STYLISTICS: SUBJECT-MATTER, AIMS, FIELDS OF INVESTIGATION

Stylistics as a branch of linguistics as well as the term itself go back to ancient rhetoric and poetics. [Lat. "stilus" - a stick for writing à manner of writing and speaking]. But up to the present the object of stylistics and the scope of problems it has to solve are open to discussion.

According to Professor I.R. Galperin, who summarized the points of view of different authors in his textbook, stylistics investigates:

1) the aesthetic function of the lg;

2) expressive means in language;

3) synonymous ways of rendering one and the same idea;

4) emotional coloring in lg;

5) a system of special devices (metaphor, metonymy, allusion, etc.);

6) the splitting of literary lg into separate systems called styles;

7) the interrelation between lg and thought;

8) the individual manner of an author in making use of the lg;

Acc. to Professor Skrebnev, each of these statements has smth to do with style and stylistics but none of them is self-sufficient, and if they are summarized, the resulting picture would be contradictory and incomplete.

# 1 is true with reference to works of art (poetry and imaginative prose). The works of science, diplomatic and commercial correspondence, and technical instructions have no aesthetic value – nonetheless, they are of interest to stylistics.

# 2 is true if we consider the spheres of speech that aim to impress: poetry, fiction, oratory, affected informal intercourse (colloquial speech). Works of science, technology, and business letters have no expressive force but are of interest to stylistics.

# 3 synonymous ways of expressing ideas are relevant to stylistics. But the assumption that the idea expressed by synonyms remains the same is wrong. E.g. one and the same person can be called “an old man”, “an individual advanced in years” and “an old bean” (старик, старец, старикан/старикашка) – each time with a considerable change in meaning; а woman presiding at a meeting can be called “a chairman”, ”a chairwoman”, “a chairperson” or just “a chair” – with different shades of meaning implied and different layers of social knowledge about gender. Whenever the form changes the contents (hence its stylistic value) is bound to change too.

# 4is also only partly true. Many texts, though unemotional (e.g. scientific prose, official documents) are subject to stylistic investigation.

# 5 In addition to traditional stylistic devices (such as metaphor, irony, allusion, etc.) there are certain minor features affecting the stylistic quality of texts. For example, the use of Absolute participial constructions make the text sound bookish, and abundance of pronouns impart colloquial coloring. Therefore style is not a system of special stylisitc devices, it is what differs one type of speech from another (cf. the style in clothing, for instance, is not a number of dresses a woman wears, but what differs hers manner of dressing from others).

# 6The wrong point here, according to professor Skrebnev, is that "separate systems" in which the national lg is split are not styles. It is more accurate to call them "types of speech" or "sublanguages". Each of them has its own style.

# 7 Since language and thought, ideas and their verbal expression form an inseparable unity, style is hardly concerned with interrelation between lg and thought (thoughts exist only in the form of words).

# 8is acceptable, but to a certain extent (the style of Pushkin). However, stylistics investigates not only individual peculiarities of different authors, but also peculiarities of text types (scientific, poetic, professional speech; slang).

To answer the question of the subject-matter of stylistics we should recall some fundamental concepts of general linguistics.

LANGUAGE, SPEECH, and TEXT

Language is a system of associations of elementary and complex signs (speech sounds, morphemes, words, sentences etc) with the picture of objective reality existing in our minds. Lg performs two main functions: communicative and cognitive, which are interconnected.

Lg manifests itself in acts of speech. Speech is not a purely mental phenomenon, but a psycho-physiological action. It is “a process of sending acoustic signals (messages) perceptible to anyone with hearing”.

The result of speech (what we actually understand when we read or listen to someone) is text. So, text is not only what is written or printed. Text is a coherent sequence of signs (words).

The subject-matter of linguistics (and stylistics as its branch) is language as a system, but the material studied is text ( the result of speech acts). Thus, the terms "speech styles", "stylistics of speech (as opposed to "stylistics of lg") are misleading. Style phenomena occur in speech and are found in texts, but they appear from the system of the lg.

According to Prof. Skrebnev, there is nothing in speech that has not been in the lg.

TYPES OF SPEECH AND THEIR SUBLG-S

Every user of the language, every speaker without any philological training is perfectly aware of the fact that we speak or write differently in accordance with the circumstances of communication. It's most unlikely to say to the Dean: "Hi, old boy! How's life, kid!". And its equally inappropriate to say to your close friend: "How do you do, Mary! I trust you are enjoying this magnificent morning".

Examples of similar kind are innumerable:

1/ The old man is dead.

2/ The gentleman well-advanced in years attained the termination of his terrestrial existence.

3/ The ole bean, he kicked the bucket.

or:

1/ Visitors should make their way at once to the upper floor by way of the staircase (formal).

2/ Time you all went upstairs now (informal).

3/ Up you go, chaps (familiar).

or:

1/ I have never seen this man.

2/ I never clapped eyes on this here guy.

or: from "The White Monkey" by Galsworthy where dying George Forsyte dictates his will to his cousin Soames: "My three screws to young Val 'cause he's the only Forsyte who knows a horse from a donkey". And Soames (who is a solicitor) gives this sarcastic statement precise juridical wording devoid of irony and scorn: "I hereby leave my tree racehorses to my kinsman Valerius Dartie of Wandson, Sussex, because he has special knowledge of horses." In this extract two types of speech or two sublanguages are opposed -formal and colloquial.

In the example by N.N. Amosova (Старик умер. Старец скончался. Старый хрыч подох) the sublanguages are neutral, high-flown and derogatory.

Therefore, we can state the existence of different systems of expression within the general system of the lg. These subsystems (or sublanguages, as prof. Skrebnev called them) comprise units of all levels (phonemes, morphemes, words. etc), which can be divided into three types:

1/ non-specific (NEUTRAL) -COMMON TO ALL SUBLANGUAGES - [I],[I:], AT, IN, CAN, WILL, GO, HOW, GIRL, etc.

2/relatively specific (used in two or more sublanguages).

3/ absolutely specific( belong to one sublg only).

E.g: "Operation" - relatively specific, as it used as a term in several spheres - medicine, mathematics, criminology, military matters. “Movement” – physics and politics. Elliptical sentences are typical of (a) colloquial speech; (b) encyclopedias and dictionaries; (c) sublanguage of telegrams.

And such words as "psychotherapy", "oxymoron" or “hyperbole” are absolutely specific as they are, respectively, medical and linguistic terms.

Absol. specific for colloquial sublanguage are such words as “daddy” and “spoon” (ср. в русском «чайник» - о незадачливом, глуповатом человеке), absolutely specific school slang is the words “stinks” for chemistry; absolutely specific for poetic sublg are the words “main” (ocean), “sylvan” (woody), “morn” (morning).

Jargon used by geek-girls in California (computer enthusiasts) – imitation of British pronunciation[1].

ICQ slang – lol (laughing outloud), 4u, 2morrow

Sublg-s should not be confused with styles. Style is what differs one sublg from the others. It is the absolutely specific sphere of a sublg – i.e.a complex of morph, lexical, syntactical etc. features by which a certain type of speech is characterized.

The next question to be asked is how many sublg-s (styles) can be distinguished within a national language? I.V. Arnold ("Modern English Stylistics") mentions four styles: 1/ poetic; 2/ scientific; 3/ newspaper style and 4/ colloquial style.

I.R. Galperin in his textbook describes five styles in English: 1/ the belles-lettres style; 2/ publicist style; 3/ newspaper style; 4/ scientific prose style; 5/ the style of official documents.

According to Prof. Skrebnev, the question “how many” implies the wrong assumption, i.e. that the number of sublanguage (and styles) is definite, while in fact it is infinite. There are as many (or as few) of them as the scholar thinks fit to attain his objectives. Thus, we can identify and study the style of Byron and Pushkin's style, colloquial and bookish style, the style of TV commercials, political debates, military jargon, baby talk, diplomatic and legal correspondence etc.

Language can thus be represented as a number of intersecting ellipses, where the center (core) is stylistically neutral units and the ends represent stylistically colored (absolutely specific) elements.

The border-lines between the three types of lg units and between sublg-s themselves are not clear-cut, but only theoretically assumed. It is scientific abstraction. Linguistic reality is much more complicated than its description. It's difficult to state whether such words as "cool, swell, corking" (very good) are colloquial or belong to slang. Whether the word “old bean” is low colloquial or vulgar. It depends on the viewpoint of lg user. Which is neutral for educated people may seem bookish to little children. What is vulgar for some people can seem slightly informal to others.

It would be more accurate to speak not about strict border-lines but border-lands, strips of uncertainty or tolerance zones. The units of such zones are tolerable in both the neighboring spheres.

STYLISTIC COLORING AND STYLISTIC NEUTRALITY.

Since style is formed by the specific units of the sublanguage, such units (style-forming) are called stylistically colored, i.e. they possess a certain stylistic connotation. Y.M. Skrebnev compared connotations to labels (kind of trade-marks) showing the place of a given unit in the general language scheme.

Units belonging to all sublanguages are said to be neutral. Does it mean that they have no connotations (no labels on them)? According to professor Skrebnev, such words are not devoid of connotations, but their connotations are so numerous (or to be more precise - innumerable) that they suppress/destroy each other, so that the resulting connotation is neutral.

NEUTRALITY AND NORM

There are scholars who define style as a deviation from lingual norm (Риффатер, Халлидей). Apparently, the term "norm" substitutes here the term "neutrality". But what is norm? It can be defined as pre-established and generally accepted characteristics of what is evaluated.

The characteristic feature of norm in lg is in its plurality. What is normal for uneducated people (Elise Doolittle and her father) is not acceptable for cultivated society. What is normal in poetic (high-flown) intercourse is abnormal in colloquial speech and vice a versa. To spell night as nite is quite common in advertising but unacceptable in other types of speech. There are as many norms as there are sublanguages. Each sublanguage has its own norm.

E.g. He will certainly never become a good writer.

For him to become a novelist of note is sheer impossibility (normal for an article in a magazine, not for informal conversation).

Good writer, he? Not likely! (normal in col. speech, abnormal in magazine).

THE STRUCTURE OF STYLISTICS

The differences of sublanguages are revealed at all levels (phonetic, morphological, lexical, syntactical). Therefore stylistics is connected with all, the corresponding branches of linguistics and differs from them only in the approach to the linguistic material.

Thus, traditionally 4 independent branches of stylistics were distinguished; each treating one level. STYL. PHONETICS investigates expressive properties of sounds and prosodic means. STYL. MORPHOLOGY is interested in stylistically relevant transfers of grammatical meanings, repetitions and variations of morphemes. STYL. LEXICOLOGY classification of vocabulary and stylistic properties of words. STYL. SYNTAX .

Styl. relevant may be not only form but meaning. Linguistic branch that deals with meanings of units is semasiology. STYLISTIC SEMASIOLOGY is especially interested in changes of meaning (transfer) and their combination: a monkey, a donkey, a mule - about a person.

Prof. Skrebnev suggested a new (and very original) subdivision of Stylistics Paradigmatic andSyntagmatic.

The word "paradigm" in linguistics denotes a list of grammatical forms to select from: case paradigm, tense paradigm, etc. The derivative "paradigmatics" is used with reference to the totality of units lg has at its disposal.

Some linguists say that paradigmatics represents lg as a system, while syntagmatics characterizes speech. This point of view is hardly satisfactory. Prof. Skrebnev insists that language as a system has both paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects. We understand and use words (language units) because we know their distribution (possible combinations of such units). And their distribution (combinability) and the rules of sentence making are also part of the language.

LECTURE 2

STYLISTIC PHONETICS

Stylistics is connected with all ‘level’ disciplines (lexicology, grammar, phonetics) but differs from them in the manner it approaches the linguistic material. PHONETICS informs us about various types of pronunciation of the same word or sentence. STYLISTICS, for its part, tells us which variant suits the given type of speech. E.g. that the so-called contracted forms (don't, isn't) are typical of colloquial speech and should not be used in official writing; and familiar forms wudja, kinda are normal in careless hurried speech but are inappropriate in public speeches.

Phonetics generally has speech sounds as its object of description. Stylistics investigates what expressive purposes they are used for - for instance, how sounds are arranged in poetry.

CLASSIFICATION OF PHONETIC STYLISTIC DEVICES

I. PHONETIC MEANS OF SPEECH CHARACTERIZATION