Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 93


. A. Znamenskaya
!"#$!$% &' !() )*+#$( #A*+,A+)

, m t
030500 - H]t ( )
H ,
-./ 0 1223
FFK 81.2A-573
45 4.65/
476747 8679.8. :;. ./; <=> V . H. 2-, . -
.: E ?@A 2004. - 208 .
ISBN 5-354-00659-7
H m m
: , t ,
, ]t , ,
. B x
x , t
t , t .
V ]t ,
x , "C ".
] , . . (Hx
); ] ,
. . (B ); . ,
t x B (. u, CBA)
:B4654/. CDB74.=76 ?@C. EEFGE1A 8. -./A HHIJ4 K2J647 4L=A M.
7N:7 O P2QEFQ .4 1Q.2K.122E 8. R.BS7. ST47 12.2E.1223 . U.=4
K2VM2$EK. 7=W E222 X:. RT. 6. EG. . P 1JE11M$31F.
4ST4. / 47S.8=Y77 C@ZC.EEFGE1A 8. -./A S=J4 K2J647
4L=A M.
URSS @ URSS .! "#$#%&' ()*#+(, - Internet: .//0 :11 URSS .!
2%.34#56: 7 89:;< =>;-?@-=A 2%.34#56: 7 89:;< =>;-?@-?A
E VCC, 2004
\He]a^e................................... F
%_aI`eH E. !_e &abe^` c] `ydes`e^s . . ............... M
1.1. Problems oI stylistic research............. 9
1.2. Stylistics oI language and speech........... 15
1.3. Types oI stylistic research and branches
oI stylistics......................... 16
1.4. Stylistics and other linguistic disciplines....... 19
1.5. Stylistic neutrality and stylistic colouring...... 21
1.6. Stylistic Iunction notion................ 24
Practc! "!ct#$......................... 28
%_aI`eH 1. )VIHessefe geschH^es c] `_e #anihaie........ GG
2.1. Expressive means and stylistic devices........ 34
2.2. DiIIerent classiIications oI expressive means .... 37
2.2.1. Hellenistic Roman rhetoric system...... 39
2.2.2. Stylistic theory and classiIication
oI expresssive means by G. Leech...... 45
2.2.3. I. R. Galperin's classiIication oI expressive means and stylistic devices........... 50
2.2.4. ClassiIication oI expressive means
and stylistic devices by Y. M. Skrebnev ... 57
Practc! "!ct#$......................... 76
%_aI`eH G. `ydes`e^ +HammaH.................... jF
3.1. The theory oI grammatical gradation.
Marked, semi-marked and unmarked structures . . 87
3.2. Grammatical metaphor and types oI grammatical transposition.............. 89
3.3. Morphological stylistics. Stylistic potential oI the parts oI speech.................. 92
3.3.1. The noun and its stylistic potential..... 92
3.3.2. The article and its stylistic potential..... 95
3.3.3. The stylistic power oI the pronoun...... 97
3.3.4. The adjective and its stylistic Iunctions . . . 101
3.3.5. The verb and its stylistic properties..... 103
3.3.6. AIIixation and its expressiveness....... 107
3.4. Stylistic syntax...................... 110
Practc! "!ct#$......................... 116
%_aI`eH 3. !_e !_ecHy c] 'hn^`ecnad `ydes............ E11
4.1. The notion oI style in Iunctional stylistics..... 122
4.2. Correlation oI style, norm and Iunction
in the language...................... 124
4.3. Language varieties: regional, social, occupational . 127
4.4. An overview oI Iunctional style systems....... 131
4.5. Distinctive linguistic Ieatures oI the major Iunctional styles oI English............... 142
4.5.1. Literary colloquial style............. 143
4.5.2. Familiar colloquial style............ 145
4.5.3. Publicist (media) style............. 148
4.5.4. The style oI oIIicial documents........ 150
4.5.5. ScientiIicIacademic style............ 153
Practc! "!ct#$......................... 156
%_aI`eH Q. ke^cleni s`ydes`e^s anl $`s 'hnlamen`ad *c`ecns . 160
5.1. Stylistics oI the author and oI the reader.
The notions oI encoding and decoding....... 161
5.2. Essential concepts oI decoding stylistic analysis
and types oI Ioregrounding............... 164
5.2.1. Convergence................... 167
5.2.2. DeIeated expectancy.............. 169
5.2.3. Coupling...................... 171
5.2.4. Semantic Iield.................. 174
5.2.5. Semi-marked structures ............ 177
Practc! "!ct#$......................... 179
+dcssaHy ]cH `_e %chHse c] `ydes`e^s................. Ejj
chH^es................................... 12E
ke^`ecnaHees................................ 12G
#es` c] Ah`_cHs anl \hade^a`ecns mhc`el .............. 123
The book suggests the Iundamentals oI stylistic theory that outline such basic areas oI
research as expressive resources oI the language, stylistic diIIerentiation oI vocabulary,
varieties oI the national language and sociolinguistic and pragmatic Iactors that determine
Iunctional styles.
The second chapter will take a student oI English to the beginnings oI stylistics in Greek
and Roman schools oI rhetoric and show how
much modern terminology and classiIications oI expressive means
owe to rhetoric.
An important part oI the book is devoted to the new tendencies and schools oI stylistics
that assimilated advancements in the linguistic science in such trends oI the 2#
century as
Iunctional, decoding
and grammatical stylistics.
The material on the wealth oI expressive means oI EngUsh will help a student oI philology,
a would-be teacher and a reader oI literature not only to receive orientation in how to Iully
decode the message oI the work oI art and thereIore enjoy it all the more but also to
improve their own style oI expression.
The chapter on Iunctional styles highlights the importance oI time and place in language
usage. It tells how the same language diIIers when used Ior diIIerent purposes on diIIerent
occasions in communi-cation with diIIerent people. It explains why we adopt diIIerent uses
language as we go through our day. A selection oI distinctive Ieatures oI each Iunctional
style will help to identiIy and use it correctly whether you deal with producing or analysing
a text oI a certain Iunctional type.
Chapters on grammar stylistics and decoding stylistics are intended to introduce the student
to the secrets oI how a stylistic device works. Modern linguistics may help to identiIy the
nature and algorithm oI stylistic eIIect by showing what kind oI semantic change,
grammatical transposition or lexical deviation results in various stylistic outcomes.
This book combines theoretical study and practice. Each chapter is supplied with a special
section that enables the student and the teacher to revise and process the theoretical part by
drawing conclusions and parallels, doing comparison and critical analysis. Another type oI
involves creative tasks on stylistic analysis and interpretation, such as identiIying devices in
literary texts, explaining their Iunction and the principle oI perIormance, decoding the
implications they create.
The knowledge oI the theoretical background oI stylistic research and the experience oI
integrating it into one's analytical reading skills will enhance the competence and
proIiciency oI a Iuture teacher oI English. Working with literary texts on this level also
helps to develop one's cultural scope and aesthetic taste. It will also enrich the student's
linguistic and stylistic thesaurus.
The author owes acknowledgements Ior the kindly assistance in reading and stylistic editing
oI this work to a colleague Irom the Shimer College oI Chicago, a lecturer in English and
American literature S. Sklar.
%(A\!)g E
The Object of Stylistics
\Hcadems c] s`ydes`e^ HeseaH^_. `ydes`e^s c] danihaie anl sIee^_. !yIes c] s`ydes`e^
HeseaH^_ anl aHan^_es c] s`ydes`e^s. `ydes`e^s anl c`_eH denihes`e^ les^eIdenes. `ydes`e^
neh`Hade`y anl s`ydes`e^ ^cdcHeni. `ydes`e^ ]hn^`ecn nc`ecn.
E.E. \Hcadems c] s`ydes`e^ HeseaH^_
Units oI language on diIIerent levels are studied by traditional branches oI linguistics such
as phonetics that deals with speech sounds and intonation; lexicology that treats words, their
meaning and vocabulary structure, grammar that analyses Iorms oI words and their Iunction
in a sentence which is studied by syntax. These areas oI linguistic study are rather clearly
deIined and have a long-term tradition oI regarding language phenomena Irom
a level-oriented point oI view. Thus the subject matter and the
material under study oI these linguistic disciplines are more or less clear-cut.
It gets more complicated when we talk about stylistics. Some scholars claim that this is a
comparatively new branch oI linguistics, which has only a Iew decades oI intense linguistic
interest behind it. The term stylistics really came into existence not too long ago. In point oI
Iact the scope oI problems and the object oI stylistic study go as Iar back as ancient schools
oI rhetoric and poetics.
The problem that makes the deIinition oI stylistics a curious one deals both with the object
and the material oI studies. When we speak oI the stylistic value oI a text we cannot
proceed Irom the level-biased approach that is so logically described through the
hierarchical system oI sounds, words and clauses. Not only may each oI these linguistic
units be charged with a certain stylistic meaning but the interaction oI these elements, as
well as the structure and composition oI the whole text are stylistically pertinent.
Another problem has to do with a whole set oI special linguistic means that create what we
call "style". Style may be belles-letters or scientiIic or neutral or low colloquial or archaic
or pompous, or a combination oI those. Style may also be typical oI a certain writer -
Shakespearean style, Dickensian style, etc. There is the style oI the press, the style oI
oIIicial documents, the style oI social etiquette and even an individual style oI a speaker or
writer - his idiolect.
stylistics deals with styles. DiIIerent scholars have deIined style diIIerently at diIIerent
times. Out oI this variety we shall quote the most representative ones that scan the period
Irom the 50ies to the 90ies oI the 2#
In 1955 the Academician V. V. Vinogradov deIined style as "socially recognized and
Iunctionally conditioned internally united totality oI the ways oI using, selecting and
combining the means oI lingual
intercourse in the sphere oI one national language or another..." (8, p. 73). In 1971 ProI. I.
R. Galperin oIIered his deIinition oI style "as a system oI interrelated language means
which serves a deIinite aim in communication." (36, p. 18).
According to ProI. Y. M. Skrebnev, whose book on stylistics was published in 1994, "style
is what diIIerentiates a group oI homogeneous texts (an individual text) Irom all other
groups (other texts)... Style can be roughly deIined as the peculiarity, the set oI speciIic
Ieatures oI a text type or oI a speciIic text." (47, p. 9).
All these deIinitions point out the systematic and Iunctionally determined character oI the
notion oI style.
The authors oI handbooks on German (E. Riesel, M. P. Bran-des), French (Y. S. Stepanov,
R. G. Piotrovsky, K. A. Dolinin), English (I. R. Galperin, I. V. Arnold, Y. M. Skrebnev, V.
A. Maltsev, n. A. Kukharenko, A. N. Morokhovsky and others) and Russian (M. N.
Kozhina, I. B. Golub) stylistics published in our country over the recent decades propose
more or less analogous systems oI styles based on a broad subdivision oI all styles into two
classes: literary and colloquial and their varieties. These generally include Irom three to Iive
Iunctional styles.
Since Iunctional styles will be Iurther specially discussed in a separate chapter at this stage
we shall limit ourselves to only three popular viewpoints in English language style
ProI. I. R. Galperin suggests 5 styles Ior the English language.
1) belles-lettres style: poetry, emotive prose, and drama;
2) publicist style: oratory and speeches, essay, articles;
3) newspaper style: brieI news items, headlines, advertisements, editorial;
4) scientiIic prose style;
5) oIIicial documents style.
ProI. I. V. Arnold distinguishes 4 styles:
1) poetic style;
2) scientiIic style;
3) newspaper style;
4) colloquial style.
ProI. Y. M. Skrebnev suggests a most unconventional viewpoint on the number oI styles.
He maintains that the number oI sublanguages and styles is inIinite (iI we include individual
styles, styles mentioned in linguistic literature such as telegraphic, oratorical, reIerence
book, Shakespearean, short story, or the style oI literature on electronics, computer
language, etc.).
OI course the problem oI style deIinition is not the only one stylistic research deals with.
Stylistics is that branch oI linguistics, which studies the principles, and eIIect oI choice and
usage oI diIIerent language elements in rendering thought and emotion under diIIerent
conditions oI communication. ThereIore it is concerned with such issues as
1) the aesthetic Iunction oI language;
2) expressive means in language;
3) synonymous ways oI rendering one and the same idea;
4) emotional colouring in language;
5) a system oI special devices called stylistic devices;
Ko the splitting oI the literary language into separate systems called style;
7) the interrelation between language and thought;
jo the individual manner oI an author in making use oI the language (47, p. 5).
These issues cover the overall scope oI stylistic research and can only be representative oI
stylistics as a discipline oI linguistic study taken as a whole. So it should be noted that each
oI them is concerned with only a limited area oI research:
1. %&! a!'t&!tc ()$ct#$ oI language is an immanent part oI works oI art - poetry and
imaginative prose but it leaves out works oI science, diplomatic or commercial
correspondence, technical instructions and many other types oI texts.
2. *+,r!''-! .!a$' oI language are mostly employed in types oI speech that aim to aIIect
the reader or listener: poetry, Iiction, oratory, and inIormal intercourse but rarely in
technical texts or business language.
3. It is due to the possibility oI choice, the possibility oI using '/$#$/.#)' 0a/' oI
rendering ideas that styles are Iormed. With the change oI wording a change in meaning
(however slight it might be) takes place inevitably.
4. %&! !.#t#$a1 c#1#)r$2 oI words and sentences creates a certain stylistic eIIect and
makes a text either a highly lyrical piece oI description or a satirical derision with a
diIIerent stylistic value. However not all texts eligible Ior stylistic study are necessarily
marked by this quality.
&. No work oI art, no text or speech consists oI a system oI stylistic devices but there's no
doubt about the Iact that t&! 't/1! #( a$/t&$2 ' (#r.!3 4/ t&! c#.4$at#$ #( (!at)r!'
peculiar to it, that whatever we say or write, hear or read is not style by itselI but has style,
it demonstrates stylistic Ieatures.
6. Any national language contains a number oI "')41a$2)a2!'5 or microlanguages or
varieties oI language with their own speciIic Ieatures, their own styles. Besides these
Iunctional styles that are rooted in the norm oI the language there exist the so-called
"substandard" types oI speech such as slang, barbarisms, vulgarisms, taboo and so on.
7. 6$t!rr!1at#$ 4!t0!!$ t&#)2&t a$3 1a$2)a2! can be described in terms oI an inseparable
whole so when the Iorm is changed a change in content takes place. The author's intent and
the Iorms he uses to render it as well as the reader's interpretation oI it is the subject oI a
special branch oI stylistics - decoding stylistics.
8. We can hardly object to the proposition that style is also above other things t&!
$3-3)a1 .a$$!r #( !+,r!''#$ #( a$ a)t&#r in
his use oI the language. At the same time the individual manner can only appear out oI a
number oI elements provided by the common background and employed and combined in a
speciIic manner.
Thus speaking oI stylistics as a science we have to bear in mind that the object oI its
research is versatile and multi-dimensional and the study oI any oI the above-mentioned
problems will be a Iragmentary description. It's essential that we look at the object oI
stylistic study in its totality.
E.1. `ydes`e^s c] danihaie anl sIee^_
One oI the Iundamental concepts oI linguistics is the dichotomy oI "language and speech"
(langue - parole) introduced by F. de Saussure. According to it language is a system oI
elementary and complex signs: phonemes, morphemes, words, word combinations,
utterances and combinations oI utterances. Language as such a system exists in human
minds only and linguistic Iorms or units can be systematised into paradigms.
So language is a mentally organised system oI linguistic units. An individual speaker never
uses it. When we use these units we mix them in acts oI speech. As distinct Irom language
speech is not a purely mental phenomenon, '($ ! )*)$e+ but ! ,r("e)) oI combining these
linguistic elements into linear linguistic units that are called syntagmatic.
The result oI this process is the linear or syntagmatic combination oI vowels and consonants
into words, words into word-combinations and sentences and combination oI sentences into
texts. The word "syntagmatic" is a purely linguistic term meaning a coherent sequence oI
words (written, uttered or just remembered).
Stylistics is a branch oI linguistics that deals with texts, not with the system oI signs or
process oI speech production as such. But within these texts elements stylistically relevant
are studied both syntagmatically and paradigmatically (loosely classiIying all stylistic
means paradigmatically into tropes and syntagmatically into Iigures oI speech).
Eventually this brings us to the notions oI )$*-.)$.") ( -!'/0!/e and )$*-.)$.") ( ),ee"%.
Their diIIerence lies in the material studied.
The stylistics oI language analyses permanent or .'%ere'$ stylistic properties oI language
elements while the stylistics oI speech studies stylistic properties, which appear in a
context, and they are called !1%ere'$.
Russian words like 4.6TA p4<B7=./45A .7:/.645 or English words IHefaHe^a`eA
^cmIHe_enlA dass are bookish or archaic and these are their inherent properties. The
unexpected use oI any oI these words in a modern context will be an adherent stylistic
So stylistics oI language describes and classiIies the inherent stylistic colouring oI language
units. Stylistics oI speech studies the composition oI the utterance - the arrangement,
selection and distribution oI diIIerent words, and their adherent qualities.
E.3. !yIes c] s`ydes`e^ HeseaH^_ anl aHan^_es c] s`ydes`e^s
#e`eHaHy anl denihes`e^ s`ydes`e^s
According to the type oI stylistic research we can distinguish literary stylistics and lingua-
stylistics. They have some meeting points or links in that they have common objects oI
research. Consequently they have certain areas oI cross-reIerence. Both study the common
ground oI:
1) the literary language Irom the point oI view oI its variability;
2) the idiolect (individual speech) oI a writer;
3) poetic speech that has its own speciIic laws.
Functional styles (in their development and current state).
The linguistic nature oI the expressive means oI the language, their systematic character
and their Iunctions.
Literary s`ydes`e^s is Iocused on
The composition oI a work oI art.
Various literary genres.
The writer's outlook.
%cmIaHa`efe s`ydes`e^s
Comparative stylistics is connected with the contrastive study oI more than one language.
It analyses the stylistic resources not inherent in a separate language but at the crossroads oI
two languages, or two literatures and is obviously linked to the theory oI translation.
ke^cleni s`ydes`e^s
A comparatively new branch oI stylistics is the decoding stylistics, which can be traced
back to the works oI L. V. Shcherba, B. A. Larin, M. RiIIaterre, R. Jackobson and other
scholars oI the Prague linguistic circle. A serious contribution into this branch oI stylistic
study was
also made by ProI. I.V. Arnold (3, 4). Each act oI speech has the perIormer, or sender oI
speech and the recipient. The Iormer does the act oI encoding and the latter the act oI
decoding the inIormation.
II we analyse the text Irom the author's (encoding) point oI view we should consider the
epoch, the historical situation, the personal political, social and aesthetic views oI the
But iI we try to treat the same text Irom the reader's angle oI view we shall have to
disregard this background knowledge and get the maximum inIormation Irom the text itselI
(its vocabulary, composition, sentence arrangement, etc.). The Iirst approach maniIests the
prevalence oI the literary analysis. The second is based almost exclusively on the linguistic
analysis. Decoding stylistics is an attempt to harmoniously combine the two methods oI
stylistic research and enable the scholar to interpret a work oI art with a minimum loss oI its
purport and message.
'hn^`ecnad s`ydes`e^s
Special mention should be made oI Iunctional stylistics which is a branch oI lingua-
stylistics that investigates Iunctional styles, that is special sublanguages or varieties oI the
national language such as scientiIic, colloquial, business, publicist and so on.
However many types oI stylistics may exist or spring into existence they will all consider
the same source material Ior stylistic analysis-sounds, words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs
and texts. That's why any kind oI stylistic research will be based on the level-Iorming
branches that include:
`ydes`e^ deVe^cdciy
Stylistic Lexicology studies the semantic structure oI the word and the interrelation (or
interplay) oI the connotative and denotative meanings oI the word, as well as the
interrelation oI the stylistic connotations oI the word and the context.
`ydes`e^ \_cne`e^s (or \_cncs`ydes`e^so is engaged in the study oI style-Iorming phonetic
Ieatures oI the text. It describes the prosodic Ieatures oI prose and poetry and variants oI
pronunciation in diIIerent types oI speech (colloquial or oratory or recital).
`ydes`e^ iHammaH
`ydes`e^ qcHI_cdciy is interested in the stylistic potentials oI speciIic grammatical Iorms
and categories, such as the number oI the noun, or the peculiar use oI tense Iorms oI the
verb, etc.
Stylistic yn`aV is one oI the oldest branches oI stylistic studies that grew out oI classical
rhetoric. The material in question lends itselI readily to analysis and description. Stylistic
syntax has to do with the expressive order oI words, types oI syntactic links (asyndeton,
polysyndeton), Iigures oI speech (antithesis, chiasmus, etc.). It also deals with bigger units
Irom paragraph onwards.
E.3. `ydes`e^s anl c`_eH denihes`e^ les^eIdenes
As is obvious Irom the names oI the branches or types oI stylistic studies this science is
very closely linked to the linguistic disci-
plines philology students are Iamiliar with: phonetics, lexicology and grammar due to the
common study source.
Stylistics interacts with such theoretical discipline as )e+!).(-(/*. This is a branch oI
linguistics whose area oI study is a most complicated and enormous sphere - that oI
meaning. The term semantics is also widely used in linguistics in relation to verbal
meanings. Semasiology in its turn is oIten related to the theory oI signs in general and deals
with visual as well as verbal meanings.
Meaning is not attached to the level oI the word only, or Ior that matter to one level at all
but correlates with all oI them - morphemes, words, phrases or texts. This is one oI the most
challenging areas oI research since practically all stylistic eIIects are based on the interplay
between diIIerent kinds oI meaning on diIIerent levels. SuIIice it to say that there are
numerous types oI linguistic meanings attached to linguistic units, such as grammatical,
lexical, logical, denotative, connotative, emotive, evaluative, expressive and stylistic.
O'(+!).(-(/* (or ('(+!$(-(/*2 is the theory oI naming dealing with the choice oI words
when naming or assessing some object or phenomenon. In stylistic analysis we oIten have
to do with a transIer oI nominal meaning in a text (antonomasia, metaphor, metonymy, etc.)
The theory oI Iunctional styles investigates the structure oI the national linguistic space -
what constitutes the literary language, the sublanguages and dialects mentioned more than
once already.
Literary stylistics will inevitably overlap with areas oI literary studies such as $%e $%e(r* (
.+!/er*3 -.$er!r* /e're)3 $%e !r$ ( "(+,().$.('3 etc.
Decoding stylistics in many ways borders "0-$0re )$01.e) in the broad sense oI that word
including $%e %.)$(r* ( !r$3 !e)$%e$." $re'1) and even .'(r+!$.(' $%e(r*.
E.Q. `ydes`e^ neh`Hade`y anl s`ydes`e^ ^cdchHeni
Speaking oI the notion oI style and stylistic colouring we cannot avoid the problem oI the
'(r+ !'1 'e0$r!-.$* and )$*-.)$." "(-(0r.'/ in contrast to it.
Most scholars abroad and in this country giving deIinitions oI style come to the conclusion
that style may be deIined as deviation Irom the lingual norm. It means that what is
stylistically conspicuous, stylistically relevant or stylistically coloured is a departure Irom
the norm oI a given national language. (G. Leech, M. RiIIaterre, M. Halliday, R. Jacobson
and others).
There are authors who object to the use oI the word "norm" Ior various reasons. Thus Y. M.
Skrebnev argues that since we acknowledge the existence oI a variety oI sublanguages
within a national language we should also acknowledge that each oI them has a norm oI its
own. So the sentence "I haven't ever done anything" (or "I don't know anything") as
juxtaposed to the sentence "I ain't never done nothing" ("I don't know nothing") is not the
norm itselI but merely conIorms to the literary norm.
The second sentence ("I ain't never done nothing") most certainly deviates Irom the literary
norm (Irom standard English) but iI Iully conIorms to the requirements oI the uncultivated
part oI the English speaking population who merely have their own conception
oI the norm. So Skrebnev claims there are as many norms as there are sublanguages. Each
language is subject to its own norm. To reject this would mean admitting abnormality oI
everything that is not neutral. Only ABC-books and texts Ior Ioreigners would be
considered "normal". Everything that has style, everything that demonstrates peculiarities oI
whatever kind would be considered abnormal, including works by Dickens, Twain,
O'Henry, Galsworthy and so on (47, pp. 21-22).
For all its challenging and deIiant character this argument seems to contain a grain oI truth
and it does stand to reason that what we oIten call "the norm" in terms oI stylistics would be
more appropriate to call "neutrality".
Since style is the speciIicity oI a sublanguage it is selI-evident that non-speciIic units oI it
do not participate in the Iormation oI its style; units belonging to all the sublanguages are
stylistically neutral. Thus we observe an opposition oI stylistically coloured speciIic
elements to stylistically neutral non-speciIic elements.
The stylistic colouring is nothing but the knowledge where, in what particular type oI
communication, the unit in question is current. On hearing Ior instance the above-cited
utterance "I don't know nothing" ("I ain't never done nothing") we compare it with what we
know about standard and non-standard Iorms oI English and this will permit us to pass
judgement on what we have heard or read.
ProIessor Howard M. Mims oI Cleveland State University did an accurate study oI
grammatical deviations Iound in American English that he terms vernacular (non-standard)
variants (44). He made a list oI 20 grammatical Iorms which he calls relatively common and
oI them are so Irequent in every-day speech that you hardly register them as deviations
Irom the norm, e.g. T%e* re!1* $( /( instead oI T%e* ar! re!1* $( /(4 5(*"e %!) .$* "e'$ .'
%er 6!'7 !""(0'$ instead oI 5(*"e %!) .$* "e'$) .' %er 6!'7 !""(0'$4 M* 6r($%er3 %e8) !
1("$(r instead oI M* 6r($%er .) ! 1("$(r3 He 1('8$ 7'(9 '($%.'/ instead oI He 1(e)'8$ 7'(9
The majority oI the words are neutral. Stylistically coloured words-bookish, solemn, poetic,
oIIicial or colloquial, rustic, dialectal, vulgar - have each a kind oI label on them showing
where the unit was "manuIactured", where it generally belongs.
Within the stylistically coloured words there is another opposition between Iormal
vocabulary and inIormal vocabulary.
These terms have many synonyms oIIered by diIIerent authors. Roman Jacobson described
this opposition as casual and non-casual, other terminologies name them as bookish and
colloquial or Iormal and inIormal, correct and common.
Stylistically coloured words are limited to speciIic conditions oI communication. II you
isolate a stylistically coloured word it will still preserve its label or "trade-mark" and have
the Ilavour oI poetic or artistic colouring.
You're sure to recognise words like 1e"e!)e3 !$$.re3 1e"-.'e :! ,r(,()!-2 as bookish and
distinguish 1.e3 "-($%e)3 re0)e as neutral while such units as )'0 .$3 r!/) :$(/)23 $0r' 1(9'
will immediately strike you as colloquial or inIormal.
In surveying the units commonly called neutral can we assert that they only denote without
connoting? That is not completely true.
II we take stylistically neutral words separately, we may call them neutral without doubt.
But occasionally in a certain context, in a speciIic distribution one oI many implicit
meanings oI a word we normally consider neutral may prevail. SpeciIic distribution may
also create unexpected additional colouring oI a generally neutral word. Such stylistic
connotation is called occasional.
Stylistic connotations may be .'%ere'$ or !1%ere'$. Stylistically coloured words possess
inherent stylistic connotations. Stylistically neutral words will have only adherent
(occasional) stylistic connotations acquired in a certain context.
A -0;0r* %($e- (r 1(/) .) $( 6e (,e'e1 !$ L.+!3 Per0 ! ".$* ( 30.000 1(/). T%e. 0rr*
/0e)$) 9.-- %!<e )e,!r!$e %*/.e'." 7e''e-)3 $(, +e1."!- "!re !'1 %./% )$!'1!r1 c)'$!,
.'"-01.'/ $%e 6e)$ 4#$!'. (Mailer)
Two examples Irom this passage demonstrate how both stylistically marked and neutral
words may change their colouring due to the context:
^hesene -~ inherently Iormal (bookish, high-Ilown);
-~ adherent connotation in the context - lowered/humorous; acnes -~ stylistically
-~ adherent connotation in the context - elevated/humorous.
=.A. S/BliC/iD E!FD/iGF FG/iGF
Like other linguistic disciplines stylistics deals with the lexical, grammatical, phonetic and
phraseological data oI the language. However there is a distinctive diIIerence between
stylistics and the
other linguistic subjects. Stylistics does not study or describe separate linguistic units like
phonemes or words or clauses as such. It studies their 't/1'tc ()$ct#$. Stylistics is
interested in the expressive potential oI these units and their interaction in a text.
Stylistics Iocuses on the expressive properties oI linguistic units, their Iunctioning and
interaction in conveying ideas and emotions in a certain text or communicative context.
Stylistics interprets the opposition or clash between the contextual meaning oI a word and
its denotative meaning.
Accordingly stylistics is Iirst and Ioremost engaged in the study oI connotative meanings.
In brieI the semantic structure (or the meaning) oI a word roughly consists oI its
grammatical meaning (noun, verb, adjective) and its lexical meaning. Lexical meaning can
Iurther on be subdivided into 1e'($!$.<e (linked to the logical or nominative meaning) and
"(''($!$.<e +e!'.'/). Connotative meaning is only connected with extra-linguistic
circumstances such as the situation oI communication and the participants oI
communication. Connotative meaning consists oI Iour components:
1) emotive;
2) evaluative;
3) expressive;
4) stylistic.
A word is always characterised by its denotative meaning but not necessarily by
connotation. The Iour components may be all presentat once, or in diIIerent combinations
or they may not be Iound in the word at all.
1. )mc`efe connotations express various Ieelings or emotions. Emotions diIIer Irom
Ieelings. Emotions like =(*3 1.)!,,(.'$+e'$3 ,-e!)0re3 !'/er3 9(rr*3 )0r,r.)e are more
short-lived. Feelings imply a more stable state, or attitude, such as -(<e3 %!$re13 re),e"$3
,r.1e3 1./'.$*3 etc. The emotive component oI meaning may be occasional or usual (i.e.
inherent and adherent).
It is important to distinguish words with emotive connotations Irom words, describing or
naming emotions and Ieelings like !'/er or e!r3 because the latter are a special vocabulary
subgroup whose denotative meanings are emotions. They do not connote the speaker's state
oI mind or his emotional attitude to the subject oI speech.
Thus iI a psychiatrist were to say >(0 )%(0-1 6e !6-e $( "('$r(- ee-.'/) ( !'/er3
.+,!$.e'"e !'1 1.)!,,(.'$+e'$ 1e!-.'/ 9.$% ! "%.-1 as a piece oI advice to young parents
the sentence would have no emotive power. It may be considered stylistically neutral.
On the other hand an apparently neutral word like 6./ will become charged with emotive
connotation in a mother's proud description oI her baby: He .) ! ?@A 6(* !-re!1*B
2. The efadha`efe component charges the word with negative, positive, ironic or other types
oI connotation conveying the speaker's attitude in relation to the object oI speech. Very
oIten this component is a part oI the denotative meaning, which comes to the Iore in a
speciIic context.
The verb $( )'e!7 means "to move silently and secretly, usu. Ior a bad purpose" (8). This
dictionary deIinition makes the evaluative component 6!1 quite explicit. Two derivatives !
)'e!7 and )'e!7* have both preserved a derogatory evaluative connotation. But the negative
component disappears though in still another derivative )'e!7er) (shoes with a soIt sole). It
shows that even words oI the same root may either have or lack an evaluative component in
their inner Iorm.
3. )VIHessefe connotation either increases or decreases the expressiveness oI the message.
Many scholars hold that emotive and expressive components cannot be distinguished but
ProI. I. A. Arnold maintains that emotive connotation always entails expressiveness but not
vice versa. To prove her point she comments on the example by A. Hornby and R. Fowler
with the word "thing" applied to a girl (4, p. 113).
When the word is used with an emotive adjective like "sweet" it becomes emotive itselI:
"She was a sweet little thing". But in other sentences like "She was a small thin delicate
thing with spectacles", she argues, this is not true and the word "thing" is deIinitely
expressive but not emotive.
Another group oI words that help create this expressive eIIect are the so-called
"intensiIiers", words like "absolutely, IrightIully, really, quite", etc.
4. Finally there is s`ydes`e^ connotation. A word possesses stylistic connotation iI it belongs
to a certain Iunctional style or a speciIic layer oI vocabulary (such as archaisms, barbarisms,
slang, jargon, etc). stylistic connotation is usually immediately recognizable.
>('1er3 )-0+6er3 $%e'"e immediately connote poetic or elevated writing.
Words like ,r."e .'1e; or 'e/($.!$e !))e$) are indicative oI business language.
This detailed and systematic description oI the connotative meaning oI a word is suggested
by the Leningrad school in the works oI ProI. I. V. Arnold, Z. Y. Turayeva, and others.
Gaiperin operates three types oI lexical meaning that are stylistically relevant - logical,
emotive and nominal. He describes the stylistic colouring oI words in terms oI the
interaction oI these types oI lexical meaning. Skrebnev maintains that connotations only
show to what part oI the national language a word belongs - one oI the sub-languages
(Iunctional styles) or the neutral bulk. He only speaks about the stylistic component oI the
connotative meaning.
1. Comment on the notions oI style and sublanguages in the national language.
2. What are the interdisciplinary links oI stylistics and other linguistic subjects such as
phonetics, lexicology, grammar, and semasiology? Provide examples.
How does stylistics diIIer Irom them in its subject-matter and Iields oI study?
3. Give an outline oI the stylistic diIIerentiation oI the national English vocabulary: neutral,
literary, colloquial layers oI words;
areas oI their overlapping. Describe literary and common colloquial stratums oI vocabulary,
their stratiIication.
4. How does stylistic colouring and stylistic neutrality relate to inherent and adherent
stylistic connotation?
Q. Can you distinguish neutral, Iormal and inIormal among the Iollowing groups oI words.
1. currency money dough
2. to talk to converse to chat
3. to chow
to eat to dine
4. to start to commence to kick oII
5. insane nuts mentally ill
6. spouse hubby husband
7. to leave to withdraw to shoot oII
geezer senior citizen old man
9. veracious opens sincere
10. mushy emotional sentimental
6. What kind oI adherent stylistic meaning appears in the otherwise neutral word ee-.'/?
@8<e /($ '( ee-.'/ ,!*.'/ .'$ere)$3 ,r(<.1e1 $%!$ .$8) re!)('!6-e. (Shute) @8<e /($ '( ee-.'/
!/!.')$ )+!-- $(9' -.e. 6 r!$%er -.7e .$. (Shute)
7. To what stratum oI vocabulary do the words in bold type in the Iollowing sentences
belong stylistically? Provide neutral or colloquial variants Ior them:
@ e;,e"$ *(08<e )ee' +* %!'1 ($e' e'(0/% "(+.'/ (0$ 9.$% $%e 2r)4. (Waugh)
S%e 6e$r!*e1 )(+e e+6!rr!))+e'$ 9%e' )%e %!'1e1 P!0- $%e $."7e$)3 !'1 ! &a)t!)r 9%."%
)06)eC0e'$-* +!1e %er ee- <er* ((-.)%. (Gather)
@ +0)$ 6e ( $( +* 32'. (Waugh)
D%e' $%e (-1 6(* ,#,,!3 #(( %e -e$ P%.-6r."7 e<er*$%.'/3 e;"e,$ ! e9 6((7) $( Ar!".e.
He -((7e1 %er (<er !'1 1e".1e1 $%!$ )%e 9!) '($ !,,r(,r.!$e-* 1re))e1 !'1 +0)$ 6e ! ((-
$( ).$ 1(9')$!.r) .' )0"% t#2'. (Cather)
@$ 9!) 6r(7e' !$ -e'/$% 6* $%e !rr.<!- ( F-()).e3 ),-e'1.1-* attr!3 .' +!/e'$! !'1 /ree'.
8. Consider the Iollowing utterances Irom the point OI view oI the grammatical norm. What
elements can be labelled as deviations Irom standard English? How do they comply with
the norms oI colloquial English according to Mims and Skrebnev?
S.$! 1e".1e1 $%!$ )%e 9(0-1 -!* 1(9' .' $%e 1!r7 e<e' . Mr). D!-1<(/e- "!+e .' !'1 6.$
%er. (Erdrich)
A-9!*) ,(,0-!r 9.$% $%e 6(*)3 %e 9!)3 e<e' 9%e' %e 9!) )( 0-- %e "(0-1'8$ %!r1-* ./%$.
...%e 0)e1 $( e!r' .<e ,(0'1 ! './%$... (Waugh)
@ 9(0-1'8$ )e-- .$ '($ (r ! %0'1re1 C0.13 @ 9(0-1'8$. (Waugh)
T%ere 9!) ! r!,,.'/ !$ $%e 6e1r((+ 1((r. E@8-- -e!r' $%!$ L01e' S(rre-) $( $(+"!$.E
9. How does the choice oI words in each case contribute to the stylistic character oI the
Iollowing passages? How would you deIine their Iunctional colouring in terms oI technical,
poetic, bookish, commercial, dialectal, religious, elevated, colloquial, legal or other style?
Make up lists oI words that create this tenor in the texts given below.
D%.-)$ %0+6-e ,.-/r.+) -(1/e1 .' %(),."e)3 ! $r!<e--.'/ 7'./%$ 9(0-1 '(r+!--* )$!* 9.$% !
+er"%!'$. (RutherIurd)
F(8 9%!$ *(0 /( 6* 1e+3 e%F D8* '($ 7ee, $( *(8)e-F De* 1('8 9!'$ *(03 1e* 1('8 "!re (8
*(0. H8 !.'8 *(0 /($ '( )e')eF (Dunbar-Nelson)
T%e* )e'$ +e 1(9' $( $%e !er(1r(+e 'e;$ +(r'.'/ .' ! "!r. @ +!1e ! "%e"7 (<er $%e
+!"%.'e3 "-e!'e1 .-$er)3 1r!.'e1 )0+,)3 )9e,$ (0$ $%e "!6.'3 !'1 re0e--e1. F.'!--* @ $((7
( !$ !6(0$ $e' $%.r$* (r $%e )%(r$ -./%$ 1(9' $( ?!$!<.! !"r()) $%e S0'1! )$r!.$)3 !'1
(0'1 $%e !er(1r(+e !'1 "!+e (' $( $%e ".r"0.$ 6e%.'1 $%e C(')$e--!$.(' ( G. L. M.
De !)7 T%ee3 L(r13 $%e (-1 +!' "r.e13 $( -((7 !$er $%.) "%.-1$. F!$%er-e)) %e .). ?0$ 9%!$
1(e) $%e e!r$%-* !$%er +!$$er 6e(re T%eeF T%e "%.-1$ .) T%.'e3 %e .) T%* "%.-1$3 L(r13 9%!$
!$%er %!) ! +!' 60$ T%eeF (Lawrence)
H De !re $%e ).-<er 6!'1 $%e L(r1 6-e)) !'1 7ee, *(03 )!.1 $%e )$!$.('+!)$er .' ('e 6re!$%3
$%e 6!'1 $%!$ '( ('e "(0-1 6e!$ 9%!$e<er 60$ $9( .'1ee1 .' $%e E.)$e11(1 $%!$ (r !--
N(r$% D!-e) 9!) -((7 *(0.
@ )ee3 )!.1 $%e D("$(r4 @ )ee. T%!$8) ),-e'1.1. De--3 9.-- *(0 ,-e!)e /( .'$( *(0r $e'$3 $%e
-.$$-e $e'$ (<er $%ere.
T( +!r"% !6(0$ *(0 9(0-1 '($ -.7e 0)F S0//e)$e1 $%e )$!$.('+!)$er3 9e %!<e ! .'e
-!/-((7 *(0 $%!$ e+6r(.1ere1 (r 0) 9!) .' ).-7). (Waugh)
T%e e<.1e'"e .) ,ere"$-* "-e!r. T%e 1e"e!)e1 9(+!' 9!) 0'!.$%0- $( %er %0)6!'1 10r.'/
%.) !6)e'"e (<er)e!) !'1 /!<e 6.r$% $( ! "%.-1 (0$ ( 9e1-("7.
Her %0)6!'1 )ee+e1 $( 6e%!<e 9.$% "(++e'1!6-e re)$r!.'$ !'1 9r($e '($%.'/ $( %er 9%."%
9(0-1 %!<e -e1 %er $( $!7e %er -.e... T%e 1e"e!)e1 !,,e!r) $( %!<e 6ee' $%e <."$.+ ( %er
(9' "(')".e'"e !'1 !) $%e $.+e (r $%e re$0r' ( %er %0)6!'1 1re9 'e!r )%e 6e"!+e
+e'.!--* 0,)e$. @ .'1 $%!$ $%e 1e"e!)e1 "(++.$$e1 )0.".1e 9%.-e $%e 6!-!'"e ( %er +.'1
9!) $e+,(r!r.-* 1er!'/e1. (Shute)
@ )!*3 @8<e +e$ !' !90- /((1 "%!, "!--e1 M.-e). Re/0-!r $(,,er. >(0 7'(93 ,a11/. T%!$8)
9%!$ @ -.7e !6(0$ ! re!--* 1e"e'$ ,!r$* H *(0 +ee$ )0"% $(,,.'/ e--(9). @ +e!' )(+e "%!,)
.$ $!7e) !6)(-0$e-* *e!r) $( 7'(93 60$ ! "%!, -.7e M.-e) @ ee- .) ! ,!- )$r!./%$ !9!*.
S%e )!'/ .r)$ ( $%e 6.r$% ( -(<e .' $%e %e!r$) ( ! 6(* !'1 ! /.r-. A'1 (' $%e $(,+()$ ),r!*
( $%e R()eH$ree $%ere 6-())(+e1 ! +!r<e--(0) r()e3 ,e$!- (--(9.'/ ,e$!-3 !) )('/ (--(9e1
)('/. P!-e 9!) .$3 !$ .r)$ !) $%e +.)$ $%!$ %!'/) (<er $%e r.<er H ,!-e !) $%e ee$ ( $%e
+(r'.'/. (Wilde)
He 9e'$ )-(9-* !6(0$ $%e "(rr.1(r)3 $%r(0/% $%e 9r.$.'/ H r((+)3 )+(7.'/Hr((+)3
re"e,$.('Hr((+)3 !) $%(0/% %e 9ere e;,-(r.'/ $%e "%!+6er) ( !' e'"%!'$e1 ,!-!"e3 60.-$
!'1 ,e(,-e1 (r %.+ !-('e.
D%e' %e re!"%e1 $%e 1.'.'/Hr((+ %e )!$ 1(9' !$ ! $!6-e 'e!r ! 9.'1(9.
T%e -(9er)3 $%e 9%.$e -.'e'3 $%e +!'*H"(-(0re1 9.'eH/-!))e)3 $%e /!* $(.-e$$e) ( $%e
9(+e'3 $%e -(9 ,(,,.'/ ( "(r7)3 $%e 0'10-!$.'/ re,e$.$.(') ( $%e 71)! 8a$)4! r(+ $%e
(r"%e)$r!3 !-- -((1e1 P!0-8) 1re!+ 9.$% 6e9.-1er.'/ r!1.!'"e. (Cather)
%(A\!)g 1
Expressive Resources of the Language
)VIHessefe means anl s`ydes`e^ lefe^es. ke]]eHen` ^dasse]e^a`ecns c] eVIHessefe means
anl s`ydes`e^ lefe^es ]Hcm an`erhe `c mcleHn `emes.
In my reading oI modern French novels I had acquired the habit oI underlining expressions,
which struck me as aberrant Irom general usage, and it oIten happened that the underlined
passages taken together seemed to oIIer a certain consistency. I wondered iI it would be
possible to establish a common denominator Ior all or most oI these deviations, could we
Iind a common spiritual etymon or the psychological root oI 'several' individual 'traits oI
style' in a writer.
Le( S,.$Ier: Linguistics and Literary History
@.=. EJ0ICCiKI mIaFC aFL C/BliC/iD LIKiDIC )VIHessefe means
Expressive means oI a language are those linguistic Iorms and properties that have the
potential to make the utterance emphatic or expressive. These can be Iound on all levels -
phonetic, graphical, morphological, lexical or syntactical.
Expressive means and stylistic devices have a lot in common but they are not completely
synonymous. All stylistic devices belong to expressive means but not all expressive means
are stylistic devices. Phonetic phenomena such as vocal pitch, pauses, logical stress, and
drawling, or staccato pronunciation are all expressive without being stylistic devices
Morphological Iorms like diminutive suIIixes may have an expressive eIIect: /.r-.e3 ,.//*3
1(//*3 etc. An unexpected use oI the author's nonce words like: He 21a'$#'t!3 %.) -(<e
!!.r 9.$% $%.) +(<.e )$!r :Pe(,-e2 is another example oI morphological expressive means.
Lexical expressive means may be illustrated by a special group oI intensiIiers - !90--*3
$err.6-*3 !6)(-0$e-*3 etc. or words that retain their logical meaning while being used
emphatically: @$ 9!) ! -!r/ ',!ca1 e<e'.'/Je<e'$J/.$.
There are also special grammatical Iorms and syntactical patterns attributing
expressiveness, such as: 6 3# 7'(9 *(0B @8+ re!--* !'/r* 9.$% t&at 3#2 #( /#)r'9 %&at *(0
'&#)13 1e"e.<e +eB @ #$1/ @ "(0-1 %e-, *(0B
`ydes`e^ lefe^es
A stylistic device is a literary model in which semantic and structural Ieatures are blended
so that it represents a generalised pattern.
ProI. I. R. Galperin calls a stylistic device a generative model when through Irequent use a
language Iact is transIormed into a stylistic device. Thus we may say that some expressive
means have evolved into stylistic devices which represent a more abstract Iorm or set oI
Iorms. A stylistic device combines some general semantic meaning with a certain linguistic
Iorm resulting in stylistic eIIect. It is like an algorithm employed Ior an expressive purpose.
For example, the interplay, interaction, or clash oI the dictionary and contextual meanings
oI words will bring about such stylistic devices as metaphor, metonymy or irony.
The nature oI the interaction may be !.'.$* (likeness by nature), ,r(;.+.$* (nearness in
place, time, order, occurrence, relation) or "('$r!)$ (opposition).
Respectively there is metaphor based on the principle oI aIIinity, metonymy based on
proximity and irony based on opposition.
The evolution oI a stylistic device such as metaphor could be seen Irom Iour examples that
demonstrate this linguistic mechanism (interplay oI dictionary and contextual meaning
based on the principle oI aIIinity):
1. :/ $!0 3r!'' ' a' ,$; a' t&' (1#0!r: comparison (ground Ior comparison - the colour
oI the Ilower).
2. <!r c&!!;' 0!r! a' r!3 a' a t)1,: simile (ground Ior simile -
3. "&! ' a r!a1 (1#0!r: metaphor (ground Ior metaphor - Irail/
:/ 1#-! ' a r!3, r!3 r#'!: metaphor (ground Ior metaphor - passionateIbeautiIulIstrong...).
4. =)4/ 1,', &ar #( 2#13, '$#0>0&t! ';$: trite metaphors so Irequently employed that
they hardly have any stylistic power leIt because metaphor dies oI overuse. Such metaphors
are also called hackneyed or even dead.
A Iamous literary example oI an author's deIiance against immoderate use oI trite
metaphors is W. Shakespeare's Sonnet 130
My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is Iar more red than her lips' red;
II snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
II hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perIumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that Irom my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a Iar more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with Ialse compare.
The more unexpected, the less predictable is the ground Ior comparison the more expressive
is the metaphor which in this case got a special name oI genuine or authentic metaphor.
Associations suggested by the genuine metaphor are varied, not limited to any deIinite
number and stimulated by the individual experience or imagination.
In spite oI the belieI that rhetoric is an outmoded discipline it is in rhetoric that we Iind
most oI the terms contemporary stylistics generally employs as its metalanguage. Rhetoric
is the initial source oI inIormation about metaphor, metonymy, epithet, antithesis, chiasmus,
anaphora and many more. The classical rhetoric gave us still widely used terms oI tropes
and Iigures oI speech.
That is why beIore looking into the new stylistic theories and Iindings it's good to look back
and see what's been there Ior centuries. The problems oI language in antique times became
a concern oI scholars because oI the necessity to comment on literature and poetry. This
necessity was caused by the Iact that mythology and lyrical poetry was the study material
on which the youth was brought up, taught to read and write and generally educated.
Analysis oI literary texts helped to transIer into the sphere oI oratorical art the Iirst
philosophical notions and concepts.
The Iirst linguistic theory called sophistry appeared in the IiIth century 3. C. Oration played
a paramount role in the social and political liIe oI Greece so the art oI rhetoric developed
into a school.
Antique tradition ascribes some oI the Iundamental rhetorical notions to the Greek
philosopher A(r/.0) (483-375 B. C). Together with another scholar named Tr!).+!"%0)
they created the Iirst school oI rhetoric whose principles were later developed by Ar.)$($-e
(384-322 B. C.) in his books "Rhetoric" and "Poetics".
Aristotle diIIerentiated literary language and colloquial language. This Iirst theory oI style
included 3 subdivisions:
the choice oI words;
word combinations;
1. The choice oI words included lexical expressive means such as Ioreign words, archaisms,
neologisms, poetic words, nonce words and metaphor.
2. Word combinations involved 3 things:
a) order oI words;
b) word-combinations;
c) rhythm and period (in rhetoric, a complete sentence).
3. Figures oI speech. This part included only 3 devices used by the antique authors always
in the same order:
a) antithesis;
b) assonance oI colons;
c) equality oI colons.
A colon in rhetoric means one oI the sections oI a rhythmical period in Greek chorus
consisting oI a sequence oI 2 to 6 Ieet.
Later contributions by other authors were made into the art oI speaking and writing so that
the most complete and well developed antique system, that came down to us is called the
He--e'.)$." R(+!' r%e$(r." )*)$e+.
It divided all expressive means into 3 large groups: Tropes, Rhythm (Figures oI Speech)
and Types oI Speech.
A condensed description oI this system gives one an idea how much we owe the antique
tradition in modern stylistic studies.
1.1.E. (eddenes`e^ gcman H_e`cHe^ sys`em
1. Metaphor - the application oI a word (phrase) to an object (concept) it doesn't literally
denote to suggest comparison with another object or concept.
E. g. A +./%$* F(r$re)) .) (0r A(1.
2. Puzzle (Riddle) - a statement that requires thinking over a conIusing or diIIicult problem
that needs to be solved.
3. Synecdoche - the mention oI a part Ior the whole.
E.g. A -ee$ ( 50 )!.-3 (ships)
4. Metonymy - substitution oI one word Ior another on the basis oI real connection.
E.g. Cr(9' Ior )(<ere./'4 H(+er Ior H(+er8) ,(e+)4 9e!-$% Ior r."% ,e(,-e.
5. Catachresis - misuse oI a word due to the Ialse Iolk etymology or wrong application oI a
term in a sense that does not belong to the word.
E.g. A-.6. Ior e;"0)e4 +e'$!- Ior 9e!7H+.'1e14 +0$0!- Ior "(++('4 1.).'$ere)$e1 Ior
A later term Ior it is +!-!,r(,.)+ that became current due to Mr). M!-!,r(,3 a character
Irom R. Sheridan's T%e R.<!-) (1775). This sort oI misuse is mostly based on similarity in
E. g. 77I *(0'/ <.(-.'.)$ .) "er$!.'-* ! "%.-1 progeny (instead oI prodigy).
6. Epithet - a word or phrase used to describe someone or something with a purpose to
praise or blame.
E. g. @$ 9!) ! -(<e-*3 )0++er* e<e'.'/.
7. Periphrasis - putting things in a round about way hi order to bring out some important
Ieature or explain more clearly the idea or situation described.
E.g. @ /($ !' Ar!6 6(*... !'1 ,!.1 %.+ $9e'$* r0,ee) ! +('$%3 !6(0$ $%.r$* 6(63 !$ 9%."% %e
9!) %./%-* 1e-./%$e1. (Shute)
8. Hyperbole - use oI exaggerated terms Ior emphasis.
E. g. A 1000 !,(-(/.e)4 $( 9!.$ !' e$er'.$*4 %e .) )$r('/er $%!' ! -.('.
9. Antonomasia - use oI a proper name to express a general idea or conversely a common
name Ior a proper one.
E. g. T%e @r(' L!1*4 ! S(-(+('4 D(' 50!'.
Figures oI Speech that create Rhyth
These expressive means were divided into 4 large groups:
Figures that create rhyth !y ea"s of addition
1. Doubling (reduplication, repetition) oI words and sounds.
E.g. T.,H$(,3 %e-$erH)7e-$er3 9.)%*H9!)%*4 (%3 $%e 1re!r*3 1re!r* +((r-!'1.
2. Epenalepsis (polysyndeton) conjunctions: use oI several conjunctions.
E. g. He $%(0/%$3 !'1 $%(0/%$3 !'1 $%(0/%$4 @ %!1'8$ re!-.Ie1 0'$.- $%e' %(9 )+!-- $%e
%(0)e) 9ere3 %(9 )+!-- !'1 +e!' $%e )%(,). (Shute)
3. Anaphora: repetition oI a word or words at the beginning oI two or more clauses,
sentences or verses.
E. g. N( $ree3 '( )%r063 '( 6-!1e ( /r!))3 '($ ! 6.r1 (r 6e!)$3 '($ e<e' ! .)% $%!$ 9!) '($
4. Enjambment: running on oI one thought into the next line, couplet or stanza without
breaking the syntactical pattern.
E.g. @' O"e!'8) 9.1e 1(+!.') H!- 60r.e1 .' $%e )!'1) L.e )7e-e$(') .' "%!.') D.$%
)%!"7-e1 ee$ !'1 %!'1).
5. Asyndeton: omission oI conjunction.
E. g. He ,r(<.1e1 $%e ,((r 9.$% =(6)3 9.$% (,,(r$0'.$*3 9.$% )e-Hre),e"$.
Figures !ase# cn ^cmIHessecn
1. Zeugma (syllepsis): a Iigure by which a verb, adjective or other part oI speech, relating to
one noun is reIerred to another.
E. g. He -()$ %.) %!$ !'1 %.) $e+,er3 9.$% 9ee,.'/ e*e) !'1 %e!r$).
2. Chiasmus-a reversal in the order oI words in one oI two parallel phrases.
E. g. He 9e'$ $( $%e "(0'$r*3 $( $%e $(9' 9e'$ )%e.
3. Ellipsis-omission oI words needed to complete the construction or the sense.
E.g. T(+(rr(9 !$ 1.30; T%e r.'/-e!1er 9!) %!'/e1 !'1 %.) (--(9er) .+,r.)('e1.
Figures !ase# on asscnan^e cH a^^cHl
1. Equality oI colons-used to have a power to segment and arrange.
2. Proportions and harmony oI colons.
Figures !ase# cn cIIcse`ecn
1. Antithesis - choice or arrangement oI words that emphasises a contrast.
E. g. Cr!$* +e' "('$e+' )$01.e)3 ).+,-e +e' !1+.re $%e+3 9.)e +e' 0)e $%e+4 A.<e +e
-.6er$* (r /.<e +e 1e!$%.
2. Paradiastola - the lengthening oI a syllable regularly short (in Greek poetry).
3. Anastrophe - a term oI rhetoric, meaning, the upsetting Ior eIIect oI the normal order oI
words (inversion in contemporary terms).
E. g. Me %e re)$(re13 %.+ %e %!'/e1. Types oI speech
Ancient authors distinguished speech Ior practical and aesthetic purposes. Rhetoric dealt
with the latter which was supposed to answer certain requirements, such as a deIinite choice
oI words, their assonance, deviation Irom ordinary vocabulary and employment oI special
stratums like poetic diction, neologisms and archaisms, onomatopoeia as well as appellation
to tropes. One oI the most important devices to create a necessary high-Ilown or dramatic
eIIect was an elaborate rhythmical arrangement oI eloquent speech that involved the
obligatory use oI the so-called Iigures or schemes. The quality oI rhetoric as an art oI
speech was measured in terms oI skilIul combination, convergence, abundance or absence
oI these devices. Respectively all kinds oI speech were labelled and represented in a kind oI
hierarchy including the Iollowing types: e-e<!$e14 -(9er* @-(r.1@ e;C0.).$e4 ,(e$."4
'(r+!-4 1r*4 )"!'$*4 %!"7'e*e14 $!)$e-e)).
Attempts to analyse and determine the style-Iorming Ieatures oI prose also began in ancient
times. Demetrius oI Alexandria who lived in Greece in the 3d century BC was an Athenian
orator, statesman and philosopher. He used the ideas oI such earlier theorists as Aristotle
and characterized styles by rhetoric oI purpose that required certain grammatical
The Plain Style, he said, is simple, using many active verbs and keeping its subjects (nouns)
spare. Its purposes include lucidity, clarity, Iamiliarity, and the necessity to get its work
done crisply and well. So this style uses Iew diIIicult compounds, coinages or qualiIications
(such as epithets or modiIiers). It avoids harsh sounds, or odd orders. It employs helpIul
connective terms and clear clauses with Iirm endings. In every way it tries to be natural,
Iollowing the order oI events themselves with moderation and repetition as in dialogue.
The Eloquent Style in contrast changes the natural order oI events to eIIect control over
them and give the narration expressive power rather than sequential account. So this style
may be called passive in contrast to active.
As strong assumptions are made subjects are tremendously ampliIied without the activity oI
predication because inherent qualities rather than new relations are stressed. Sentences are
lengthy, rounded, well balanced, with a great deal oI elaborately connected material. Words
can be unusual, coined; meanings can be implied, oblique, and symbolic. Sounds can Iill the
mouth, perhaps, harshly.
Two centuries later a Greek rhetorician and historian Dionysius oI Halicarnassus who lived
in Rome in the 1
century BC characterized one oI the Greek orators in such a way: "His
harmony is natural, stately, spacious, articulated by pauses rather than strongly polished and
joined by connectives; naturally oII-balance, not rounded and symmetrical." (43, p. 123).
Dionyssius wrote over twenty books, most Iamous oI which are "On Imitation",
"Commentaries on the Ancient Orators" and "On the Arrangement oI Words". The latter is
the only surviving ancient study oI principles oI word order and euphony.
For the Romans a recommended proportion Ior language units in verse was two nouns and
two adjectives to one verb, which they called 'the golden line".
Gradually the choices oI certain stylistic Ieatures in diIIerent combinations settled into three
types - plain, middle and high.
Nowadays there exist dozens oI classiIications oI expressive means oI a language and all oI
them involve to a great measure the same elements. They diIIer oIten only in terminology
and criteria oI classiIication.
Three oI the modern classiIications oI expressive means in the English language that are
commonly recognized and used in teaching stylistics today will be discussed Iurther in
They have been oIIered by G. Leech, I. R. Galperin and Y. M. Skreb-
1.1.1. `ydes`e^ `_ecHy anl ^dasse]e^a`ecn c] eVIHesssefe means ay +. #ee^_
One oI the Iirst linguists who tried "to modernize" traditional rhetoric system was a British
scholar G. Leech. In 1967 his contribution into stylistic theory in the book "Essays on Style
and Language" was published in London (39). Paying tribute to the descriptive linguistics
popular at the time he tried to show
how linguistic theory could be accommodated to the task oI describing such rhetorical
Iigures as metaphor, parallelism, alliteration, personiIication and others in the present-day
study oI literature.
Proceeding Irom the popular deIinition oI literature as the creative use oI language Leech
claims that this can be equated with the use oI 1e<.!'$ Iorms oI language. According to his
theory the Iirst principle with which a linguist should approach literature is the degree oI
generality oI statement about language. There are two particularly important ways in which
the description oI language entails generalization. In the Iirst place language operates by
what may be called descriptive generalization. For example, a grammarian may give
descriptions oI such pronouns as @3 $%e*3 .$3 %.+3 etc. as objective personal pronouns with the
Iollowing categories: Iirst/third person, singular/plural, masculine, non-reIlexive,
Although they require many ways oI description they are all pronouns and each oI them
may be e;,-.".$-* described in this Iashion.
The other type oI generalization is .+,-.".$ and would be appropriate in the case oI such
words as -!'/0!/e and 1.!-e"$. This sort oI description would be composed oI individual
events oI speaking, writing, hearing and reading. From these events generalization may
cover the linguistic behaviour oI whole populations. In this connection Leech maintains the
importance oI distinguishing two scales in the language. He calls them "register scale" and
"dialect scale". "Register scale" distinguishes spoken language Irom written language, the
language oI respect Irom that oI condescension, advertising Irom science, etc. The term
covers linguistic activity within society. "Dialect scale" diIIerentiates language oI people oI
diIIerent age, sex, social strata, geographical area or individual linguistic habits (ideolect).
According to Leech the literary work oI a particular author must be studied with reIerence
to both - "dialect scale" and "register scale".
The notion oI generality essential to Leech's criteria oI classiIying stylistic devices has to do
with linguistic deviation.
He points out that it's a commonplace to say that writers and poets use language in an
unorthodox way and are allowed a certain degree oI "poetic licence". "Poetic licence"
relates to the scales oI descriptive and institutional delicacy.
Words like $%(03 $%ee3 $%.'e3 $%* not only involve description by number and person but in
social meaning have "a strangeness value" or connotative value because they are charged
with overtones oI piety, historical period, poetics, etc.
The language oI literature is on the whole marked by a number oI deviant Ieatures. Thus
Leech builds his classiIication on the principle oI distinction between the normal and
deviant Ieatures in the language oI literature.
Among deviant Ieatures he distinguishes paradigmatic and syntagmatic deviations. All
Iigures can be initially divided into syntagmatic or paradigmatic. Linguistic units are
connected syntagmatically when they combine sequentially in a linear linguistic Iorm.
Paradigmatic items enter into a system oI possible selections at one point oI the chain.
Syntagmatic items can be viewed horizontally, paradigmatic - vertically.
Paradigmatic Iigures give the writer a choice Irom equivalent items, which are contrasted to
the normal range oI choices. For instance, certain nouns can normally be Iollowed by
certain adverbs, the choice
dictated by their normal lexical valency: inches/Ieet/yard away, e. g. He 9!) )$!'1.'/
('-* ! e9 ee$ !9!*.
However the author's choice oI a noun may upset the normal system and create a
paradigmatic deviation that we come across in literary and poetic language: !r+*!r1)
!9!*3 ! /r.e !/(3 !-- )0' -('/. Schematically this relationship could look like this
.'"%e) normal !9!*
The contrast between deviation and norm may be accounted Ior by metaphor which
involves semantic transIer oI combinatory links.
Another example oI paradigmatic deviation is personiIication. In this case we deal with
purely grammatical oppositions oI personalI impersonal; animateIinanimate;
This type oI deviation entails the use oI an inanimate noun in a context appropriate to a
personal noun.
A) C(''.e %!1 )!.13 '&! %!'1-e1 =0)$ -.7e !'* ($%er !er(,-!'e3 e;"e,$ $%!$ '&! &a3 4!tt!r
.a$$!r' $%!' +()$. (Shute). In this example )%e stands Ior the aeroplane and makes it
personiIied on the grammatical level.
The deviant use oI )%e in this passage is reinIorced by the collocation with 6e$$er +!''er)3
which can only be associated with human beings.
'e $r!.'
normal inanimate
deviant animate
This sort oI paradigmatic deviation Leech calls "unique deviation" because it comes as an
unexpected and unpredictable choice that deIies the norm. He compares it with what the
Prague school oI linguistics called "Ioregrounding".
Unlike paradigmatic Iigures based on the eIIect oI gap in the expected choice oI a linguistic
Iorm syntagmatic deviant Ieatures result Irom the opposite. Instead oI missing the
predictable choice the author imposes the same kind oI choice in the same place. A
syntagmatic chain oI language units provides a choice oI equivalents to be made at diIIerent
points in this chain, but the writer repeatedly makes the same selection. Leech illustrates
this by alliteration in $%e 0rr(9 (--(9e1 where the choice oI alliterated words is not
necessary but superimposed Ior stylistic eIIect on the ordinary background.
This principle visibly stands out in some tongue-twisters due to the deliberate overuse oI the
same sound in every word oI the phrase. So instead oI a sentence like "Robert turned over a
hoop in a circle" we have the intentional redundancy oI "r" in "Robert Rowley rolled a
round roll round".
Basically the diIIerence drawn by Leech between syntagmatic and paradigmatic deviations
comes down to the redundancy oI choice in i lie Iirst case and a gap in the predicted pattern
in the second.
This classiIication includes other subdivisions and details that cannot all be covered here
but may be Iurther studied in Leech's book.
This approach was an attempt to treat stylistic devices with reIerence to linguistic theory
that would help to analyse the nature oI stylistic Iunction viewed as a result oI deviation
Irom the lexical and grammatical norm o$ the language.
1A1.G. $. g. +adIeHenss ^dasse]e^a`ecn c] eVIHessefe means anl s`ydes`e^ lefe^es
The classiIication suggested by ProI. Galperin is simply organised and very detailed. His
manual "Stylistics" published in 1971 includes the Iollowing subdivision o$ expressive
means and stylistic devices based on the level-oriented approach:
1. Phonetic expressive means and stylistic devices.
2. Lexical expressive means and stylistic devices.
3. Syntactical expressive means and stylistic devices".
E. %ho"etic e&pressi'e ea"s a"d stylistic devices To this group Galperin
reIers such means as:
1) onomatopoeia (direct and indirect): 1.'/H1('/4 ).-<er 6e--)... $.'7-e3 $.'7-e4
2) alliteration (initial rhyme): $( r(6 Pe$er $( ,!* P!0-4
To avoid repetition in each classiIication deIinitions oI all stylistic devices are given in
the glossary
3) rhyme (Iull, incomplete, compound or broken, eye rhyme, internal rhyme. Also, stanza
rhymes: couplets, triple, cross, IramingIring);
4) rhythm.
2. (e&ica) e&pressi'e ea"s a"# sty)istic #e'ices
There are three big subdivisions in this class oI devices and they all deal with the semantic
nature oI a word or phrase. However the criteria oI selection oI means Ior each subdivision
are diIIerent and maniIest diIIerent semantic processes.
I. In the Iirst subdivision the principle oI classiIication is the interaction oI diIIerent types oI
a word's meanings: dictionary, contextual, derivative, nominal, and emotive. The stylistic
eIIect oI the lexical means is achieved through the binary opposition oI dictionary and
contextual or logical and emotive or primary and derivative meanings oI a word.
A. The Iirst group includes means based on the interplay oI dictionary and contextual
metaphor: De!r N!$0re .) $%e 7.'1e)$ M($%er )$.--. (Byron) metonymy:
T%e "!+,3 $%e ,0-,.$ !'1 $%e -!9 F(r r."% +!'8) )(') !re ree.
irony: @$ +0)$ 6e 1e-./%$0- $( .'1 ('e)e- .' ! (re./' "(0'$r* 9.$%(0$ ! ,e''* .' ('e8)
[. The second unites means based on the interaction oI primary and derivative meanings:
polysemy: M!))!"%0)e$$) 9!) %()$.-e $( $%e A+er."!' (1a2, !'1 )%e 9(0-1 '($ !--(9 .$ $( 6e
%(.)$e1 (' %er S$!$e ?(0)e4
zeugma and pun: M!*8) +($%er !-9!*) )$((1 (' %er /e'$.-.$*4 !'1 D($8) +($%er 'e<er )$((1
(' !'*$%.'/ 60$ %er !"$.<e -.$$-e ee$. (Dickens)
%. The third group comprises means based on the opposition oI logical and emotive
interjections and exclamatory words:
A-- ,re)e'$ -.e .) 60$ !' .'$er=e"$.('
A' 8O%8 (r 8A%8 ( =(* (r +.)er*3
Or ! 8H!B %!B8 (r 8?!%B8H! *!9' (r 8P((%B8
O 9%."% ,er%!,) $%e -!$$er .) +()$ $r0e.
epithet: ! 9e--H+!$"%e13 !.r-*H6!-!'"e1 /.<eH!'1H$!7e "(0,-e. (Dickens)
oxymoron: ,e(,-e1 1e)er$3 ,(,0-(0) )(-.$01e3 ,r(01 %0+.-.$*. (Byron)
k. The Iourth group is based on the interaction oI logical and nominal meanings and
antonomasia: Mr. F!".'/H?($%HD!*) 1(e) '($ /e$ <er* !r .' $%.) 9(r-1. (The Times)
$$. The principle Ior distinguishing the second big subdivision according to Galperin is
entirely diIIerent Irom the Iirst one and is based on the interaction between two lexical
meanings simultaneously materialised in the context. This kind oI interaction helps to call
special attention to a certain Ieature oI the object described. Here belong:
simile: $re!"%er(0) !) ! )'!7e3 !.$%0- !) ! 1(/3 )-(9 !) ! $(r$(.)e.
periphrasis: ! /e'$-e+!' ( $%e -('/ r(6e :! -!9*er24 $%e !.r )e;. (women)
euphemism: @' ,r.<!$e @ )%(0-1 "!-- %.+ ! -.!r. @' $%e Pre)) *(0 )%(0-1 0)e $%e 9(r1)K
8Re"7-e)) 1.)re/!r1 (r $r0$%8. (Galsworthy)
hyperbole: T%e e!r$% 9!) +!1e (r D(+6e* !'1 S(' $( $r!1e .' !'1 $%e )0' !'1 $%e +(('
9ere +!1e $( /.<e $%e+ -./%$. (Dickens)
$$$. The third subdivision comprises stable word combinations in their interaction with the
cliches: "-("79(r7 ,re".).('3 "r0)%.'/ 1ee!$3 $%e 9%., !'1 "!rr($ ,(-."*.
proverbs and sayings: C(+eB %e )!.13 +.-78) ),.-$. (Galsworthy)
epigrams: A $%.'/ ( 6e!0$* .) ! =(* (r e<er. (Keats)
quotations: E""-e).!)$e) )!.13 8$%!$ !-- .) <!'.$*8. (Byron)
allusions: S%!7e),e!re $!-7) ( $%e %er!-1 Mer"0r*. (Byron)
decomposition oI set phrases: >(0 7'(9 9%."% ).1e $%e -!98) 60$$ere1. (Galsworthy)
3. Syntactical expressive means and stylistic devices
Syntactical expressive means and stylistic devices are not paradigmatic but syntagmatic or
structural means. In deIining syntactical devices Galperin proceeds Irom the Iollowing
thesis: the structural elements have their own independent meaning and this meaning may
aIIect the lexical meaning. In doing so it may impart a special contextual meaning to some
oI the lexical units.
The principal criteria Ior classiIying syntactical stylistic devices are:
- the juxtaposition oI the parts oI an utterance;
- the type oI connection oI the parts;
- the peculiar use oI colloquial constructions;
- the transIerence oI structural meaning.
Devices built on the principle oI juxtaposition
inversion (several types): A $('e ( +()$ e;$r!<!/!'$ "(+,!r.)(' M.)) T(; )!.1 .$ .'.
D(9' 1r(,,e1 $%e 6reeIe. (Colerigde)
detached constructions: S%e 9!) -(<e-*K !-- ( %er H 1e-./%$0-. (Dreiser)
parallel constructions:
T%e )ee1) *e )(9 H !'($%er re!,)3 T%e r(6e) *e 9e!<e H !'($%er 9e!r) T%e !r+) *e (r/e H
!'($%er 6e!r).
@' $%e 1!*) ( (-1 .!$ +!1e .a$$!r' :a$$!r' '(9 +!7e +e'.
repetition: F(r /-!'"e) 6e/e$ (/-e)3 (/-e) )./%)3 )./%) 9.)%e)3 9.)%e) 9(r1)3 !'1 9(r1) !
-e$$er. (Byron)
enumeration: T%e ,r.'".,-e ,r(10"$.(' ( $%e)e $(9')... !,,e!r $( 6e )(-1.er)3 )!.-(r)3 5e9)3
"%!-73 )%r.+,)3 (."er)3 !'1 1("7H*!r1 +e'. (Dickens)
G'(9 *e $%e -!'1 9%ere $%e "*,re)) !'1 +*r$-e... G'(9 *e $%e -!'1 ( $%e "e1!r !'1 <.'e...
8T.) $%e "-.+e ( $%e E!)$ H 8$.) $%e -!'1 ( $%e S0'.
climax: T%e* -((7e1 !$ %0'1re1 ( %(0)e)3 $%e* "-.+6e1 $%(0)!'1) ( )$!.r)3 $%e* .'),e"$e1
.''0+er!6-e 7.$"%e'). (Maugham)
antithesis: >(0$% .) -(<e-*3 !/e .) -('e-*4 >(0$% .) .er*3 !/e .) r()$. (LongIellow)
Devices based on the type oI connection include
Asyndeton: S(!+) $0r'e1 !9!*4 %e %!1 !' 0$$er 1.).'"-.'!$.(' (r $!-73 -.7e ('e )$!'1.'/
6e(re !' (,e' /r!<e... (Galsworthy)
polysyndeton: T%e %e!<.e)$ r!.'3 !'1 )'(93 !'1 %!.-3 !'1 )-ee$3 "(0-1 6(!)$ ( $%e
!1<!'$!/e (<er %.+ .' ('-* ('e re),e"$. (Dickens) gap-sentence link: @$ 9!) !' !$er'((' $(
1re!+. A'1 )%e $((7 (0$ 5('8) -e$$er). (Galsworthy)
Figures u"ite# by the pecu)iar use o$ co))o*uia) co"structio"s Ellipsis:
N($%.'/ )( 1.."0-$ !) ! 6e/.''.'/3 %(9 )($ $%e "%.' 9%."% 6e!r) %.) $(0"%. (Byron)
Aposiopesis (break-in-the-narrative): A((1 .'$e'$.(') 60$ H4 >(0 =0)$ "(+e %(+e (r @8--...
uestion in the narrative: S"r((/e 7'e9 %e 9!) 1e!1F O "(0r)e %e 1.1. H(9 "(0-1 .$ 6e
($%er9.)eF (Dickens)
Represented speech (uttered and unuttered or inner represented speech):
M!r)%!- !)7e1 $%e "r(91 $( 1.),er)e !'1 0r/e1 re),(').6-e 1.//er) $( ,re<e'$ !'*
1.)$0r6!'"e... (Prichard) O<er !'1 (<er %e 9!) !)7.'/ %.+)e-K 9(0-1 )%e re"e.<e %.+F
Tra"s$erre# use o$ structura) ea"i"g i"'o)'es such $igures as Rhetorical
questions: H(9 -('/ +0)$ 9e )0erF D%ere .) $%e e'1F (Norris)
Litotes: He 9!) '( /e'$-e -!+6 :L('1('24 Mr. ?!r1e-- 9!) '( 1e"e.<er. (Dickens)
Since "Stylistics" by Galperin is the basic manual recommended Ior this course at
university level no Iurther transposition oI its content is
deemed necessary. However other attempts have been made to classiIy all expressive means
and stylistic devices because some principles applied in this system do not look completely
consistent and reliable. There are two big subdivisions here that classiIy all devices into
either lexical or syntactical. At the same time there is a kind oI mixture oI principles since
some devices obviously involve both lexical and syntactical Ieatures, e. g. antithesis,
climax, periphrasis, irony, and others.
According to Galperin there are structural and compositional syntactical devices, devices
built on transIerred structural meaning and the type oI syntactical connection and devices
that involve a peculiar use oI colloquial constructions. Though very detailed this
classiIication provokes some questions concerning the criteria used in placing the group
'peculiar use oI colloquial constructions' among the syntactical means and the group called
'peculiar use oI set expressions' among the lexical devices. Another criterion used Ior
classiIying lexical expressive means namely, 'intensiIication oI a certain Ieature oI a thing
or phenomenon' also seems rather dubious. Formulated like this it could be equally applied
to quite a number oI devices placed by the author in other subdivisions oI this classiIication
with a diIIerent criteria oI identiIication, such as metaphor, metonymy, epithet, repetition,
inversion, suspense, etc. It does not seem quite just to place all cases oI ellipsis, aposiopesis
or represented speech among colloquial constructions.
1.1.3. %dasse]e^a`ecn c] eVIHessefe means anl s`ydes`e^ lefe^es ay ". q. kHeanef
One oI the latest classiIications oI expressive means and stylistic devices is given in the
book "Fundamentals oI English Stylistics" by Y. M. Skrebnev published in 1994 (47).
Skrebnev's approach
demonstrates a combination oI principles observed in Leech's system oI paradigmatic and
syntagmatic subdivision and the level-oriented approach on which Galperin's classiIication
is Iounded. At the same time it diIIers Irom both since Skrebnev managed to avoid
mechanical superposition oI one system onto another and created a new consistent method
oI the hierarchical arrangement oI this material.
Skrebnev starts with a holistic view, constructing a kind oI language pyramid.
He doesn't pigeonhole expressive means and stylistic devices into appropriate layers oI
language hke Leech and Galperin. Skrebnev Iirst subdivides stylistics into IaHaleima`e^
s`ydes`e^s tcH s`ydes`e^s oI hne`so and syn`aima`e^ s`ydes`e^s tcH s`ydes`e^s c] serhen^eso.
Then he explores the levels oI the language and regards all stylistically relevant phenomena
according to this level principle in both paradigmatic and syntagmatic stylistics.
He also uniquely singles out one more level. In addition to phonetics, morphology,
lexicology and syntax he adds semasiology (or semantics).
According to Skrebnev the relationship between these Iive levels and two aspects oI
stylistic analysis is bilateral. The same linguistic material oI these levels provides stylistic
Ieatures studied by paradigmatic and syntagmatic stylistics. The diIIerence lies in its
diIIerent arrangement.
\aHaleima`e^ s`ydes`e^s
(Stylistics oI units)
- 1. Phonetics - 2. Morphology - 3. Lexicology - 4. Syntax - 5. Semasiology
Ju yn`aima`e^ Ju s`ydes`e^s
-~ (Stylistics oI -~ sequences)
%ara#igatic sty)istics
Looking closer into this system we'll be able to distinguish speciIic units and their stylistic
potentials or Iunctions. Thus paradigmatic stylistics (stylistics oI units) is subdivided into
Iive branches.
\aHaleima`e^ I_cne`e^s actually describes phonographical stylistic Ieatures oI a written
text. Since we cannot hear written speech but in our "mind" writers oIten resort to graphic
means to reproduce the phonetic peculiarities oI individual speech or dialect. Such
intentional non-standard spelhng is called E/r!,%(')E (a term borrowed Irom V. A.
@ 7'(9 $%e)e */!> $!-.!')B (Lawrence) - in this case the graphon is used to show despise or
contempt oI the speaker Ior Italians.
In Cockney speech whose phonetic peculiarities are all too well known you'll hear ai in
place oI ei, a: instead oI au, they drop "h's" and so on. It Irequently becomes a means
oI speech characterisation and oIten creates a humorous eIIect.
The author illustrates it with a story oI a cockney Iamily trying to impress a visitor with
their "correct" English:
EF!.%er3 )!.1 ('e ( $%e "%.-1re' !$ 6re!7!)$. H @ 9!'$ )(+e +(re 8!+ ,-e!)eE.H>(0 +0)$'8$
)!* 8!+3 +* "%.-13 $%e "(rre"$ (r+ .) 8!+3 H re$(r$e1 %.) !$%er3 ,!)).'/ $%e ,-!$e 9.$% )-."e1
%!+ (' .$. E?0$ @ 1.1 )!* 8!+3 ,-e!1e1 $%e 6(*E. EN(3 *(0 1.1'8$K *(0 )!.1 8!+ .')$e!1H(
8!+E. T%e +($%er $0r'e1 $( $%e /0e)$ )+.-.'/K EO%3 1('8$ +.'1 $%e+3 ).r3 ,r!*. T%e* !re
6($% $r*.'/ $( )!* 8!+ !'1 6($% $%.'7 .$ .) 8!+ $%e* !re )!*.'/E (47, ,. 41).
Other graphic means to emphasise the "unheard" phonetic charecter-istics such as the pitch
c] voice, the stress, and other melodic Ieatures are .$!-.")3 "!,.$!-.)!$.('3 re,e$.$.(' (
-e$$er)3 ('(+!$(,(e.! (sound imitation).
E.g. I AM sorry; ELLMMMM N(((((*eeeeerrE :H!,,* Ne9 >e!r24 "("7H!H1((1-eH1((.
Paradigmatic mcHI_cdciy observes the stylistic potentials oI grammar Iorms, which Leech
would describe as deviant. Out oI several varieties oI morphological categorial Iorms the
author chooses a less predictable or unpredictable one, which renders this Iorm some
stylistic connotation. The peculiar use oI a number oI grammatical categories Ior stylistic
purposes may serve as an ample example oI this type oI expressive means.
The use oI a present tense oI a verb on the background oI a past-tense narration got a
special name %.)$(r."!- ,re)e'$ in linguistics.
E. g. D%!$ e-)e 1( @ re+e+6erF Le$ +e )ee.
T%ere comes (0$ ( $%e "-(01 (0r %(0)e... (Dickens)
Another category that helps create stylistic colouring is that oI gender. The result oI its
deviant use is personiIication and depersoniIication. As Skrebnev points out although the
morphological category oI gender is practically non-existent in modern English special
rules concern whole classes oI nouns that are traditionally associated with Ieminine or
masculine gender. Thus countries are generally classed as Ieminine (France sent %er
representative to the conIerence.) Abstract notions associated with strength and Iierceness
are personiIied as masculine while Ieminine is associated with beauty or gentleness (death,
Iear, war, anger - %e3 spring, peace, kindness - )%e2. Names oI vessels
and other vehicles (ship, boat, carriage, coach, car) are treated as Ieminine.
Another deviant use oI this category according to Skrebnev is the use oI animate nouns as
inanimate ones that he terms "depersoniIication" illustrated by the Iollowing passage:
ED%ere 1.1 *(0 .'1 .$FE !)7e1 M(r1 E+8-* ( M.)) A.--.7e' 9.$% ! )!$.r."!- !""e'$.
ED%( !re *(0 "!--.'/ E.$EFE 1e+!'1e1 Mr. ?!r1e' !//re)).<e-*. EP8r!,) *(08-- 7.'1-* "!--
+e 8.+ !'1 '($ .$E. (Partridge)
Similar cases oI deviation on the morphological level are given by the author Ior the
categories oI person, number, mood and some others.
\aHaleima`e^ deVe^cdciy subdivides English vocabulary into stylistic layers. In most works
on this problem (cI. books by Galperin, Arnold, Vinogradov) all words oI the national
language are usually described in terms oI 'e0$r!-3 -.$er!r* and "(--(C0.!- with Iurther
subdivision into poetic, archaic, Ioreign, jargonisms, slang, etc.
Skrebnev uses diIIerent terms Ior practically the same purposes. His terminology includes
correspondingly 'e0$r!-3 ,().$.<e :e-e<!$e12 and 'e/!$.<e :1e/r!1e12 layers.
Subdivision inside these categories is much the same with the exclusion oI such groups as
bookish and archaic words and special terms that Galperin, Ior example, includes into the
),e".!- -.$er!r* <("!60-!r* (described as ,().$.<e in Skrebnev's system) while Skrebnev
claims that they may have both a positive and negative styUstic Iunction depending on the
purpose oI the utterance and the context. The same consideration concerns the so-called
barbarisms or Ioreign
words whose stylistic value (elevated or degraded) depends on the kind oI text in which
they are used. To illustrate his point Skrebnev gives two examples oI barbarisms used by
people oI diIIerent social class and age. Used by an upper-class character Irom John
Galsworthy the word "%." has a tinge oI elegance showing the character's knowledge oI
French. He maintains that Itahan words ".!( and 6!+6.'( current among Russian
youngsters at one time were also considered stylistically 'higher' than their Russian
equivalents. At the same time it's hard to say whether they should ah be classiIied as
positive just because they are oI Ioreign origin. Each instance oI use should be considered
Stylistic diIIerentiation suggested by Skrebnev includes the Iollowing stratiIication
?((7.)% and !r"%!." words occupy a peculiar place among the other positive words due to
the Iact that they can be Iound in any other group (poetic, oIIicial or proIessional).
"(--(C0.!-4 'e(-(/.)+)4
=!r/('4 )-!'/4
'('"eH9(r1)4 <0-/!r 9(r1).
Special mention is made oI $er+). The author maintains that the stylistic Iunction oI terms
varies in diIIerent types oI speech. In non-proIessional spheres, such as literary prose,
newspaper texts, everyday speech special terms are associated with socially prestigious
occupations and thereIore are marked as elevated. On the other hand the use oI non-popular
terms, unknown to the average speaker, shows a pretentious manner oI speech, lack oI taste
or tact.
Paradigmatic syntax has to do with the sentence paradigm: completeness oI sentence
structure, communicative types oI sentences, word order, and type oI syntactical
Paradigmatic syntactical means oI expression arranged according to these Iour types
@#.,1!t!$!'' #( '!$t!$c! 'tr)ct)r!
e--.,).)4 !,().(,e).)4
('eH+e+6er '(+.'!$.<e )e'$e'"e).
Re10'1!'"*K re,e$.$.(' ( )e'$e'"e ,!r$)3 )*'$!"$." $!0$(-(/* :,r(-e,).)23 ,(-*)*'1e$('.
A#r3 #r3!r
@'<er).(' ( )e'$e'"e +e+6er). @#..)$cat-! t/,!' #( '!$t!$c!'
N0!).H!.r+!$.<e )e'$e'"e)K @)'8$ $%!$ $(( 6!1F H T%!$ .) $(( 6!1.
N0!).H.'$err(/!$.<e )e'$e'"e)K Here *(0 !re $( 9r.$e 1(9' *(0r !/e !'1 6.r$%,-!"e H H(9
(-1 !re *(0F D%ere 9ere *(0 6(r'F
N0!).H'e/!$.<e )e'$e'"e)K D.1 @ )!* ! 9(r1 !6(0$ $%e +('e* (Shaw) I 1.1 '($ )!*...
N0!).H.+,er!$.<e )e'$e'"e)K HereB N0."7B O C(+e %ereB ?e C0."7B
In these types oI sentences the syntactical Iormal meaning oI the structure contradicts the
actual meaning implied so that negative sentences read aIIirmative, questions do not require
answers but are in Iact declarative sentences (rhetorical questions), etc. One communicative
meaning appears in disguise oI another. Skrebnev holds that "the task oI stylistic analysis is
to Iind out to what type oI speech (and its sublanguage) the given construction belongs."
(47, p. 100).
T*,e #( '/$tactc c#$$!ct#$
,!re'$%e$." e-e+e'$)4
!)*'1e$." )06(r1.'!$.(' !'1 "((r1.'!$.('.
Paradigmatic semasiology deals with transIer oI names or what are traditionally known as
tropes. In Skrebnev's classiIication these
expressive means received the term based on their ability to rename: ./0re) (
ALL Iigures oI replacement are subdivided into 2 groups: ./0re) ( C0!'$.$* !'1 ./0re) (
B2)r!' #( C)a$tt/. In ./0re) ( C0!'$.$* renaming is based on inexactitude oI
measurements, in other words it's either saying too much (overestimating, intensiIying the
properties) or too little (underestimating the size, value, importance, etc.) about the object
or phenomenon. Accordingly there are two Iigures oI this type.
E. g. >(0 "(0-1'8$ %e!r *(0r)e- $%.'7 (r $%e '(.)e.
:!#'' :0'1er)$!$e+e'$3 -.$($e)2.
E.g. @$8) '($ 0'0)0!- (r %.+ $( "(+e %(+e !$ $%.) %(0r.
According to Skrebnev this is the most primitive type oI renaming.
B2)r!' #( C)a1t/ comprise 3 types oI renaming:
transIer based on a real connection between the object oI nomination and the object whose
name it's given.
This is called .!t#$/./ in its two Iorms: )*'e"1("%e and ,er.,%r!).). E. g. @8+ !-- e!r)4
H!'1) 9!'$e1.
Per.,%r!).) and its varieties e0,%e+.)+ !'1 !'$.He0,%e+.)+.
E. g. L!1.e) !'1 $%e 9(r)er %!-<e)4 6 'e<er "!-- ! ),!1e ! ),!1e3 P "!-- .$ ! 6-((1* )%(<e-.
" transIer based on aIIinity (similarity, not real connection): .!ta,&#r.
Skrebnev describes metaphor as an expressive renaming on the basis oI similarity oI two
objects. The speaker searches Ior associations in his mind's eye, the ground Ior comparison
is not so open to view as with metonymy. It's more complicated in nature. Metaphor has no
Iormal limitations Skrebnev maintains, and that is why this is not a purely lexical stylistic
device as many authors describe it (see Galperin's classiIication).
This is a device that can involve a word, a part oI a sentence or a whole sentence. We may
add that whole works oI art can be viewed as metaphoric and an example oI it is the novel
by John Updike "The Centaur".
As Ior the varieties there are not just simple metaphors like S%e .) ! -(9er3 but ')'ta$!3
.!ta,&#r', also called !+t!$3!3, when one metaphorical statement creating an image is
Iollowed by another linked to the previous one: T%.) .) ! 1!* ( *(0r /(-1e' (,,(r$0'.$*3
S!r/e. D('8$ -e$ .$ $0r' $( 6r!)). (Pendelton)
OIten a )0)$!.'e1 +e$!,%(r gives rise to a device called catac&r!'' (or +.;e1 +e$!,%(r2 H
which consists in the incongruity oI the parts oI a sustained metaphor. This happens when
objects oI the two or more parts oI a sustained metaphor belong to diIIerent semantic
spheres and the logical chain seems disconnected. The eIIect is usually comical.
E. g. EF(r )(+e9%ereE3 )!.1 P(.r($ $( %.+)e- .'10-/.'/ !' !6)(-0$e r.($ ( +.;e1
+e$!,%(r) E$%ere .) .' $%e %!* ! 'ee1-e3 !'1 !+('/ $%e )-ee,.'/ 1(/) $%ere .) ('e (' 9%(+
@ )%!-- ,0$ +* (($3 !'1 6* )%(($.'/ $%e !rr(9 .'$( $%e !.r3 ('e 9.-- "(+e 1(9' !'1 %.$ !
/-!))H%(0)eBE (Christie)
A Belgian speaking English conIused a number oI popular proverbs and quotations that in
reality look like the Iollowing: $( -((7 (r ! 'ee1-e .' ! %!*)$!"74 $( -e$ )-ee,.'/ 1(/) -.e4 $(
,0$ ('e8) (($ 1(9'4 @ )%($ !' !rr(9 .'$( $%e !.r (LongIellow); ,e(,-e 9%( -.<e .' /-!))
%(0)e) )%(0-1 '($ $%r(9 )$('e).
Other varieties oI +e$!,%(r according to Skrebnev also include
D11)'#$ deIined as reIerence to a Iamous historical, literary, mythological or biblical
character or event, commonly known.
E. g. @$8) %.) A"%.--e) %ee- (myth oI vulnerability).
P!r'#$(cat#$ > attributing human properties to liIeless objects.
E.g. H(9 )((' %!$% T.+e3 $%e )06$-e $%.e ( *(0$%3 S$(-8' (' %.) 9.'/ +* $%ree !'1
$9e'$.e$% *e!rB (Milton)
D$t#$#.a'a deIined as a variety oI !--0).('3 because in Skrebnev's view it's the use oI the
name oI a historical, literary, mythological or biblical personage applied to a person
described. Some oI the most Iamous ones are ?r0$0) :$r!.$(r23 D(' 50!' :-!1*8) +!'2.
It should be noted that this deIinition is only limited to the allusive nature oI this device.
There is another approach (cI. Galperin and others) in which antonomasia also covers
instances oI transIerence oI common nouns in place oI proper names, such as Mr. N(6-e
G'./%$3 D07e $%e @r(' He!r$.
A--e/(r* expresses abstract ideas through concrete pictures.
E. g. T%e )"!-e) ( =0)$."e4 @$8) $.+e $( 6e!$ *(0r )9(r1) .'$( ,-(0/%)%!re).
It should be noted that allegory is not just a stylistic term, but also a term oI art in general
and can be Iound in other artistic Iorms: in painting, sculpture, dance, and architecture.
transIer by contrast when the two objects are opposed implies .r('*.
@r('* (meaning "concealed mr", in Greek eironeia) is a device based on the
opposition oI meaning to the sense (dictionary and contextual). Here we observe the
greatest semantic shiIt between the notion named and the notion meant.
Skrebnev distinguishes 2 kinds oI ironic utterances:
- obviously e;,-.".$ ironical, which no one would take at their Iace value due to the
situation, tune and structure.
E. g. A .'e r.e'1 *(0 !reB T%!$8) ! ,re$$* 7e$$-e ( .)%B
- and .+,-.".$3 when the ironical message is communicated against a wider context like in
Oscar Wilde's tale "The Devoted Friend" where the real meaning oI the title only becomes
obvious aIter you read the story. On the whole irony is used with the aim oI critical
evaluation and the general scheme is ,r!.)e )$!'1) (r 6-!+e and extremely rarely in the
reverse order. However when it does happen the term in the latter case is !)$%e.)+.
E. g. C-e<er 6!)$!r1B L0"7* 1e<.-B
One oI the powerIul techniques oI achieving ironic eIIect is the mixture oI registers oI
speech (social styles appropriate Ior the occasion): high-Ilown style on socially low topics
or vice versa.
Sy"tagatic sty)istics
Syntagmatic stylistics (stylistics oI sequences) deals with the stylistic Iunctions oI linguistic
units used in syntagmatic chains, in linear combinations, not separately but in connection
with other units. Syntagmatic stylistics Ialls into the same level determined branches.
Syntagmatic phonetics deals with the interaction oI speech sounds and intonation, sentence
stress, tempo. All these Ieatures that characterise suprasegmental speech phonetically are
sometimes also called prosodic.
So stylistic phonetics studies such stylistic devices and expressive means as a11t!rat#$
(recurrence oI the initial consonant in two or more words in close succession). It's a
typically English Ieature because ancient English poetry was based more on alliteration than
on rhyme. We Iind a vestige oI this once all-embracing literary device in proverbs and
sayings that came down to us.
E. g. N(9 (r 'e<er4 L!)$ 60$ '($ -e!)$4 A) /((1 !) /(-1.
With time its Iunction broadened into prose and other types oI texts.
It became very popular in titles, headlines and slogans.
E. g. Pr.1e !'1 Pre=01."e. (Austin)
P()$%0+(0) ,!,er) ( $%e P."79."7 C-06. (Dickens)
D(r7 (r 9!/e)B4 D(r7er) ( $%e 9(r-13 0'.$eB
Speaking oI the change oI this device's role chronologically we should make special note oI
its prominence in certain proIessional areas oI modern English that has not been mentioned
by Skrebnev. Today alliteration is one oI the Iavourite devices oI commercials and
advertising language.
E. g. Ne9 9%.,,e1 "re!+K N( +.;.'/ (r +e!)0r.'/. N( 6e!$.'/ (r 6($%er.'/.
C(-/!$e $(($%,!)$eK T%e F-!<(r8) Fre)%er $%!' e<er H @$8) Ne9. @+,r(<e1. F(r$..e1.
D''#$a$c! (the recurrence oI stressed vowels).
E.g. ...Te-- $%.) )(0- 9.$% )(rr(9 -!1e'3 . 9.$%.' $%e 1.)$!'$ A.1e'4 @ )%!-- "-!), ! )!.'$e1
+!.1e'3 9%(+ $%e !'/e-) '!+e Le'(re. ()
Par#$#.a'a (using words similar in sound but diIIerent in meaning with euphonic eIIect).
The popular example to illustrate this device is drawn Irom E. A. Poe's R!<e'.
E. g. A'1 $%e ra-!$, $!-!r -.$$.'/3 't11 ' 'tt$2, 't11 ' 'tt$2 =&/t&. a$3 .!t!r.
The pattern oI interchange oI strong and weak segments is called r%*$%+. It's a regular
recurrence oI stressed and unstressed syllables that make a poetic text. Various
combinations oI stressed and unstressed syllables determine the metre (iambus, dactyl,
trochee, etc.).
=&/.! is another Ieature that distinguishes verse Irom prose and consists in the acoustic
coincidence oI stressed syllables at the end oI verse lines.
Here's an example to illustrate dactylic meter and rhyme given in Skrebnev's book
T!7e %er 0, $e'1er-*3 L.$ %er 9.$% "!re3 F!)%.('81 )( )-e'1er-* >(0'/ !'1 )( !.r.
Syntagmatic morphology deals with the importance oI grammar Iorms used in a paragraph
or text that help in creating a certain stylistic eIIect.
We Iind much in common between Skrebnev's description oI this area and Leech's
deIinition oI syntagmatic deviant Iigures. Skrebnev writes: "Varying the morphological
means oI expressing grammatical notions is based... upon the general rule: monotonous
repetition oI morphemes or Irequent recurrence oI morphological meanings expressed
diIIerently..." (47, p. 146).
He also indicates that while it is normally considered a stylistic Iault it acquires special
meaning when used on purpose. He describes the eIIect achieved by the use oI
morphological synonyms oI the genetive with S%!7e),e!re H the possessive case
:S%!7e),e!re8) ,-!*)23 prepositional (-phrase :$%e ,-!*) ( S%!7e),e!re2 and an attributive
noun :S%!7e),e!re ,-!*)2 as "elegant variation" oI style.
yn`aima`e^ deVe^cdciy studies the "word-and-context" juxtaposition that presents a
number oI stylistic problems - especially those connected with co-occurrence oI words oI
various stylistic colourings.
Each oI these cases must be considered individually because each literary text is unique in
its choice and combination oI words. Such phenomena as various instances oI intentional
and unintentional lexical mixtures as well as varieties oI lexical recurrence Iall in with this
Some new more modern stylistic terms appear in this connection-stylistic irradiation,
heterostylistic texts, etc. We can observe this sort oI stylistic mixture in a passage Irom
O'Henry provided by Skrebnev:
5e3 )!*) A'1* !$er ! -('/ $.+e3 C0.$e 0')e-1(+ @ %!<e )ee' 5.$ $( .+,0/' *(0r +(-!r)
9%e' *(0 %!<e 6ee' "%e9.'/ $%e r!/ 9.$% +e !6(0$ *(0r "(')".e'$.(0) 9!* ( 1(.'/
60).'e))... (47, p. 149).
yn`aima`e^ syn`aV deals with more Iamiliar phenomena since it has to do with the use oI
sentences in a text. Skrebnev distinguishes purely syntactical repetition to which he reIers
,!r!--e-.)+ as structural repetition oI sentences though oIten accompanied by the lexical
E. g. T%e "("7 .) "r(9.'/3 T%e )$re!+ .) -(9.'/...
and lexico-syntactical devices such as
a$a,&#ra (identity oI beginnings, initial elements).
E. g. @ ('-* -.$$-e E19!r1 9ere $9e'$*3 (-1 e'(0/% $( +!rr* 9e-- !'1 e'1 (r %.+)e-3
.')$e!1 ($e'. @ ('-* .$ 9ere '($ 'e"e))!r* $( ,r(<.1e ! 1(9!r* (r %.) 1!0/%$er. @ ('-* %.)
(9' 1e6$) 9ere -e)). (RutherIurd)
*,,&#ra (opposite oI the anaphora, identical elements at the end oI sentences, paragraphs,
chapters, stanzas).
E. g. F(r !-- !<erre13 @ %!1 7.--e1 $%e 6.r1. T%!$ +!1e $%e 6reeIe $( 6-(9. A% 9re$"%B S!.1
$%e*3 $%e 6.r1 $( )-!*3 T%!$ +!1e $%e 6reeIe $( 6-(9B
Bra.$2 (repetition oI some element at the beginning and at the end oI a sentence,
paragraph or stanza).
E.g. Ne<er 9('1er. ?* +e!') ( !11.$.('3 )06$r!"$.('3 +0-$.,-."!$.(' !'1 1.<.).('3 )e$$-e
e<er*$%.'/ )(+e%(93 !'1 'e<er 9('1er. (Dickens)
D$a3,1#'' (the Iinal element oI one sentence, paragraph, stanza is repeated in the initial
part oI the next sentence, paragraph, stanza. E. g. T%ree .)%er) 9e'$ )!.-.'/ (0$ .'$( $%e
De)$. O0$ .'$( $%e De)$3 !) $%e )0' 9e'$ 1(9'.
@&a'.)' (parallelism reversed, two parallel syntactical constructions contain a reversed
order oI their members).
E. g. T%!$ %e ).'/) !'1 %e ).'/)3 !'1 (r e<er ).'/) %e H @ -(<e +* L(<e !'1 +* L(<e -(<e)
Syntagmatic semasiology or semasiology oI sequences deals with semantic relationships
expressed at the lengh oI a whole text. As distinct Irom paradigmatic semasiology which
studies the stylistic eIIect oI renaming syntagmatic semasiology studies types oI names used
Ior linear arrangement oI meanings.
Skrebnev calls these repetitions oI meanings represented by sense units in a text ./0re) (
"(H(""0rre'"e. The most general types oI semantic relationships can be described as
identical, diIIerent or opposite. Accordingly he singles out ./0re) ( .1e'$.$*3 ./0re) (
.'eC0!-.$* !'1 ./0re) ( "('$r!)$.
Figures oI identity
".1! (an explicit statement oI partial identity: aIIinity, likeness, similarity oI 2 objects).
E. g. M* %e!r$ .) -.7e ! ).'/.'/ 6.r1. (Rosetti)
"/$#$/.#)' r!,1ac!.!$t (use oI synonyms or synonymous phrases to avoid monotony or
as situational substitutes).
E.g. He 6r(0/%$ %(+e $).4!r1!'' ,r.Ie). He $(-1 %.) +($%er c#)$t1!'' )$(r.e). (Thackeray)
E.g. @ 9!) tr!.41/ !'1 '&a;/ r(+ %e!1 $( (($. Figures oI inequality
@1ar(/$2 E',!c(/$2F '/$#$/.' (synonymous repetition used to characterise diIIerent
aspects oI the same reIerent).
E. g. >(0 0'1er"0$3 ).'0-3 .').1.(0) %(/. (O'Henry)
@1.a+ (gradation oI emphatic elements growing in strength).
E. g. D%!$ 1.ere'"e . .$ r!.'e13 %!.-e13 6-e93 )'(9e13 "*"-('e1F (O'Henry).
D$t>c1.a+ (back gradation - instead oI a Iew elements growing in intensity without relieI
there unexpectedly appears a weak or contrastive element that makes the statement
humorous or ridiculous).
E. g. T%e 9(+!' 9%( "(0-1 !"e $%e <er* 1e<.- %.+)e- (r ! +(0)e H /(e) !-- $( ,.e"e) .'
r('$ ( ! -!)% ( -./%$'.'/. (Twain)
G!)2.a (combination oI unequal, or incompatible words based on the economy oI
syntactical units).
E. g. S%e 1r(,,e1 ! $e!r !'1 %er ,("7e$ %!'17er"%.e. (Dickens)
P)$ (play upon words based on polysemy or homonymy).
E. g. D%!$ )$e,) 9(0-1 *(0 $!7e . !' e+,$* $!'7 9ere "(+.'/ $(9!r1 *(0 F H L('/ ('e).
8'2)'!3 ta)t#1#2/ (semantic diIIerence in Iormally coincidental parts oI a sentence,
repetition here does not emphasise the idea but carries a diIIerent inIormation in each oI the
two parts).
E.g. F(r E!)$ .) E!)$3 !'1 De)$ .) De)$... (Kipling) Figures oI contrast
H+/.#r#$ (a logical collision oI seemingly incompatible words).
E. g. H.) %('(0r r(($e1 .' 1.)%('(0r )$((13 A'1 !.$% 0'!.$%0- 7e,$ %.+ !-)e-* $r0e.
A'$.$%e).) (anti-statement, active conIrontation oI notions used to show the contradictory
nature oI the subject described).
E. g. @$ 9!) $%e 4!'t ( $.+e)3 .$ 9!) t&! 0#r't ( $.+e)4 .$ 9!) $%e !/e ( 9.)1(+3 .$ 9!) $%e
!/e ( (##1'&$!'', .$ 9!) $%e e,("% ( 6e-.e3 .$ 9!) $%e er! ( $cr!3)1t/, .$ 9!) $%e )e!)('
( 12&t, .$ 9!) $%e )e!)(' ( D!r7'e))... <#,!... 8!',ar. (Dickens)
<' ee) 9ere &2&, %.) -e))(') 9ere 12&t. (O'Henry)
An overview oI the classiIications presented here shows rather varied approaches to
practically the same material. And even though they contain inconsistencies and certain
contradictions they reIlect the scholars' attempts to overcome an inventorial description oI
devices. They obviously bring stylistic study oI expressive means to an advanced level,
sustained by the linguistic research oI the 2#
century that allows to explore and explain the
linguistic nature oI the stylistic Iunction. This contribution into stylistic theory made by
modem linguistics is not contained to classiIying studies only. It has inspired exploration oI
other areas oI research such as decoding stylistics or stylistic grammar that will be
discussed in Iurther chapters.
1. What is the relationship between the denotative and connotative meanings oI a word?
Can a word connote without denoting and vice versa?
What are the Iour components oI the connotative meaning and
how are they represented in a word iI at all?
2. Expound on the expressive and emotive power oI the noun $%.'/ in the Iollowing
5e''.e 9!'$e1 $( )-ee, 9.$% +e H $%e )-* $%.'/B ?0$ @ $(-1 %er @ )%(0-1 0'1(06$e1-* re)$
6e$$er (r ! './%$ !-('e. (Gilman)
H @ 6e-.e<e3 ('e 1!*3 @ )%!-- !-- !90--* .' -(<e.
H Pr(6!6-* *(0 'e<er 9.--3 )!.1 L0".--e 6r0$!--*. T%!$8) 9%!$ +()$ (-1
+!.1) !re $%.'7.'/ !-- $%e $.+e.
><e$$e -((7e1 !$ %er ).)$er r(+ ,e').<e 60$ !,,!re'$-* .')(0".!'$ e*e). @) .$F )%e )!.1. D(
*(0 re!--* $%.'7 )(3 L0".--eF H(9 ,ere"$-* !90- (r $%e+3 ,((r $%.'/)B (Lawrence)
S%e 9!) !' %('e)$ -.$$-e $%.'/3 60$ ,er%!,) %er %('e)$* 9!) $(( r!$.('!-. (Lawrence)
S( $%e* 9ere3 $%.) C0eer "(0,-e3 $%e $.'*3 .'e-* (r+e1 -.$$-e 5e9e)) 9.$% %er 6./3 re)e'$0-3
re,r(!"%0- e*e)3 !'1 %er +(, ( "!re0--*H6!r6e1 6-!"73 "0r-* %!.r3 !' e-e/!'$ -.$$-e $%.'/
.' %er 9!*4 !'1 $%e 6./3 ,!-eHe*e1 *(0'/ +!'3 ,(9er0- !'1 9.'$r*3 $%e re+'!'$3 )0re-* (
)(+e (-1 0'"!''* D!'.)% )$("7... (Lawrence)
3. How do the notions oI expressive means and stylistic devices correlate? Provide
examples to illustrate your point.
4. Compare the principles oI classiIications given in chapter 2. Which oI them seem most
logical to you? Sustain your view.
Draw parallels between Leech's paradigmatic and syntagmatic deviations and Skrebnev's
classiIication. Apply these criteria to the analysis oI the use oI 6re$%re' and +!rr.e1 in the
Iollowing examples. Consider the grammatical category oI number in A and the nature oI
semantic transIer in B. Supply the kind oI tables suggested by Leech to describe the normal
and deviant Ieatures oI similar character.
Comment on the kind oI deviation in the nonce-word ).)$er' in A and the eIIect it produces.
A. Pr!.)e A(1 !'1 '($ $%e De<.-3 )%(0$e1 ('e ( $%e M!7er8) +!-e )%.--) r(+ $%e ($%er ).1e
( $%e r((+.
T%e "r.+.'!- -(9ere1 %.) e*e) !'1 +0$$ere1 !$ %.) )%(e)K
A% "0$ !'*6(1* 9%( 6r0.)e +e 9.$% L!$.'3 /(11!++.$.
L.)$e' $( %.+ $!7e $%e M./%$* '!+e .' <!.'3 6re$%re' !'1 ).)$er'B )!.1
Re.'%!r$. (Berger)
[. M* !$%er 9!) )$.-- e.)$* .' 1940 - %e 9!) $%.r$* *e!r) (-1 !'1 re)$-e))3 +!*6e ! -.$$-e
9.-1 6e'e!$% $%e *(7e ( +* +($%er8) !+.-*. He $r0-* %!1 +!rr.e1 '($ ('-* +* +($%er 60$
+* /r!'1+($%er !) 9e--3 !'1 !-)( $%e +0-e !'1 $%e $9( e-1er-* %(r)e) !'1 $%e "(9) !'1
"%."7e') !'1 $%e $9( ,er.-(0)H-((7.'/ 6!r') !'1 $%e 9%(-e r("7* %0'1re1 !"re) (
C!r(-.'! +(0'$!.' !r+. (Chappel)
5. What kind oI syntagmatic deviation (according to Leech) is observed in the Iollowing
instance? What is the term Ior this device in rhetoric and other stylistic classiIications?
Where does it belong according to Galperin and Skrebnev?
A'1 .' $%e +!''er ( $%e A'/-(HS!;(' ,(e$r* $%!$ 9!) .$) .'),.r!$.('3 %e e'1e1 %.) )er+('
H./% (' $%e %.-- .' )./%$ ( %e!<e'3
O0r L(r1 9!) -e1 !'1 -.$e1 0,.
T%!$ 9.--.'/ 9!rr.(r "!+e 9%.-e $%e 9(r-1 9e,$3
A'1 ! $err.6-e )%!1(9 )%!1e1 $%e )0'
F(r 0) He 9!) 6r(7e' !'1 /!<e H.) 6-((1
G.'/ ( !-- "re!$.(' C%r.)$ (' $%e R((1.
6. What types oI phonographic expressive means are used in the sentences given below?
How do diIIerent classiIications name and place them?
8QR3 '(9. @8+ '($ 6r.'/.'/ $%.) 0, 9.$% $%e .1e! ( $%r(9.'/ !'*$%.'/ 6!"7 .' *(0r $ee$% H
+* God. (Salinger)
L.$$-e D."7* )$r!.') !'1 *!,) 6!"7 r(+ $%e )!e$* ( M!r*8) !r+). (Erdrich)
D%* )%(0-1'8$ 9e !-- /( (<er $( $%e Me$r(,(-e !$ C9+,r*11*/ (r 1.''er ('e './%$FE
@ %e!r L.('e-8) )0,,()e$! 6e r0''.'8 !9!*. (Salinger) D%(8) $%!$ 1e!r3 1.+3 1r0'7 -.$$-e
+!'F (Waugh) N( "%.$"%!$ ,-e!)e. (O'Hara)
@ ,r!*e1 (r $%e ".$* $( 6e "-e!re1 ( ,e(,-e3 (r $%e /.$ ( 6e.'/ !-('e H !H-H(H'HeK 9%."% .)
$%e ('e Ne9 >(r7 ,r!*er... (Salinger) ,
" Here C9+,r*11*/ is an invented Welsh town, an allusion to the diIIicult Welsh language.
Se')e ( ).' .) )e')e ( 9!)$e. (Waugh)
C(-('e- L(/!' .) .' $%e !r+*3 !'1 ,re)0+!6-* E$%e M!=(rE 9!) ! )(-1.er !$ $%e $.+e De''.)
9!) 6(r'. (Follett)
7. Comment on the types oI transIer used in such tropes as metaphor, metonymy, allegory,
simile, allusion, personiIication, antonomasia. Compare their place in Galperin's and
Skrebnev's systems. Read up on the nature oI transIer in a poetic image in terms oI tenor,
vehicle and ground: H. B. At C . .,
1990. C. 74-82. Name and explain the kind oI semantic transIer observed in the Iollowing
T%e .r)$ $.+e +* !$%er +e$ 5(%')(' A.66) $%e* (0/%$ -.7e $(+"!$). (Chappel)
@ -(<e ,-!'$). @ 1('8$ -.7e "0$ -(9er). O'-* $%e ('e) $%!$ /r(9 .' $%e /r(0'1. A'1 $%e)e
9!$er -.-.e)... E!"% 9%.$e ,e$!- .) ! /re!$ $e!r ( +.-7. E!"% )-e'1er )$!-7 .) ! /ree' -.e
r(,e. (Erdrich)
@ $%.'7 9e )%(0-1 1r.'7 ! $(!)$ $( F(r$0'e3 ! +0"%H+!-./'e1 -!1*. (Waugh)
...$%e .r)$ )./% ( $%e .')$r0+e'$) )ee+e1 $( ree )(+e %.-!r.(0) !'1 ,($e'$ ),.r.$ 9.$%.'
%.+4 )(+e$%.'/ $%!$ )$r0//-e1 $%ere -.7e $%e Ae'.0) .' $%e 6($$-e (0'1 6* $%e Ar!6
.)%er+!'. (Cather)
?0$ %e3 $((3 7'e9 $%e 'e"e)).$* ( 7ee,.'/ !) "-e!r !) ,()).6-e r(+ $%!$ ,(.)('(0) +!'*H
%e!1e1 )er,e'$3 $%e $('/0e ( $%e ,e(,-e. (Lawrence)
L.-* %!1 )$!r$e1 $( !)7 +e !6(0$ E0'."e. ERe!--*3 Ae'$-e He!r$E3 )%e )!.13 E9%!$ .' $%e
9(r-1 1.1 *(0 1( $( +* ,((r -.$$-e ).)$er $( +!7e %er )70-7 !9!* -.7e ! $%.e .' $%e './%$ FE
T%e /ree' $0+(0r ( %!$e 60r)$ .').1e %er. (Lawrence)
S%e !1=0)$e1 %er)e- %(9e<er C0.$e r!,.1-* $( %er 'e9 "('"e,$.(' ( ,e(,-e. S%e %!1 $( -.<e.
@$ .) 0)e-e)) $( C0!rre- 9.$% *(0r 6re!1 !'1 60$$er. (Lawrence)
...$%e' $%e T01(r) !'1 $%e 1.))(-0$.(' ( $%e C%0r"%3 $%e' L-(*1 Ae(r/e3 $%e $e+,er!'"e
+(<e+e'$3 N('H"('(r+.$* !'1 -0)$ )$!-7.'/ %!'1 .' %!'1 $%r(0/% $%e "(0'$r*3 9!)$.'/ !'1
r!<!/.'/. (Waugh)
D%e' $%e )$!r) $%re9 1(9' $%e.r ),e!r)3 A'1 9!$er81 %e!<e' 9.$% $%e.r $e!r)3 D.1 %e )+.-e
%.) 9(r7 $( )eeF
8. As distinct Irom the above devices based on some sort oI aIIinity, real or imaginary, there
are a number oI expressive means based on contrast or incompatibility (oxymoron,
antithesis, zeugma, pun, malapropism, mixture oI words Irom diIIerent stylistic strata oI
vocabulary). Their stylistic eIIect depends on the message and intent oI the author and
varies in emphasis and colouring. It may be dramatic, pathetic, elevated, etc. Sometimes the
ultimate stylistic eIIect is irony. Ironic, humorous or satiric eIIect is always built on contrast
although devices that help to achieve it may not necessarily be based on contrast (e. g. they
may be hyperbole, litotes, allusion, periphrasis, metaphor, etc.)
Some oI the basic techniques to achieve verbal irony are:
praise by blame (or sham praise) which means implying the opposite oI what is said;
minimizing the good qualities and magniIying the bad ones;
contrast between manner and matter, i. e. inserting irrelevant matter in presumably serious
interpolating comic interludes in tragic narration;
mixing Iormal language and slang;
making isolated instances seem typical;
quoting authorities to Iit immediate purpose;
allusive irony: speciIic allusions to people, ideas, situations, etc. that clash discordantly
with the object oI irony;
connotative ambivalence: the simultaneous presence oI incompatible but relevant
Bearing this in mind comment on the humorous or ironic impact oI the Iollowing examples.
Explain where possible what stylistic devices eIIect the techniques oI verbal irony.
H H!<e *(0 !$ !'* $.+e 6ee' 1e$!.'e1 .' ! +e'$!- %(+e (r ).+.-!r .')$.$0$.(' F @ )(3 /.<e
,!r$."0-!r). @ 9!) !$ S"('e C(--e/e3 O;(r13 (r $9( *e!r)3 )!.1 P!0-. T%e 1("$(r -((7e1 0,
(r $%e .r)$ $.+e. H D('8$ *(0 1!re $( +!7e =(7e) %ere3 +* +!'3 %e )!.13 (r @8-- %!<e *(0 .'
$%e )$r!.$H=!"7e$ .' -e)) $%!' '( $.+e. (Waugh)
@ -.7e $%!$. :! $r*.'/ $( 6e 0''*. (Waugh)
@ 1re9 ! 1(Ie' (r +(re )!+,-e) ( 9%!$ @ $%(0/%$ 9ere $*,."!- e;!+,-e) ( A+er."!'
"(++er".!- !r$. ...@ 1re9 ,e(,-e .' e<e'.'/ "-($%e) )$e,,.'/ (0$ ( -.+(0).'e) (' (,e'.'/
'./%$) H -e!'3 ere"$3 )0,erH"%." "(0,-e) 9%( %!1 (6<.(0)-* 'e<er .' $%e.r -.<e) .'-."$e1
)0er.'/ !) ! re)0-$ ( 0'1er!r+ "!re-e))'e)) H "(0,-e)3 .' !"$3 9%( ,er%!,) 1.1'8$ %!<e
!'* 0'1er!r+). ...@ 1re9 -!0/%.'/3 %./%H6re!)$e1 /.r-) !C0!,-!'.'/ 9.$%(0$ ! "!re .' $%e
9(r-13 !) ! re)0-$ ( 6e.'/ !+,-* ,r($e"$e1 !/!.')$ )0"% '!$.('!- e<.-) !) 6-ee1.'/ /0+)3
!".!- 6-e+.)%e)3 0')./%$-* %!.r)3 !'1 !0-$* (r .'!1eC0!$e -.e .')0r!'"e. @ 1re9
%(0)e9.<e) 9%(3 0'$.- $%e* re!"%e1 (r $%e r./%$ )(!, -!7e)3 -!.1 $%e+)e-<e) 9.1e (,e' $(
)$r!//-* %!.r3 ,((r ,()$0re3 0'r0-* "%.-1re'3 1.)!e"$e1 %0)6!'1)3 r(0/% :60$ )-e'1er2
%!'1)3 0'$.1* :60$ e'(r+(0)2 7.$"%e'). (Salinger)
@ +!1e ! 5e--H O )!-!1. H O%3 )%e )!*)3 9%!$ 7.'1F H T%e 7.'1 0-- ( '0$) !'1 6(-$)3 @ )!*3
,-0) 9!)%er) ( !-- $*,e). @ r!.1e1 R0))e-8) $((-6(; (r $%e ),e".!- .'/re1.e'$). (Erdrich)
D!) $%!$ $%e 9(+!' -.7e N!,(-e(' $%e Are!$F (Waugh)
T%e* !-9!*) )!* $%!$ )%e ,(.)('e1 %er %0)6!'1... $%ere 9!) ! /re!$ 1e!- ( $!-7 !6(0$ .$ !$
$%e $.+e. Per%!,) *(0 re+e+6er $%e "!)eF H N(3 )!.1 P!0- H P(91ere1 /-!))3 )!.1 F-()).e
)%r.--*3 H .' %.) "(ee. H T0r7.)% "(ee3 )!.1 D.'/*. (Waugh)
>(0 (-7) !-- $%.'7 $%e "(-(0re1 +!' %!)'8$ /($ ! )(0-. A'*$%.'8) /((1 e'(0/% (r $%e ,((r
"(-(0re1 +!'. ?e!$ %.+3 ,0$ %.+ .' "%!.')4 -(!1 %.+ 9.$% 60r1e')... Here P!0- (6)er<e1 !
re),(').<e /-.$$er .' L!1* C.r"0+ere'"e8) e*e. (Waugh)
@' $%e )(0$% $%e* !-)( 1r.'7 ! /((1 1e!- ( $eC0.-!3 9%."% .) ! ),.r.$ +!1e r(+ $%e =0."e (
$%e "!"$0). @$ %!) $( 6e $!7e' 9.$% ! ,.'"% ( )!-$. (Atkinson)
STT%e* "(0-1 %!<e 7.--e1 *(0 $((3 %e )!.13 %.) $ee$% "%!$$er.'/. @ *(0 %!1 !rr.<e1 $9(
+.'0$e) e!r-.er. F(r/.<e +e. F(r/.<e !-- ( 0). D(-"e @$!-.!. P!r!1.)e (r $(0r.)$).E He
-!0/%e1 eer.-*. (Shaw)
He 9!) $!-7.'/ <er* e;".$e1-* $( +e3 )!.1 $%e U."!r... He )ee+) 1ee,-* .'$ere)$e1 .' C%0r"%
+!$$er). Are *(0 C0.$e )0re %e .) r./%$ .' $%e %e!1F @ %!<e '($."e1 !/!.' !'1 !/!.' ).'"e @
%!<e 6ee' .' $%e C%0r"% $%!$ -!* .'$ere)$ .' e""-e).!)$."!- +!$$er) .) ($e' ! ,re-01e $(
.')!'.$*. (Waugh)
S( *(08re $%e D("$(r8) %.re1 !))!)).'3 e%F De--3 @ %(,e *(0 7ee, ! .r+ %!'1 (' +* $(!1 (
! )('. (Waugh)
9. Explain why the Iollowing sentences Iall into the category oI quasi-questions, quasi-
statements or quasi-negatives in Skrebnev's classiIication. What's their actual meaning?
H @ 9.)% @ "(0-1 /( 6!"7 $( )"%((- !-- (<er !/!.'. H D('8$ 9e !--3 %e )!.1. (Shaw)
Are !-- 9(+e' 1.ere'$F O%3 !re $%e*B (O'Hara)
@ 1('8$ $%.'7 '( 9(r)e ( *(0 (r .$3 '(3 1!r'e1 . @ 1(. (Lawrence) @ .$ .)'8$ 1.!+('1) !--
(<er %.) .'/er)B (Caldwell) De<.- . P 7'(9 9%!$ $( +!7e ( $%e)e ,e(,-e 1(9' %ere.
(Christie) C('$!"$ +* !$%er !/!.' !'1 @8-- )$r!'/-e *(0. (Donleavy) D('8$ *(0 e<er $!-7 $(
R()eF N($ !6(0$ M.-1re1. R()e +.))e) M.-1re1 !) +0"% !) @ 1(. De 1('8$ e<e' 9!'$ $( )ee
e!"% ($%er. (O'Hara)
10. Why are instances oI repetition in the sentences given below called disguised tautology?
How does it diIIer Irom regular tautology? What does this sort oI repetition imply?
L.e .) -.e.
T%ere !re 1("$(r) !'1 1("$(r).
