АкушерствоАнатомияАнестезиологияВакцинопрофилактикаВалеологияВетеринарияГигиенаЗаболеванияИммунологияКардиологияНеврологияНефрологияОнкологияОториноларингологияОфтальмологияПаразитологияПедиатрияПервая помощьПсихиатрияПульмонологияРеанимацияРевматологияСтоматологияТерапияТоксикологияТравматологияУрологияФармакологияФармацевтикаФизиотерапияФтизиатрияХирургияЭндокринологияЭпидемиология

I. GENERAL NOTES ON STYLE AND STYLISTICS

The subject of stylistics has so far not been definitely outlined. It will not be an exaggeration to say that among the various branches of General Linguistics the most obscure in content is undoubtedly stylistics. This is due to a number of reasons.

First of all there is confusion between the terms style and stylistiсs. The first concept is so broad that it is hardly possible to regard it as a term. We speak of style in architecture, literature, behaviour, linguistics, dress and in other fields of human activity.

Even in linguistics the word style is used so widely that it needs interpretation. The majority of linguists who deal with the subject of style agree that the term applies to the following fields of investigation: 1) the aesthetic function of language, 2) expressive means in language, 3) synonymous ways of rendering one and the same idea, 4) emotional colouring in language, 5) a System of special devices called stylistic devices, 6) the splitting of the literary language into separate subsystems called styles, 7) the interrelation between language and thought and 8) the individual manner of an author in making use of language.

The term style is also applied to the teaching of how to write clearly, simply and emphatically. This purely utilitarian approach to the problem of style stems from the practical necessity to achieve correctness in writing and avoid ambiguity.

These heterogeneous applications of the word style in linguistics have given rise to different points of view as to what is the domain of stylistics.

There is a widely held view that style is the correspondence between thought and its expression. The notion is based on the assumption that of the two functions of language, viz. communication and expression of ideas,[1]the latter finds its proper materialisation in strings of sentences specially arranged to convey the ideas and also to get the desired response.

Indeed, every sentence uttered may be characterised from two sides: 1) whether or not the string of language forms expressed is something well-known and therefore easily understood and to some extent predictable, 2) whether or not the string of language forms is built anew; is, as it were, an innovation made on the spur of the moment, which requires a definite effort on the part of the listener to get at the meaning of the utterance¹ and is therefore unpredictable.

In connection with the second function of language, there arises the problem of the interrelation between the thought and its expression. The expression of the thought, the utterance, is viewed from the angle of the kind of relations there may be between the language units and the categories of thinking. The concept of this interrelation has given birth to a number of well-known epigrams and sententious maxims. Here are some which have become a kind of alterego of the word style.

"Style is a quality of language which communicates precisely emotions or thoughts, or a system of emotions or thoughts, peculiar to the author."[2]

"... a true idiosyncrasy of style is the result of an author's success in compelling language to conform to his mode of experience."

"Thought and speech are inseparable from each other. Matter and expression are parts of one: speaking is a thinking out into language." (Newman)

"As your idea's clear or else obscure, The expression follows, perfect or impure." (Boileau)

Many great minds have made valuable observations on the interrelation between thought and expression. The main trend in most of these observations may be summarised as follows: the linguistic form of the idea expressed always reflects the peculiarities of the thought. And vice versa, the character of the thought will always in a greater or lesser degree manifest itself in the language forms chosen for the expression of the idea. In this connection the following quotation is interesting:

"To finish and complete your thought!...How long it takes, how rare it is, what an immense delight!...As soon as a thought has reached its full perfection, the word springs into being, offers itself, and clothes the thought." (Joubert)

That thought and expression are inseparable from each other is a well-established fact. But to regard this as the true essence of style is "misleading, inasmuch as what is mainly a psychological problem has been turned into a linguistic one.

However, although the inseparability of thought and expression is mainly the domain of logic and psychology, it must not be completely excluded from the observation of a stylicist. The character of the interrelation between the thought and its expression may sometimes explain the author's preference for one language form over another.

The linguistic problem of thought and expression, mistakenly referred to as one of the problems of style, has given rise to another interpretation of the word style. The term is applied to the system of idiosyncrasies peculiar to one or another writer, and especially to writers who are recognized as possessing an ingenious turn of mind. This generally accepted notion has further contributed to the general confusion as to how it should be understood and applied. It is only lately that the addition of the attributive 'individual' has somehow clarified the notion, though it has not put a stop to further ambiguity.

The term individual style is applied to that sphere of linguistic and literary science which deals with the peculiarities of a writer's individual manner of using language means to achieve the effect he desires. Deliberate choice must be distinguished from a habitual idiosyncrasy in the use of language units; every individual has his own manner of using them. Manner is not individual style inasmuch as the word style presupposes a deliberate choice. In order to distinguish something that is natural from something that is the result of long and perhaps painful experience, two separate terms must be used, otherwise the confusion will grow deeper.

When Buffon coined his famous saying which, due to its epigrammatical form, became a by-word all over the world: "Style is the man himself" — he had in mind those qualities of speech which are inherent and which reveal a man's breeding, education, social standing, etc. All this is undoubtedly interwoven with individual style. A man's breeding and education will always tell on his turn of mind and therefore will naturally be revealed in his speech and writing. However a definite line of demarcation must be drawn between that which is deliberately done, in other words, that which is the result of the writer's choice and, on the other hand, that which comes natural as an idiosyncrasy of utterance.

Correspondingly, let us agree to name individual choice of language means, particularly in writing, individual style and inherent, natural idiosyncrasies of speech individual manner.

Individual style is sometimes identified with style in general. This, as has already been pointed out, is the result of the general confusion as to the meaning and application of the term style.

The notion of individual style extends much beyond the domain of linguistics. It is here that the two separate branches of human knowledge, literature and linguistics come to grips in the most peculiar form. A writer's world outlook is one of the essential constituents of his individual style. But world outlook cannot be included in the field of language investigation. Likewise the literary compositional design of a writer's work cannot be subjected to linguistic analysis, although this is also one of the constituents of a writer's individual style. It follows then that individual style cannot be analysed without an understanding of these and other component parts, which are not purely linguistic. Therefore Middleton Murry justly arrives at the conclusion that "... to judge style primarily by an analysis of language is almost on a level with judging a man by his clothes."

Nevertheless analysis of an author's language seems to be the most important aspect in estimating his individual style. That this is a fact is not only because the language reflects to a very considerable extent the idea of the work as a whole, but because writers unwittingly contribute greatly to establishing the system and norms of the literary language of a given period. In order to compel the language to serve his purpose, the writer draws on its potential resources in a way which is impossible in ordinary speech.

The essential property of a truly individual style is its permanence. It has great powers of endurance. It is easily remembered and therefore yields itself to repetition. Due to the careful selection of language forms it is easily recognizable. Moreover, the form of the work, or in other words, the manner of using the language in which the ideas are wrought, assumes far greater significance than in any other style of language. It is sometimes even considered as something independent of meaning, i.e. of any idea. There are some critics who maintain that form is of paramount importance, and that in proper situations it can generate meaning.

Leaving aside exaggeration of this kind, it is however necessary to point out that in belles-lettres manner of expression may contribute considerably to the meaning of the smaller units in writing (phrase, sentence, paragraph). This will be shown later when we come to analyse the linguistic nature and functions of stylistic devices.

In one of his critical essays V. G. Belinsky suggested a separate term for individual style — the Russian word слог. Unfortunately, however, no new term has been coined in English. Hence the ever-growing confusion caused by the various uses of one and the same term for different concepts.

Selection, or deliberate choice of language, which we hold to be the main distinctive feature of individual style, inevitably brings up the question of norms.

In the literary language the norm is the invariant of the phonemic, morphological, lexical and syntactical patterns in circulation during a given period in the development of the given language. Variants of these patterns may sometimes diverge from the invariant, but never sufficiently to become unrecognizable or misleading. The development of any literary language shows that the variants (of the levels enumerated above) will always centre around the axis of the invariant forms. The variants, as the term itself suggests, will never detach themselves from the invariant to such a degree as to claim entire independence. Yet, nevertheless, there is a tendency to estimate the value of individual style by the degree it violates the norms of the language.

"It is in the breach or neglect of the rules that govern the structure of clauses, sentences, and paragraphs that the real secret of style consists, and to illustrate this breach or observation is less easy", writes George Saintsbury.

Quite a different point of view is expressed by E. Sapir, who states that

"...the greatest — or shall we say the most satisfying — literary artists, the Shakespeares and Heines, are those who have known subconsciously how to fit or trim the deeper intuition to the provincial accents of their daily speech. In them there is no effect or strain. Their personal "intuition" appears as a completed synthesis of the absolute art of intuition and the innate, specialized art of the linguistic medium."

The problem of variants or deviations from the norms of the literary language has long been under observation. It is the inadequacy of the concept norm that causes controversy. At every period in the development of a literary language there must be a tangible norm which first of all marks the difference between literary and non-literary language. A too rigorous adherence to the norm brands the writer's language as bookish, no matter whether it is a question of speech or writing. But on the other hand, neglect of the norm will always be regarded with suspicion as being an attempt to violate the established signals of the language code which facilitate and accelerate the process of communication. The freer the handling of the norms the more difficult is the exchange of thoughts and ideas.

The use of variants to the norms accepted at a given stage of language development is not only permissible but to a very considerable extent indispensable. Variants interacting with invariants will guarantee the potentialities of the language for enrichment to a degree which no artificial coinage will ever be able to reach.

The norm of the language always presupposes a recognized or received standard. At the same time it likewise presupposes vacillations from the received standard. The problem, therefore, is to establish the range of permissible vacillations.

There is a constant process of gradual change taking place in the forms and meaning of the forms of language at any given period in the development of the language. It is therefore most important to understand the received standard of the given period in the language in order to comprehend the direction of its further progress.

Some people think that one has to possess what is called a feeling for the language in order to be able to understand the norm of the language and its possible variants. But it is not so much the feeling of the language as the knowledge of the laws of its functioning and of its history which counts.

When the feeling of the norm, which grows with the knowledge of the laws of the language, is instilled in the mind, one begins to appreciate the beauty of justifiable fluctuations. But the norm can be grasped and established only when there are deviations from it. It is therefore best perceived in combination with something that breaks it.

In this connection the following lines from L. V. Scherba's work «Спорные вопросы русской грамматики» are worth quoting:

"... in order to achieve a free command of a literary language, even one's own, one must read widely, giving preference to those writers who deviate but slightly from the norm."

"Needless to say, all deviations are to some extent normalized: not every existing deviation from the norm is good; at any rate, not in all circumstances. The feeling for what is permissible and what is not, and mainly—a feeling for the inner sense of these deviations (and senseless ones, as has been pointed out, are naturally bad), is developed through an extensive study of our great Russian literature in all its variety, but of course in its best examples."

Naturally, there are no writers who do not deviate from the established norms of the language — they would be unbearably tedious if there were. Only when the feeling of the norm is well developed, does one begin to feel the charm of motivated deviations from the norm. Then L.V. Scherba adds an explanation which throws light on the problem of deviation from the norm from the point of view of the conditions under which a deviation may take place:

"I say justifiable or 'motivated' because bad writers frequently make use of deviations from the norm which are not motivated or justified by the subject matter — that is why they are considered bad writers."

N.J. Shvedova in her interesting article on the interrelation between the general and the individual in the language of a writer states:

"The language of a writer..., is a peculiar, creatively worked out concentration of the expressive means of the common language, which have undergone special literary treatment: it is a reflection of the common language of the given period, but a prismatic reflection, in which the language units have been selected and combined individually, their interrelation being seen through the prism of the writer's world outlook, his aim and his skill. The language of a writer reflects the tendencies of the common language."

What we call here individual style, therefore, is a unique combination of the language units, expressive means and stylistic devices of a language peculiar to a given writer, which makes that writer's works or utterances easily recognizable. Hence individual style may be likened to a proper name. It has a nominal character. It is based on a thorough knowledge of the contemporary literary language and of earlier periods in its development as well. It allows certain deviations from the established norms. This, needless to say, presupposes a perfect knowledge of the invariants of the norms. Individual style requires to be studied in a course of stylistics in so far as it makes use of the potentialities of language means, whatever the character of these potentialities may be.

Another commonly accepted connotation of the term style is embellishment of language. This concept is popular and is upheld in some of the scientific papers on literary criticism. Language and style are regarded as separate bodies. Language can easily dispense with style, which is likened to the trimming on a dress. Moreover, style as an embellishment of language is viewed as something that hinders understanding. It is alien to language and therefore is identified with falsehood. In its extreme, style may dress the thought in such fancy attire that one can hardly get at the idea hidden behind the elaborate design of tricky stylistic devices.

This notion presupposes the use of bare language forms deprived of any stylistic devices, of any expressive means deliberately employed.

In this connection Middleton Murry writes:

"The notion that style is applied ornament had its origin, no doubt, in the tradition of the school of rhetoric in Europe, and in its place in their teaching. The conception was not so monstrous as it is today. For the old professors of rhetoric were exclusively engaged in instructing their pupils how to expound an argument or arrange a pleading. Their classification of rhetorical devices was undoubtedly formal and extravagant... The conception of style as applied ornament... is the most popular of all delusions about style."

Perhaps it is due to this notion that the word "style" itself still bears a somewhat derogatory meaning. It is associated with the idea of something pompous, showy, artificial, something that is set against simplicity, truthfulness, the natural. Shakespeare was a determined enemy of all kinds of embellishments of language.

To call style embellishment of language is to add further ambiguity to the already existing confusion.

A very popular notion among practical linguists, teachers of language, is that style is the technique of expression. In this sense style is generally defined as the ability to write clearly, correctly and in a manner calculated to interest the reader. Though the last requirement is not among the indispensables, it is still found in many practical manuals on style. Style in this utilitarian sense should be taught, but it belongs to the realm of grammar, and not to stylistics. It is sometimes, and more correctly, called composition. Style as the technique of expression studies the normalised forms of the language. It sets up a number of rules as to how to speak and write, and discards all kinds of deviations as being violations of the norm. The norm itself becomes rigid, self-sustained and, to a very great extent, inflexible.

Herbert Spencer writes:

"... there can be little question that good composition is far less dependent upon acquaintance with its laws, than upon practice and natural aptitude. A clear head, a quick imagination and a sensitive ear, will go far towards making all rhetorical precepts needless. He who daily hears and reads well-framed sentences, will naturally more or less tend to use similar ones."

The utilitarian approach to the problem is also felt in the following statement by E. J. Dunsany, an Irish dramatist and writer of short stories:

"When you can with difficulty write anything clearly, simply, and emphatically, then, provided that the difficulty is not apparent to the reader, that is style. When you can do it easily, that is genius."

V. G. Belinsky also distinguished two aspects of style, making a hard and fast distinction between the technical and the creative power of any utterance.

"To language merits belong correctness, clearness and fluency," he states, "qualities which can be achieved by any talentless writer by means of labour and routine."

"But style (слог) — is talent itself, the very thought."

In traditional Russian linguistics there are also adherents of this utilitarian approach to the problem of style. For instance, Prof. Gvozdev thinks that "Stylistics has a practical value, teaching students to master the language, working out a conscious approach to language".

In England there are in fact two schools of stylistics — the one represented by Prof. Middleton Murry whom we have already cited and the other, that of Prof. Lucas. Prof. Murry regards style as individual form of expression. Prof. Lucas considers style from the purely practical aspect. He states that the aims of a course in style are:

"a) to teach to write and speak well, b) to improve the style of the writer, and c) to show him means of improving his ability to express his ideas".

It is important to note that what we here call the practical approach to the problem of style should not be regarded as something erroneous. It is quite a legitimate concept of the general theory of style. However, the notion of style cannot be reduced to the merely practical aspect because in this case a theoretical background, which is a verified foundation for each and every practical understanding, will never be worked out.

Just as the relations between lexicology and lexicography are accepted to be those of theory and practice, so theoretical and practical stylistics should be regarded as two interdependent branches of linguistic science. Each of these branches may develop its own methods of investigation and approach to linguistic data.

The term style also signifies a literary genre. Thus we speak of classical style or the style of classicism; realistic style; the style of romanticism and so on. On the other hand, the term is widely used in literature, being applied to the various kinds of literary work, the fable, novel, ballad, story, etc. Thus we speak of a story being written in the style of a fable or we speak of the characteristic features of the epistolary style or the essay and so on.

In this application of the term, the arrangement of what are purely literary facts is under observation; for instance, the way the plot is dealt with, the arrangement of the parts of the literary composition to form the whole, the place and the role of the author in describing and depicting events.

In some of these features, which are characteristic of a literary composition, the purely literary and purely linguistic overlap, thus making the composition neither purely linguistic nor purely literary. This however is inevitable. The fact that the lines of demarcation are blurred makes the contrast between the extremes more acute, and therefore requires the investigator to be cautious when dealing with borderline cases.

Finally there is one more important application of the term style. We speak of the different styles of language.

A style of language is a system of interrelated language means which serves a definite aim in communication. Each style is recognized by the language community as an independent whole. The peculiar choice of language means is primarily dependent on the aim of the communication. One system of language means is set against other systems with other aims, and arising from this, another choice and arrangement of the language means is made.

Thus we may distinguish the following styles within the English literary language: 1) the belles-lettres style, 2) the publicistic style, 3) the newspaper style, 4) the scientific prose style, 5) the style of official documents, and presumably some others.

Most of these styles belong exclusively to writing, inasmuch as only in this particular form of human intercourse can communications of any length be completely unambiguous. This does not mean, however, that spoken communications lack individuality and have no distinct styles of their own. But they have not yet been properly subjected to scientific analysis. Folklore, for example, is undoubtedly a style inasmuch as it has a definite aim in communicating its facts and ideas, and is therefore characterized by a deliberately chosen language means. But so far folklore has been too little investigated to be put on the same level of linguistic observation as the styles mentioned above. We shall not therefore make a study of those types of literature which began life purely as speech and were passed on by word of mouth, though many of them are today perpetuated in writing. We shall confine our attention to the generally accepted styles of language.

Each style of language is characterized by a number of individual features. These can be classified as leading or subordinate, constant or changing, obligatory or optional.

Each style can be subdivided into a number of substyles. The latter represent varieties of the root style and therefore have much in common with it. Still a substyle can, in some cases, deviate so far from the root style that in its extreme it may even break away. But still, a substyle retains the most characteristic features of the root style in all aspects.

Among the styles which have been more or less thoroughly investigated are the following:

1) The belles-lettres style. It falls into three varieties: a) poetry proper; b) emotive prose and c) drama.

2) The style that we have named publicistic comprises the following substyles: a) speeches (oratory); b) essays; c) articles in journals and newspapers.

3) The newspaper style has also three varieties: a) newspaper headlines; b) brief news items and communiques and c) advertisements.

4) The scientific prose style has two main divisions, viz. the prose style used in the humanitarian sciences, and that used in the exact sciences.

5) The style of official documents, as the title itself suggests, covers a wide range of varying material which, however, can be reduced to the following groups: a) language of commercial documents, b) language of diplomatic documents, c) language of legal documents, d) language of military documents.

The classification presented here is not arbitrary, the work is still in the observational stage. The observational stage of any scientific research will ensure objective data, inasmuch as it enables the student to collect facts in sufficient number to distinguish between different groups. The classification submitted above is not proof against criticism, though no one will deny that the five groups of styles exist in the English literary language.

A line of demarcation must be drawn between literary stylistics and linguistic stylistics. It is necessary to bear in mind the constant interrelation between the two.

Some linguists consider that the subject of linguistic stylistics is confined to the study of the effects of the message, i.e. its impact on the reader or listener. Thus Michael Riffaterre writes that "Stylistics will be a linguistics of the effects of the message, of the output of the act of communication, of its attention-compelling function." This point of view is influenced by recent developments in the general theory of information. Language, being one of the means of communication or, to be exact, the most important means of communication, is regarded as an instrument by means of which the actual process of conveying ideas from one person to another is carried out. Stylistics in that case is confined to the study of expressions of thought.

"Stylistics," writes Riffaterre further, "studies those features of linguistic utterance that are intended to impose the encoder's way of thinking on the decoder, i.e. studies the act of communication not as merely producing a verbal chain, but as bearing the imprint of the speaker's personality, and as compelling the addressee's attention."

This point of view on style is shared by Prof. W. Porzig who says that the means which "...would produce an impression, would cause a definite impact, effect"³ is the science of stylistics.

Quite a different definition of style and stylistics, one that is interesting in more than one way, is that given by Archibald A. Hill.

"A current definition of style and stylistics," writes A. Hill, "is that structures, sequences, and patterns which extend, or may extend, beyond the boundaries of individual sentences define style, and that the study of them is stylistics."

The truth of this approach to style and stylistics lies in the fact that the author concentrates on such phenomena in language as present a system, in other words on facts which are not confined to individual use.

Almost the same view is held by Seymour Chatman, who writes of "style as a product of individual choices and patterns of choices among linguistic possibilities." Prof. Chatman, though he uses the word 'individual' in a different meaning, practically says the same as Prof. Hill, but unlike him, confines style to what we have called here individual style or the style of the author.

A broader view of style is expressed by Werner Winter, who maintains that

"A style may be said to be characterized by a pattern of recurrent selections from the inventory of optional features of a language. Various types of selection can be found: complete exclusion of an optional element, obligatory inclusion of a feature optional elsewhere, varying degrees of inclusion of a specific variant without complete elimination of competing features."

The idea of distinguishing styles by various types of selection seems to be a sound one. It places the whole problem on a solid foundation of objective criteria, namely the interdependence of optional and obligatory features.

Along the same lines was the proposition made by the writer of the present book, who suggested that each style should be singled out by closely observing primary and secondary, obligatory and optional, essential and transitory features of a given set of texts.

There is no use in quoting other definitions of style. They are too many and too heterogeneous to fall under one more or less satisfactory unified notion. Undoubtedly all these discrepancies in the understanding of the word style stem from its ambiguity. But still all the various definitions leave an impression that by and large they all have something in common. All of them point to some integral significance, namely that style is a set of characteristics by which we distinguish members of one subclass from members of other subclasses, all of which are members of the same general class.

Three events in the development of linguistic stylistics as a branch of general linguistics must be considered as landmarks — the discussion of the problem of style in «Вопросы языкознания», 1954, in which many important general and particular problems of style were broadly discussed and some obscure aspects elucidated; the Conference on Style in Language held at Indiana University in the spring of 1958 and the subsequent publication (1960) of the proceedings of this conference, which revealed the existence of quite divergent points of view held by different students of style and literature; and the conference on Style and Stylistics held in the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages in March 1969—which elucidated certain general principles followed in the study of style and stylistics, and ascertained in which direction studies in linguistic stylistics may be maintained.

A significant contribution to the cause of stylistics is being made by the journal Style published by the University of Arcansas.

From numerous conferences, discussions, theses, monographs and articles published in our country and abroad there emerges a more or less clear statement as to what the subject of linguo-stylistics represents. This is: 1) The study of the styles of language as subsystems of the literary language and distinguished from each other by a peculiar set of interdependent language means and 2) The study of these means in a system disclosing their linguistic properties and nature as well as the functioning of their laws.

These two tasks of linguo-stylistics correspond to a certain degree with what Nils Eric Enkvist, of Abo Academy, Finland, has called "microstylistics" and "macrostylistics". He defines the first as "...the study of style markers and stylistics sets within the sentence or within units smaller than the sentence," and the second as "...stylistics of sentence sequences."²

In order to investigate these two issues it is necessary to review certain general linguistic phenomena on which the science of stylistics rests.

The subject of stylistics can be outlined as the study of the nature, functions and structure of stylistic devices, on the one hand, and, on the other, the study of each style of language as classified above, i.e. its aim, its structure, its characteristic features and the effect it produces, as well as its interrelation with other styles of language. The task we set before ourselves is to make an attempt to single out such problems as are typically stylistic and cannot therefore be treated in any other branch of linguistic science.

Now a question arises: why are some of the notions of style enumerated not treated in this book? The reply is that, on the one hand, not all of these notions are relevant to the domain of linguistics, and, on the other, this work is intended to be a theoretical course of stylistics in which only crucial issues shall be taken up. Indeed, individual styles or manners of writing do not come under our observation, this being an entirely different field of linguistic and literary study. It has already been pointed out that individual manner, though it may conform to the norms of the language to a greater or lesser degree, will nevertheless be the practical realization of abstract language units. In other words here we have language-in-action, that is, speech. Stylistic devices are abstract categories of language-as-a-system, that is, language proper. But the practical application of these abstract categories, being spontaneous, represents language-in-action, or speech. This is in accordance with the laws which govern the functioning of every language fact.

We shall therefore make an extensive analysis of individual usage of stylistic devices inasmuch as they disclose their as yet unknown or unused potentialities. But it must be remembered that the use made in this book of individual styles, i.e. the writings of well-known English men-of-letters, will not have as its aim the generalization of the data obtained. Our task is to show the variable functioning of stylistic devices. This will help us to define the means existing in the English language, and perhaps in other languages as well, which are used to serve definite aims of communication. It is obvious that observation of the variety of uses to which a stylistic device can advantageously be put, can only be carried out where there is a field for innovation and contextual meanings, viz., in the style of belles-lettres.

As regards style as technique of expression, we hold the view that this very important issue must be presented in a special work on composition.

In the recent development of the theory of language the dichotomy of language and speech occupies an important place. Language-as-asystem may figuratively be depicted as a usurper or an exploiter of language-in-action, or speech. Whenever Speech produces anything that can be given a name, whatever it may be, it immediately becomes a fact of language-as-a-system. It is hallowed into a language means.

So it is with stylistic devices. Being born in speech, after recognition as rightful members of the system in which they generally operate, they are duly taken away from their mother's breast, Speech, and made independent members of the family, Language.

As regards the system of styles of language in English, we are in a position to point out the most characteristic features of the styles of language classified on p. 18. These features have been carefully studied and on the basis of previous investigation into the linguistic character of stylistic devices brought into a kind of system. It is sometimes enough merely to point out the interrelation of the characteristic features of a given style of language to be able to tell one style from another.

A course in this relatively new science, stylistics, will be profitable to those who have a sound linguistic background. The expressive means of English and the stylistic devices used in the literary language can only be understood (and made use of) when a thorough knowledge of the phonetic, grammatical and lexical data of the given language has been attained. The stylistic devices (SD) must be observed on different levels: on the phonetic, morphemic, lexical, phraseological, syntactical levels and on the utterance level. If a thorough command of language data has not been acquired, the subtleties of the theory of stylistics may escape the student or may prove to be beyond his grasp.

For example, we can easily distinguish between a piece of emotive prose and a business letter. Just as easily can we tell a newspaper brief from a scientific thesis; a poem from a military document; a piece of oratory from a diplomatic pact and so on. Apparently our knowledge of the characteristic features of different styles of language is based not only on our intuition. There must be some objective criteria which the system relies on and which we can define as the leading or principal features of a given style.

A special part of this book is devoted to a description of the styles which have already manifested themselves as more or less independent systems.

Дата добавления: 2015-09-27 | Просмотры: 1804 | Нарушение авторских прав