A) the language style of poetry; b) the language style of emotive prose; c) the language style of drama.

The publicistic F S comprises the following substyles: a) the language style of oratory; b) the language style of essays;

c) the language style of feature articles in newspapers and journals.*

The newspaper FS falls into a) the language style of brief news items and communiques; b) the language style of newspaper head­ings and c) the language style of notices and advertisements.

The scientific prose FS also has three divisions: a) the language style of humanitarian sciences; b) the language style of "exact" | sciences; c) the language style of popular scientific prose. J

The official document FS can be divided into four varieties: a) the language style of diplomatic documents; b) the language \ style of business documents; c) the language style of legal.documents; ]

d) the language style of military documents. ]

The classification presented here is by no means arbitrary. It is the result of long and minute observations of factual material in which not • only peculiarities of language usage were taken into account but also extralinguistic data, in particular the purport of the communication. However, we admit that this classification is not proof against criticism. Other schemes may possibly be elaborated and highlighted by different approaches to the problem of functional styles. The classification of FSs Jj is not a simple matter and any discussion of it is bound to reflect more li than one angle.of vision. Thus, for example, some stylicists consider that newspaper articles (including feature articles) should be classed M under the functional style of newspaper language, not under the language м of publicistic literature. Others insist on including the language of every- ' day-life discourse into the system of functional styles. Prof. Budagov singles out only two main functional styles: the language of science and that of emotive literature.1

It is inevitable, of course, that any classification should lead to some kind of simplification of the ^acts classified, because items areconsid-ered in isolation. Moreover, substyles assume, as it were, the aspect of closed systems. But no classification, useful though it may be from the theoretical point of view, should be allowed to blind us as to the conventionality of classification in general. When analysing concrete texts, we discover that the boundaries between them sometimes become less and less discernibk^Thus, for instance, the signs of difference are sometimes almost imperceptible between poetry and emotive prose; between newspaper FS and publicistic FS; between a popular scientific article and a scientific treatise; between an essay and a scientific article. But the extremes are apparent from the ways language units are used both structurally and semantically. Language serves a variety of needs and these needs have given birth to the principles on which our classifi­cation is based and which in their turn presuppose the choice and com­bination of language means.

We presume that the reader has noticed the insistent use of the ex-cTion 'language style' or “style of language' in the above classification. This is done in order to emphasize the idea that in this work the word 'style' is applied purely to linguistic data.

The classification given above to our mind adequately represents the facts of the standard English language. For detailed analyses of FSs ее chapter VI of this book (p. 249), where in addition to arguments for placing this or that FS in a given group, illustrations with commentary will be found.

Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском: