CLASSIFICATION OF FUNCTIONAL STYLES. DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW.

It is the notion of style that has to do with how we use the language under specific circumstances for a specific purpose.

T.A. Znamenskaya believes that the existent definitions of the notion ‘style’ intersect with 3 meanings: 1. A variety of the national language traditionally used in one of the identifiable spheres of life that is characterized by a particular set of linguistic features, including vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation.-the degree of formality - social, occupational and regional varieties. E.g. neutral, upper-class, literary (high).

2. A generally accepted linguistic identity of oral and written units of discourse (speech). Such units demonstrate style not only in a special choice of linguistic means but in their very arrangement, or composition.

3. An individual manner of expression

The norm is dictated by the social roles of the participants of communication. This brings us to the conclusion that norms are flexible and varied. In Soviet and Post Soviet - the theory of functional styles, or functional stylistics (V.V. Vinogradov, I.V. Arnold, and others).

The term comes right from the consideration of such notions as function (the purpose or aim of communication), sphere of communication and norm in their relation to speech varieties and their classification.

I.R. Galperin includes in his classification only the written varieties of the language. Thus, he recognizes no colloquial style. His position about the belles-lettres style (esp. the epithets emotive or imaginative for prose) is not shared by all - every speech variety in books of fiction. Besides, works of literature are always the reflection of the author’s individual manner.

Y.M. Skrebnev uses the term sublanguages According to him, style is a specificity of sublanguage,andany sublanguage has

a) absolutely specific linguistic items that belong to one sublanguage b) relatively specific linguisticitems c) non-specific linguisticitems – common to all sublanguages. He maintains that the number of sublanguages and their styles is infinite. Y.M. Skrebnev rejects the idea of the complete classification of styles and believes that ‘there are as many sublanguages with their styles as you choose’ (including idiolects).The scholar recognizes only the two major varieties of language use – formal and informal (or ‘ officialese ’ (devoid of any indication of private emotions and of any trace of familiarity)

In linguistics the word ‘style’ has acquired so many interpretations that it gives ground for ambiguity.

Style is frequently regarded as something that belongs exclusively to the plane of expression and not to the plane of content because one and the same idea can be expressed in different ways.

S. Chatman defines style ‘as a product of individual choices and patterns of choices among linguistic possibilities.’

Style is often understood as a technique of expression, i.e. the ability to write clearly, correctly and in a manner calculated to interest the reader. Style in this sense deals with the normalized forms of the language.

The generic term ‘style’ is often identified with the individual style of an author, or the authorial style.

I.R. Galperin believes that the individual style of an author is only one of the applications of the term ‘style’.

In the case it should be applied to the 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.

Style is frequently treated as the embellishment of language. Language and style as embellishment are regarded as separate bodies when style is imposed on language for artistic effect.

Style may also be defined as deviations from the lingual norm (M. Riffaterre, E. Saporta, M. Halliday,

E. Enkvist).

Thus, what is stylistically conspicuous, stylistically relevant, stylistically coloured is a departure from the norm of the given national language.

I. R. Galperin defines style ‘as a system of interrelated language means which serves a definite aim in communication.’

Y. M. Skrebnev, acknowledging the split of a language into sublanguages, believes that style is specificity of sublanguage.

Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском: