Lecture 1

Functional Stylistics of the Modern English Language

Plan:
1. General Notes on Style and Stylistics
2. The Problem of Style as Functional Category
3. The Notion of Stylistic Features
4. Style as a Historical Category.
5. The Classification of Functional Styles and the Debatable Problems of
functional Stylistic.
1. General Notes on Style and Stylistics

The subject of stylistics has so far not been definitely outlined. According
to several major linguists it can be roughly 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, its aim, its structure, its characteristic
features and the effect it produces, as well as its interrelation with other styles of
language.
There is a confusion between the terms style and stylistics. The first
concept is so broad that it is hardly possible to regard it as a term. We speak of
style in architecture, literature, behavior, linguistics, dress and 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 the same idea;
4) Emotional colouring of language;
5) A system of special devices called stylistic devices;
 6) The splitting of the literary language into separate subsystems called
stylistic devices;
7) The interrelation between language and thought;
8) The individual manner of an author in making use of language.

The origin of the term Style and Stylistics.

Lat - stylus - a stick made of material for writing.

Stylistics - from French "Stylistique" - instrument for Writing.
Definitions of the term “Style”

1. There is a widely held view that style is the correspondence between

thought and expression. The notion is based on the assumption that of the two
functions of language, (language is said to have two functions: it serves as a
means of communication and as a means of shaping one's thoughts). The first
function is called communicative, the second - expressive, the latter finds its
proper materialization in strings of sentences especially arranged to convey the
ideas and to get the desired response.
Indeed, Every sentence uttered may be characterized from two sides:
whether or not the string of language forms expressed is something well-known
and therefore easily understood and to some extent predictable; whether or not the
string of language forms is built anew; is, as it were, an innovation made on the
part of the listener to get at the meaning of the utterance and is therefore
unpredictable.
Many great minds have made valuable observations on the interrelation
between thought and expression. The main trend in most of these observations
may be summarized as follows: the linguistic form of the idea expressed always
reflects the peculiarities of the thought. In addition, 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.
 2. Another commonly accepted connotation of the term style is
embellishment (украшение) 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. 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. 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.
3. A very popular notion among practical linguists, teachers of language, is
that style is technique of expression. In this sense, style is generally defined as the
ability to write clearly, correctly and in a manner calculated to the interest of the
reader. Style in this utilitarian sense should be taught, but it belongs to the realm
of grammar, and not to stylistics. 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 largely inflexible.
4. 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 (басня), 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.
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 that serves a definite aim in communication. The peculiar choice
of language means is primarily dependent on the aim of communication.
Thus, we may distinguish the following styles within the English literary
language:
1) The belles- letters style;
2) The publicistic style;
3) The newspaper style;
4) The scientific prose style;
5) The style of official documents and presumably some others.
The classification presented here is not arbitrary; the work is still in the
observational stage. The classification is not proof against criticism, though no
one will deny that the five groups of styles exist in the English literary language.

Stylistics and its Subdivisions

1. Galperin: Stylistics is a branch of general linguistics, which deals with

the following two interdependent tasks:
a) Studies the totality of special linguistic means (stylistic devices and
expressive means) which secure the desirable effect of the utterance;
b) Studies certain types of texts "discourse" which due to the choice and
arrangement of the language are distinguished by the pragmatic aspect of
communication (functional styles).
Depending on the school of thought, there exist:
1. Linguo-stylistics;
2. Literary stylistics;
3. Stylistics of decoding;
1. Linguo - stylistics is the study of literary discourse from a linguistic
orientation. The linguistics is concerned with the language codes themselves and
particular messages of interest and so far as to exemplify how the codes are
constructed.
 2. Literary stylistics: is to explicate the message to interpret and evaluate
literary writings as the works of art.
3. Stylistics of decoding can be presented in the following way:
Sender - message – receiver
Writer - book - reader.

2. The Problem of Style as Functional Category

The word “function” is now used in various senses, but its original
mathematical meaning is “a relation between two different sets of elements
connected by a rule which assigns to each member of the first set an
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE and to the second set of elements a DEPENDENT
VARIABLE. Example: Y = f(X), where “Y” is the DEPENDENT VARIABLE or
FUNCTION of “X” (the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE), and a change in the
value of “X” produces a change in the value of “Y”.
In stylistic investigations the non-verbal situation (Что такое
«невербальная ситуация»?) or non-verbal (extralinguistic) context is typically
the independent variable, and the linguistic features (style markers) the dependent
variable. (?) In the broader sense, the word “function” is used to mean
“destination of an element in an artificial system or a destination of the whole
system in its medium (окружающая среда)”. If the language is viewed as a
system of interconnected elements, then we may say that each of the elements has
its specific function in relation to the elements of a higher level where it is
included (=integrated). In relation to functional styles, the higher system is the
system of language in general. Consequently, functional style may primarily be
defined as a certain subsystem of language. This subsystem of interrelated
language means serves a definite aim in communication.
Functional Styles (FS) are by no way concrete texts. They are abstract
categories, which unite texts into Functional-stylistic paradigms. This can be
proved by the fact that the same idea can be presented in various Functional-
stylistic forms:
“I say, Owl”, said Christopher Robin “isn’t this fun?”
“The atmospheric conditions have been very unfavourable lately”, said
Owl.
“The what?”
“It has been raining”, explained Owl.
“Yes”, said Christopher Robin, “It has”.
“The flood-level has reached an unprecedented height”.
“The who?” “There’s a lot of water about”, explained Owl. (A. Miln)
Here the difference between the bookish and colloquial speech, which is
certainly a stylistic difference, is clearly felt by the speakers/listeners.
Being an abstraction, FS as a category or as a member of paradigmatic
field, is correlated in the speaker’s mind with the other FSs, which a person has
mastered in the process of his or her communicative activity. Consequently, FS
classification is based on the logical principle of oppositions. That is why it is
impossible, even theoretically, to assume that there may exist a language
represented by only one FS.
Each FS has its own specific markers, but the marker that holds a FS
together and that is essential to it, is its function in communication, that is why
FSs are referred to as “functional”. Thus, the newspaper style has the function of
public opinion formation, the belletristic style has the function of aesthetic
cognition, and the scientific style has the function of exchanging some specific
information and cognition (познание) by concept.
Within each categorical class of FSs, there may be subdivisions
(subparadigms) or even hyperdivision (hyperparadigms or “megastyles”).

2. The Notion of Stylistic Features

 The oppositions of FS subsystems bring out stylistic features that serve as
markers of the respective FSs. These markers are called distinctive stylistic
features that is the language features that distinguish one FS from another. The
ontological constituents of the features may be of systemic character and they are
based on the choice of the phonemic-graphical, morphological, lexical, syntactic
and even contextual peculiarities of the respective linguistic forms that shape and
hold together this or that FS. Thus, for instance, it is characteristic of scientific
style to be represented by a high degree of impersonality, the use of the Passive
constructions, IT- and THERE- sentences, the use of ONE- pronoun and WE in
place of I, the abundance(множество, достаток) of special terms and formulae,
the lengthy sentences and the absence of emotive elements. There are some more
important features, like the logical structure of the paragraph or the graphical and
indexed divisions.
Features may also be peripheral (optional or secondary), non-obligatory.
Thus, the presence of special terms in a belletristic text optional, and given this
presence, we can make sure that their function here is different from the function
in a scientific text. (много значений слова pillow).
Features may also be ´integral (common) for all styles or for their larger
groups. Thus, there are many features shared by the scientific and official styles,
by the newspaper and publicistic styles. It is these overlapping (частично
совпадающие) features that make difficult sometime to work out an adequate
classification of FS even in the synchronic aspect.
In dealing with the FS features, it is important to realize the fact that FSs
differ not so much by their sets (inventories) of features as by the statistical
correlations of these features.
3. Style as a Historical Category.

We have already mentioned the problem of what is known as functional

styles (FS) of language, but only to show that FSs should be distinguished from
varieties of language. The main difference, be it remembered, is that the written
and oral varieties of language are merely forms of communication which depend
on the situation in which the communication is maintained, i.e. on the presence or
absence of an interlocutor, whereas FSs are patterns of the written variety of
language calculated to secure the desired purport of the communication. Each
functional style of the literary language makes use of language means the
interrelation of which is peculiar to the given FS. It is the coordination of language
media and SDs, which shapes the distinctive, features of each style, and not the
separate language media or the SDs themselves. One or more leading, especially
conspicuous features, however, can recognize each FS. For instance, the use of
special terminology is a lexical characteristic of the FS of scientific prose, and one
by which it can easily be recognized. The address "Dear sirs" will be a signal to
refer the message to the FS of official documents.
However, since any FS presents a system in which various features are
interwoven in a particular manner, one group of language means, a leading feature
though it may be, will not suffice to determine the FS.
Now we are in a position to give a more exact definition of a functional
style.
An FS is a patterned variety of literary text characterized by the
greater or lesser typification of its constituents, supra-phrasal units (SPU), in
which the choice and arrangement of interdependent and interwoven
language media are calculated to secure the purport of the communication.
Each FS is a relatively stable system at the given stage in the development
of the literary language, but it changes, and sometimes considerably, from one
period to another. Therefore, functional style of language is a historical category.
There are many instances to prove this. Thus, the FS of emotive prose actually
began to function as an independent style after the second half of the 16th
century; the newspaper style budded off (отпочковался, стал независимым)
from the publicists style; the oratorical style has undergone considerable
fundamental changes, and so with other FSs.
 The development of each style is predetermined by the changes in the
norms of Standard English.
It is also greatly influenced by changing social conditions, the progress of
science and the development of cultural life in the country. For instance, the
emotive elements of language were abundantly (обильно) used in scientific prose
in the 18th century. This is explained by the fact that scientists in many fields
used the emotional language instead of one more logically precise and
convincing, because they lacked the scientific data obtainable only by deep,
prolonged research. With the development of science and the accumulation of
scientific data, emotive elements gave way to convincing arguments and
"stubborn" facts.
The English literary language has evolved a number of FSs easily
distinguishable one from another. They are not homogeneous and fall into several
variants all having some central point of resemblance, or better to say, all
integrated by the invariant—i.e. the abstract ideal system.
We shall now consider each of the FSs in its most characteristic features.

4. The Classification of Functional Styles and the Debatable Problems

of functional Stylistic

Functional styles (FS) are the subsystems of language, each subsystem

having its own peculiar features in what concern vocabulary means, syntactical
constructions, and even phonetics. The appearance and existence of FS is
connected with the specific conditions of communication in different spheres of
human life. FS differ by not only the possibility or impossibility of using some
elements but also due to the frequency of their usage. For example, some terms
can appear in the colloquial style but the possibility of its appearance is quite
different form the possibility to meet it in an example of scientific style.
The classification of FS is a very complicated problem that is why we will
consider ideas of I.V.Arnold and I.R. Galperin, bearing in mind that Galperin
treats functional styles as patterns of the written variety of language thus
excluding colloquial FS. Both scholars agree that one or more leading features
can recognize each FS. However, Galperin pays more attention to the
coordination of language means and stylistic devices whereas Arnold connects the
specific features of each FS with its peculiarities in the sphere of communication.
According to I.R. Galperin, a functional style of language is a system of
interrelated language means, which serves a definite aim in communication.
A functional style should be regarded as the product of a certain concrete task set
by the sender of the message. Functional styles appear mainly in the literary
standard of the language. These represent varieties of the abstract invariant and
can deviate from the invariant, even breaking away with it.
Each FS is a relatively stable system at the given stage in the development
of the literary language, but it changes, and sometimes considerably, from one
period to another. Therefore, FS is a historical category. Thus, for example in the
17th century it was considered that not all words can be used in poetry, and that a
separate poetic style exists. Later, in the 19th century romanticism rejected the
norms of poetic style and introduced new vocabulary to poetry. The development
of each style is predetermined by the changes in the norms of Standard English. It
is also greatly influenced by changing social conditions, the progress of science
and the development of cultural life.
Every functional style of language is marked by a specific use of language
means, thus establishing its own norms which, however, are subordinated to the
norm-invariant and which do not violate the general notion of the literary norm.
The writers of the given period in the development of the literary language
contribute greatly to establishing the system of norms of their period. It is worth
noting that the investigations of language norms at a given period are to great
extent maintained on works of men of letters. Selection, or deliberate choice of
language, and the ways the chosen elements are treated are the main distinctive
features of individual style.
 Individual style is a unique combination of language units, expressive
means and stylistic devices peculiar to a given writer, which makes that
writer's works or even utterances easily recognizable. (Galperin, p.17)
Naturally, the individual style of a writer will never be entirely independent of the
literary norms and canons of the given period. Nevertheless, the adaptations of
these canons will always be peculiar and therefore distinguishable. Individual
style is based on a thorough knowledge of the contemporary language and allows
certain justifiable deviations from the rigorous norms. Individual style requires to
be studied in a course of stylistics as far as it makes use of the potentialities of
language means, whatever the characters of these potentialities may be.
All men of letters have a peculiar individual manner of using language
means to achieve the effect they desire. Writers choose language means
deliberately. This process should be distinguished from language peculiarities,
which appear in everyday speech of this or that particular individual (idiolect).
What we here call functional styles are also called registers or discourses.
In the English literary standard, we distinguish the following major
functional styles (hence FS):
1) The language of belles-lettres.
2) The language of publicistic literature.
3) The language of newspapers.
4) The language of scientific prose.
5) The language of official documents.
As has already been mentioned, functional styles are the product of the
development of the written variety of language. A number of distinctive features,
leading or subordinate, constant or changing, obligatory or optional, may
characterize each FS. Most of the FSs, however, are perceived as independent
wholes due to a peculiar combination and interrelation of features common to all
(especially when taking into account syntactical arrangement) with the leading
ones of each FS.
 Each FS is subdivided into a number of substyles. These represent varieties
of the abstract invariant. Each variety has basic features common to all the
varieties of the given FS and peculiar features typical of this variety alone. Still a
substyle can, in some cases, deviate (отклоняться) so far from the invariant that
in its extreme it may even break away.
We clearly perceive the following substyles of the five FSs given above.
The belles-lettres FS has the following substyles:
a) The language style of poetry; b) the language style of emotive prose; c)
the language style of drama.
The publicistic FS 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 communiqués; 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.
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 is not a simple matter and any discussion of it is bound to
reflect more than one angle of vision. Thus, for example, some stylists consider
that newspaper articles (including feature articles) should be classed under the
functional style of newspaper language, not under the language of publicistic
literature. Others insist on including the language of everyday-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.
It is inevitable, of course, which any classification should lead to some kind
of simplification of the facts classified, because items are considered in isolation.
Moreover, substyles assume, as it were, the aspect of closed systems. However,
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 analyzing concrete texts, we discover that the boundaries between them
sometimes become less and less discernible. 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 (´tri: tiz – трактат); between an essay and a scientific article.
Nevertheless, 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 expression
“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.