker's attitude, evaluation and communicative role, while textual function organizes the text. These three meta-functions are interrelated and constitute the semantic layer or "meaning potential". Halliday makes a detailed analysis of the style of william golding's novel The Heir by using the transitivity system of conceptual functional category (for details, see Shen Dan,1997; Zhang Delu, 1999).

Halliday's thesis is a classic of systemic functional stylistics. It has two characteristics. First of all, his theory of language function breaks the traditional boundary between style and content. Any language structure has its specific language function. Halliday clearly pointed out that "there is style in any field". The conceptual function of expressing experience he distinguished belongs to the category of "content" that literary stylistics does not pay attention to. Extending stylistics research to this field is conducive to revealing the essence of characters' life activities and the specific way of observing the world. Another feature is its systematic analysis. Halliday made a detailed analysis and accurate statistics on the types and quantities of the transmission process, the types and quantities of participants and the types and quantities of environmental components in The Inheritor, and systematically explained the analysis and statistical results in the form of charts, making people clear at a glance. The systematicness of this analysis is based on the systematicness of its language model.

After Halliday, many functional stylisticists systematically analyzed the semantic level of style by using transitivity model. As for interpersonal function, functional stylists generally start with the analysis of mood, modality, person, adjectives and adverbs expressing attitude. This paper discusses the relationship between the sender and the receiver of the information reflected in the text (the relationship between the author/narrator, the characters and the readers), and their positions, attitudes and value judgments on the experience content. It is worth mentioning that if functional stylistics studies interpersonal functions in real conversations such as drama or radio interviews, these studies are likely to be classified as discourse stylistics because of their analysis objects. As for the text function, functional stylisticists are concerned with the relationship between thematic structure, information structure, cohesion between sentences and thematic meaning of the text.

Early functional stylists generally focused on specific functional categories; For example, focus on the author's choice of skilled personal pronouns, or focus on the author's choice of thematic structure that belongs to the textual function. However, in recent years, more and more functional stylists pay attention to the simultaneous analysis of several levels and how they interact to form the overall characteristics of text style, thus expressing and strengthening the theme and shaping the characters (see Birch and O'Toole, 1988).

Another notable feature of systemic functional stylistics is that it emphasizes the relationship among language, discourse and social context. Systemic Functional Stylistics holds that language is a social symbol and discourse is subject to situational context. Since 1980s, systemic functional stylistics, which emphasizes the role of situational context, has made great progress and development in the academic atmosphere of paying attention to social context. In recent years, more and more functional stylisticists have begun to pay attention to the relationship between discourse language and power and the interaction between ideologies, which naturally contributes to the development of social, historical and cultural stylistics. As far as grammatical patterns are concerned, many stylistic studies should be classified as systemic functional stylistics; But from its research purpose, it should belong to social, historical and cultural stylistics. Similarly, some stylistics belong to textual stylistics from the analysis object, but the analysis tool adopted is systemic functional grammar. In other words, the influence of systemic functional grammar on stylistics has gone beyond the scope of systemic functional stylistics and has become a widely used stylistic analysis tool. As far as the development of stylistics is concerned, the 1980s was marked by the rise of discourse stylistics. Discourse Stylistics refers to a genre stratified by discourse analysis, pragmatics and discourse analysis. It has developed rapidly since the early 1980s. Discourse stylistics is different from other stylistic schools in two aspects. First, pay attention to the analysis of the conversation and the communication process between the two sides. It is true that in recent years, discourse stylistics has focused on the study of literary texts (rather than actual dialogues in life), but even so, the analysis focus of discourse stylistics is still on dialogues between characters in plays, novels and poems, monologues or various dialogue relationships in Bakhtin's theory. Another feature is that the analysis object of discourse stylistics is the unit above the sentence, such as the relationship and law between turns in dialogue, the cohesion between sentences, or the semantic structure relationship between discourse components.

Discourse stylistics mainly comes from the following patterns of analyzing daily conversations (see Toolan, 1990:273-274):

1. Conversation analysis in anthropological methods. It pays attention to the interaction between the two sides in the social structure, especially to the speech patterns produced to complete the communication tasks, such as initiating a conversation, ending a conversation, taking turns to speak, revising, receiving, designing, understanding and displaying. In the book Stylistics of Fiction, Thuren uses some concepts of conversation analysis to analyze the dialogue between characters in Faulkner's novel Go, Moses. In the analysis, he also borrowed other discourse analysis models, especially Grice's conversational cooperation principle as the basic model. This is the common ground of many discourse stylists, who generally adopt different analysis modes according to their needs.

2. Analysis of Birmingham discourse represented by Sinclair and Coulthard of Birmingham University. It draws lessons from Halliday's grammatical hierarchy model of rank and category (sentence-clause-phrase-word-morpheme) and establishes a five-level model (class-class segment-meeting-speaking step-behavior). This model is used to analyze the daily conversations between teachers and students, between doctors and patients, or between lawyers and witnesses. In order to analyze drama (and daily conversation), Burton of Birmingham University changed the top-level "category" of this model to "response" and made other adjustments. When analyzing drama, she pays special attention to the level of "speech step", and looks at the status and power relationship between characters from the comparison of "opening speech step", "supporting speech step" and "challenging speech step".

3. Based on the concept of "face" proposed by Goffman and the concept of "politeness" proposed by Brown and levinson (Goffman,1981; Brown and Levison, 1987). This model links speech acts with sociology and social psychology, and holds that people should pay attention to adopting some strategies to maintain the image of themselves, others or the receiver in dialogue. Discourse stylists can explain the complex relationship between characters by revealing different politeness strategies used in dialogue (Simpson,1989:170-183).

4. Model based on Grice conversation principle. Grice believes that people generally follow four cooperative principles in conversation, namely, quantity principle, quality principle, relevance principle and mode principle. Both sides of a conversation use these criteria to generate or deduce various conversational meanings (Grice, 1975). This is a common mode used by discourse stylists in analyzing conversations in dramas and novels, and they pay special attention to analyzing various conversational meanings contained in characters' speeches. Pratt and others also use this model to analyze the interaction between the narrator and the interviewee (Pratt, 1977).

In addition to borrowing the mode of analyzing daily dialogues, discourse stylists have also developed their own modes when analyzing novel dialogues. Fowler uses Bakhtin's dialogue theory to analyze the polyphonic nature of Dickens' novel Hard Times. Weber also analyzed the language style in Dickens' Hard Times, but he paid more attention to the role of modality system which reflected the speaker's attitude and judgment. By analyzing the linguistic modality characteristics of the main characters, he reveals their different ideologies and worldviews. Many discourse stylists also pay attention to analyzing the semantic structure of literary texts.

Generally speaking, similar to functional stylists, discourse stylists pay more attention to the accuracy and systematicness of language description, and show or test the feasibility of the adopted language model (in this sense, it can be classified as "language stylistics"). Discourse Stylistics also keeps up with the trend of the times, emphasizing more and more the connection between the text and the social and historical context, advocating transcending the discussion of the aesthetic value of the text and turning its attention to the relationship between stylistic characteristics and class, rights and ideology. This undoubtedly promoted the development of social history/cultural stylistics. In the 1990s, functional stylistics and discourse stylistics still maintained a relatively strong development momentum. Literary stylistics with a formalistic stance is strongly impacted by cultural criticism, although it still plays an active role in language and literature teaching (Thornborrow, 1998).

As far as the development of stylistics is concerned, the prominent symbol of the 1990s is the vigorous development of historical/cultural stylistics. Since the early 1980s, influenced by Frankfurt School and Marxist structuralism, especially Foucault's ideological trend, more and more stylists no longer regard language as a neutral carrier, but as a material carrier of ideology. Text is no longer regarded as a simple mirror reflecting ideology, but a product of ideology and social structure. Thereby affecting ideology and social structure. They believe that this is a dialectical production relationship, and that language and social context restrict each other, realize each other and construct each other, which intensifies various social inequalities and injustices. From this perspective, the task of stylistics is to reveal and criticize the ideology and power relations contained in language.

British stylist Burton is one of the founders of social history/cultural stylistics. 1982, she published an article that was considered quite radical at that time, in which she suggested that westerners live in a society of class oppression, racial discrimination and gender discrimination. A large part of post-romantic classical literature covers up contradictions and oppression and serves the ideology of the ruling class, while literary criticism, especially stylistics, becomes an accomplice to serve the ruling consciousness through the analysis and appreciation of these styles. Burton called on stylists to examine their own research and find out whether it serves the oppressive ruling class consciousness or challenges it. She believes that stylistic analysis is a powerful way to understand various "realities" constructed through language and a tool to transform society. Her stylistic analysis is obviously different from traditional stylistic analysis, because its focus is to explore how the text constructs its own fictional reality.

Burton's position is quite representative in social/historical and cultural stylistics. Some scholars believe that this school has two branches. One is critical linguistics led by Fowler, and the other is historical philology advocated by Maccabees. Critical linguistics arose in the University of East Anglia in the late 1970s. 1979 Fowler and his colleague Crixus &; Hodge published two declaratory works: Language and Control and Language as Ideology. The book puts forward the name of critical linguistics for the first time and expounds the basic position and methods of this school. Critical linguists believe that language structure is closely related to social structure, and they regard language as social discourse. They pay attention to analyzing various ideologies such as class concept, power relations and gender discrimination contained in various texts, especially the language structure of news media. These ideologies are branded and biased in language expression. The analytical tools they use mainly adopt Halliday's functional grammar. Critical linguistics developed rapidly in the 1990s, and it has markets in Britain, the Netherlands, Australia, Germany, Spain, Austria and other countries.

The historical philology advocated by mccabe has little influence. They emphasize the importance of social and historical context in language research, pay attention to the semantic changes of some key words in historical development and evolution, and pay attention to the role of individual words in text interpretation. This kind of historical philology, which pays attention to a single word, is far from the contemporary stylistics, which pays attention to analytical mode and language mode, but it is closely related to the new criticism in Britain. From the standpoint of analysis, it is mainly influenced by British cultural studies, as well as the language and culture of the European continent and Foucault's ideological trend. His research base is university of strathclyde. His influence is limited, strictly speaking, it is not stylistics.

Generally speaking, western stylistics has experienced a century of development, during which it has experienced many challenges, the most famous of which is the indiscriminate bombing and strong criticism of Fish. 1973 Smith. Although the challenge to stylistics is often biased and radical, it can promote stylists to reflect, realize the limitations of stylistics and strive to improve it. The motivation of literature development has two characteristics: one is the tendency to follow the trend represented by social history/cultural stylistics; But bulls go hand in hand. Different Albanian stylists are competing to develop, and new genres of styles are constantly forming. Such as pragmatic stylistics and literary pragmatics.

The base camp of western stylistics is the British International Poetics and Linguistics Association, which founded the magazine Language and Literature.