A )+!-- $(9'8) ! )+!-- $(9'3 9%ere<er .$ .)3 @ )!.1. (Shute)
@ /($ '($%.'/ !/!.')$ 5(e C%!,.'3 60$ %e8) '($ +e. @8+ +e3 !'1 !'($%er +!' .) )$.-- !'($%er
+!'. (O'Hara)
De--3 . .$ "!'8$ 6e %e-,e13 .$ "!'8$ 6e %e-,e13 @ )!.1 +!'0--*. (Shaw)
M.-!' .) ! ".$*3 9%."% "!''($ 6e )0++e1 0, .' ! e9 9(r1). F(r @$!-.!' ),e!7er)3 $%e (-1
M.-!'e)e 1.!-e"$ e;,re)).(' EM.-!' -8e M.-!'E :M.-!' .) =0)$ M.-!'2 .) ,r(6!6-* $%e 6e)$
1e)"r.,$.(' ('e "!' /.<e. (Peroni)
?eer 9!) 6eer3 $((3 .' $%()e 1!*) H '($ $%e /!))* )$! .' 6($$-e). (Dickens)
11. Does the term anti-climax (back-gradation) imply the opposite oI climax (gradation)?
What eIIect does each oI these devices provide? How is it achieved in the Iollowing cases:
H P%.-6r."73 $%ere +0)$ 6e "%!+,!/'eH"0,3 !'1 9.-- *(0 %e-, $%e +e' ,0$$.'/ 0, $%e
+!rC0eeF A'1 F-!/)3 D.!'!B... N( e;,e')e )%(0-1 6e ),!re1... A'1 $%ere +0)$ 6e -(9er)3
D.!'!3 6!'7) ( -(9er)3 )!.1 $%e D("$(r 9.$% !' e;,e').<e /e)$0re. T%e ,r.Ie) )%!-- )$!'1
!+('/ $%e 6!'7) ( -(9er)...
F-(9er)3 *(0$%3 9.)1(+3 $%e /-.$$er ( =e9e-)3 +0)."3 )!.1 $%e D("$(r. T%ere +0)$ 6e ! 6!'1.
H @ 'e<er %e!r1 ( )0"% ! $%.'/3 )!.1 D.'/*. A 6!'1 .'1ee1@ >(08-- 6e %!<.'/ .re9(r7) 'e;$.
> D$3(r!0#r;'3 )!.1 $%e D("$(r3 !'1 1( *(0 $%.'7 .$ 9(0-1 6e ! /((1 $%.'/ $( 60* Mr.
Pre'1er/!)$ ! 'e9 $.eF (Waugh)
De 'ee1e1 ! 7.'1 r!.'3 ! 6-e)).'/ r!.'3 $%!$ -!)$e1 ! 9ee7. De 'ee1e1 9!$er. (Erdrich)
A$ .r)$ $%ere 9ere /(.'/ $( 6e (r$* /0e)$) 60$ $%e .'<.$!$.(' -.)$ /re9 -!r/er !'1 $%e ,!r$*
,-!') +(re e-!6(r!$e3 0'$.- Ar$%0r )!.1 $%!$ 9.$% )( +!'* ,e(,-e $%e* (0/%$ $( %.re !'
(r"%e)$r!3 !'1 9.$% !' (r"%e)$r! $%ere 9(0-1 6e 1!'".'/3 !'1 9.$% 1!'".'/ $%ere (0/%$ $(
6e ! /((1 ).Ie1 (r"%e)$r!. T%e (r./.'!- )+!-- 1.''er 6e"!+e ! 1.''er 1!'"e !$ $%e
L!'$e'e'/( C(0'$r* C-06. @'<.$!$.(') 9ere )e'$ $( +(re $%!' $%ree %0'1re1 ,er)(')...
E<e' $%e +()$ %!r1e'e1 "r.+.'!- $%ere H %e 9!) )er<.'/ %.) $%.r1 )e'$e'"e (r 6-!"7+!.- H
re+!r7e1 %(9 $%e 9%(-e "!rr.!/e )ee+e1 $( 6e -((1e1 9.$% $%e 1e$e"$!6-e )!<(0r (
C%!+,)HE-*)ee .' e!r-* 50'e. (Waugh)
H0--(3 Pre'1*3 (-1 9.'eH)7.'B H(9 !re $%.'/) 9.$% *(0F
A1+.r!6-e3 )!.1 Mr. Pre'1er/!)$. @ 'e<er %!<e 7'(9' $%e+ 6e$$er. @
%!<e =0)$ "!'e1 $9e'$*H$%ree 6(*). (Waugh)
%(A\!)g G
Stylistic Grammar
!_e `_ecHy c] iHamma`e^ad iHala`ecn. qaHkelA semeJmaHkel anl hnmaHkel
s`Hh^`hHes. +Hamma`e^ad me`aI_cH. !yIes c] iHamma`e^ad `HansIcse`ecn.
qcHI_cdcie^ad s`ydes`e^s. `ydes`e^ Ic`en`ead c] `_e IaH`s c] sIee^_. `ydes`e^ syn`aV.
>.=. N.I /.IGB GE Oamma/iDal OaLa/iGF.
One oI the least investigated areas oI stylistic research is the stylistic potential oI the
morphology oI the English language. There is quite a lot oI research in the Iield oI
syntagmatic stylistics connected with syntactical structures but very little has been written
about the stylistic properties oI the parts oI speech and such grammatical categories as
gender, number or person. So it seems logical to throw some light on these problems.
An essentially diIIerent approach oI modern scholars to stylistic research is explained by a
diIIerent concept that lies at the root oI this approach. II ancient rhetoric mostly dealt in
registering, classiIying
and describing stylistic expressive means, modern stylistics proceeds Irom the nature oI the
stylistic eIIect and studies the mechanism oI the stylistic Iunction. The major principle oI
the stylistic eIIect is the opposition between the norm and deviation Irom the norm on
whatever level oI the language. Roman Jacobson gave it the most generalized deIinition oI
deIeated expectancy; he claimed that it is the secret oI any stylistic eIIect because the
recipient is ready and willing Ior anything but what he actually sees. Skrebnev describes it
as the opposition between the traditional meaning and situational meaning, Arnold
maintains that the very essence oI poetic language is the violation oI the norm. These
deviations may occur on any level oI the language - phonetic, graphical, morphological,
lexical or syntactical. It should be noted though that not every deviation Irom the norm
results in expressiveness. There are deviations that will only create absurdity or linguistic
nonsense. For example, you can't normally use the article with an adverb or adjective.
Noam Chomsky, an American scholar and Iounder oI the generative linguistic school,
Iormulated this rule in grammar that he called iHamma`e^ad iHala`ecn (27). He constructed
a scale with two poles - grammatically correct structures at one extreme point oI this scale
and grammatically incorrect structures at the other. The Iirst he called grammatically
maHkel s`Hh^`hHesA the second - hnmaHkel s`Hh^`hHes.
The latter ones cannot be generated by the linguistic laws oI the given language, thereIore
they cannot exist in it. II we take the Russian sentence that completely agrees with the
grammatical laws oI this language MVWX YMZ [Y\]Q^ and make a word Ior word
translation into English we'll get a grammatically incorrect structure E De".1e1
In Chomsky's theory grammatically incorrect (unmarked) structures are labeled with an
%e +e $( 1e"e.<e3 A native speaker cannot produce such a sentence because it disagrees with
the basic rule oI word order arrangement in English. It will have to be placed at the extreme
point oI the pole that opposes correct or marked structures. This sentence belongs to what
Chomsky calls unmarked structures.
Between these two poles there is space Ior the so-called semeJmaHkel s`Hh^`hHes. These
are structures marked by the deviation Irom lexical or grammatical valency. This means that
words and grammar Iorms carry an unusual grammatical or reIerential meaning. In other
terms this is called transposition", a phenomenon that destroys customary (normal, regular,
standard) valences and thus creates expressiveness oI the utterance.
>.@. Samma/iDal mI/a0.G aFL /B0IC GE Oamma/iDal
Some scholars (e. g. ProI. E. I. Shendels) use the term iHamma`e^ad me`aI_cH Ior this kind
oI phenomena (30, 31). We know that lexical metaphor is based on the transIer oI the name
oI one object on to another due to some common ground. The same mechanism works in
the Iormation oI a grammatical metaphor.
Linguistic units, such as words, possess not only lexical meanings but also grammatical
ones that are correlated with extra-linguistic reality. Such grammatical categories as
plurality and singularity reIlect the distinction between a multitude and oneness in the real
world. Such classiIying grammatical meanings as the noun, the verb or the adjective
represent objects, actions and qualities that exist in this world. However this extra-linguistic
reality may be represented in diIIerent languages
in a diIIerent way. The notion oI deIiniteness or indeIiniteness is grammatically expressed
in English by a special class oI words - the article. In Russian it's expressed diIIerently.
Gender exists as a grammatical category oI the noun in Russian but not in English and so
A grammatical Iorm, as well as a lexical unit possesses a denotative and a connotative
meaning. There are at least three types oI denotative grammatical meanings. Two oI these
have some kind oI reIerence with the extra-linguistic reality and one has zero denotation, i.
e. there is no reIerence between the grammatical meaning and outside world.
1. The Iirst type oI grammatical denotation reIlects relations oI objects in outside reality
such as singularity and plurality.
2. The second type denotes the relation oI the speaker to the Iirst type oI denotation. It
shows how objective relations are perceived by reactions to the outside world. This type oI
denotative meaning is expressed by such categories as modality, voice, deIiniteness and
3. The third type oI denotative meaning has no reIerence to the extra-linguistic reality. This
is an intralinguistc denotation, conveying relations among linguistic units proper, e.g. the
Iormation oI past tense Iorms oI regular and irregular verbs.
Denotative meanings show what this or that grammatical Iorm designates but they do not
show how they express the same relation. However a grammatical Iorm may carry
additional expressive inIormation, it can evoke associations, emotions and impressions. It
may connote as well as denote. Connotations aroused by a grammatical Iorm are adherent
subjective components, such as expressive or intensiIied meaning, emotive or evaluative
colouring. The new connotative meaning oI grammatical Iorms appears when we observe a
certain clash between
Iorm and meaning or deviation in the norm oI use oI some Iorms. The stylistic eIIect
produced is oIten called grammatical metaphor.
According to Shendels we may speak oI grammatical metaphor when there is a
transposition (transIer) oI a grammatical Iorm Irom one type oI grammatical relation to
another. In such cases we deal with a redistribution oI grammatical and lexical meanings
that create new connotations.
!yIes c] iHamma`e^ad `HansIcse`ecn
Generally speaking we may distinguish 3 types oI grammatical transposition,
1. The Iirst deals with the transposition oI a certain grammar Iorm into a new syntactical
distribution with the resulting eIIect oI contrast. The so-called 'historical present' is a good
illustration oI this type: a verb in the Present IndeIinite Iorm is used against the background
oI the Past IndeIinite narration. The eIIect oI vividness, an illusion oI "presence", a lapse in
time into the reality oI the reader is achieved.
E<er*$%.'/ 9e'$ !) e!)* !) 1r.'7.'/3 5.++* )!.1. T%ere 9!) ! /!r!/e =0)$ r(0'1 $%e "(r'er
6e%.'1 ?e-/r!<e SC0!re 9%ere %e 0)e1 $( /( e<er* +(r'.'/ $( 9!$"% $%e+ +e)).'/ !6(0$
9.$% $%e "!r). Cr!I* !6(0$ "!r) $%e 7.1 9!). 5.++* "(+e) .' ('e 1!* 9.$% %.) +($(r6.7e
!'1 ).1eH"!r !'1 !)7) (r )(+e ,e$r(-. He "(+e) 0, !'1 -((7) !$ .$ .' $%e 9!* %e %!1.
2. The second type oI transposition involves both - the lexical and grammatical meanings.
The use oI the plural Iorm with a noun whose lexical denotative meaning is incompatible
with plurality (abstract nouns, proper names) may serve as an apt example.
T%e -((7 (' %er !"e... 9!) 0-- ( )e"re$ re)e'$+e'$)3 !'1 -('/.'/)3 !'1 e!r). (Mitchell)
3. Transposition oI classiIying grammatical meanings, that brings together situationally
incompatible Iorms - Ior instance, the use oI a common noun as a proper one.
The eIIect is personiIication oI inanimate objects or antonomasia (a person becomes a
symbol oI a quality or trait - Mr. G'(9HA--3 Mr. Tr0$%3 speaking names).
L(r1 !'1 L!1* C.r"0+ere'"e3 Mr. P!r!7ee$3 Pr(. S.-e'0)3 C(-('e- M!"A11er. (Waugh)
>.>. PG0.GlGOiDal C/BliC/iDC.
S/BliC/iD 0G/IF/ial GE /.I 0a/C GE C0IID.
G.G.E. !_e nchn anl e`s s`ydes`e^ Ic`en`ead
The stylistic power oI a noun is closely linked to the grammatical categories this part oI
speech possesses. First oI all these are the categories oI number, person and case.
The use oI a singular noun instead oI an appropriate plural Iorm creates a generalized,
elevated eIIect oIten bordering on symbolization. T%e !.'$ re)% -!+e ( $%e *(0'/ *e!r
-0)%e) Fr(+ -e! $( -(9er !'1 r(+ -(9er $( r0.$ A'1 r0.$ !'1 -e! !re !) /(-1 !'1 .re.
The contrary device - the use oI plural instead oI singular - as a rule makes the description
more powerIul and large-scale.
T%e "-!+(0r ( 9!$er)3 )'(9)3 9.'1)3 r!.')... (Hemingway)
T%e -('e !'1 -e<e- )!'1) )$re$"% !r !9!*. (Shelly)
The plural Iorm oI an abstract noun, whose lexical meaning is alien to the notion oI number
makes it not only more expressive, but brings about what Vinogradov called aesthetic
semantic growth.
He!<e' re+!.'e1 r./.1-* .' .$) ,r(,er ,-!"e (' $%e ($%er ).1e ( 1e!$%3 !'1 (' $%.) ).1e
-(0r.)%e1 $%e .'=0)$."e)3 $%e "r0e-$.e)3 $%e +e!''e))e)3 $%!$ e-)e9%ere ,e(,-e )( "-e<er-*
%0)%e1 0,. (Green)
Thus one Ieeling is represented as a number oI emotional states, each with a certain
connotation oI a new meaning. Emotions may signiIy concrete events, happenings, doings.
Proper names employed as plural lend the narration a unique generalizing eIIect:
@ *(0 (r/e$ $( .'<.$e )(+e6(1*8) A0'$ M.--.e3 @ 9!'$ $( 6e !6-e $( )!* @ %!1 '($%.'/ $( 1(
9.$% .$.
T%ere 9ere '0+er(0) A0'$ M.--.e) 6e"!0)e (3 !'1 .' ),.$e ( Ar$%0r8) !'1 E1.$%8) $r.,-e
"%e"7.'/ ( $%e -.)$. (O'Hara)
These examples represent the second type oI grammatical metaphor Iormed by the
transposition oI the lexical and grammatical meanings.
The third type oI transposition can be seen on the example oI personiIication. This is a
device in which grammatical metaphor appears due to the classiIying transposition oI a
noun, because nouns
are divided into animate and inanimate and only animate nouns have the category oI person.
PersoniIication transposes a common noun into the class oI proper names by attributing to it
thoughts or qualities oI a human being. As a result the syntactical, morphological and
lexical valency oI this noun changes:
E'/-!'18) +!)$er* ( $%e )e!)3 $((3 9!) /r(9.'/ e<e' /re!$er. L!)$ *e!r %er $r!1.'/ r.<!-)
$%e D0$"% %!1 ,0)%e1 (0$ ( )e<er!- "(-('.e)... (RutherIord)
The category oI case (possessive case) which is typical oI the proper nouns, since it denotes
possession becomes a mark oI personiIication in cases like the Iollowing one:
L(<e8) .r)$ )'(91r(, U.r/.' 7.))B
Abstract nouns transposed into the class oI personal nouns are charged with various
emotional connotations, as in the Iollowing examples where personiIication appears due to
the unexpected lexico-gramrnatical valency:
T%e 9(e6e/('e r!/+e'$ ( 9(+!'%((1 .' $%e "(r'er -((7e1 ! -.$$-e -e)) $err..e1 9%e' )%e
)!9 $%e 9.'e. (Waugh)
T%e "%066* -.$$-e e""e'$r.".$*3 (a child)
T%e (-1 (11.$* :!' (11 (-1 ,er)('2. (Arnold)
The emotive connotations in such cases may range Irom aIIection to irony or distaste.
So, although the English noun has Iewer grammatical categories than the Russian one, its
stylistic potential in producing grammatical metaphor is high enough.
G.G.1. !_e aH`e^de anl e`s s`ydes`e^ Ic`en`ead
The article may be a very expressive element oI narration especially when used with proper
For example, the indeIinite article may convey evaluative connotations when used with a
proper name:
68+ ! M!r-(9 6* 6.r$%3 !'1 9e !re ! %($H6-((1e1 !+.-*. (Follett)
It may be charged with a negative evaluative connotation and diminish the importance oI
someone's personality, make it sound insigniIicant.
?e).1e) R!.'3 N!' !'1 Mr). Pre9e$$3 $%ere 9!) ! Mr). G.'/)-e*3 $%e 9.e ( ('e ( $%e
A(<er'(r). (Dolgopolova)
A F(r)*$e .) '($ !' 0'"(++(' !'.+!-. (Galsworthy)
The deIinite article used with a proper name may become a powerIul expressive means to
emphasize the person's good or bad qualities.
De--3 )%e 9!) +!rr.e1 $( %.+. A'1 9%!$ 9!) +(re )%e -(<e1 %.+. N($ $%e S$!'-e* 9%(+
e<er*('e )!93 '($ $%e e<er*1!* ('e4 60$ ! $.+.13 )e').$.<e3 .''("e'$ S$!'-e* 9%( 7'e-$ 1(9'
e<er* './%$ $( )!* %.) ,r!*er)... (Dolgopolova)
>(0 !re '($ $%e A'1re9 M!')(' 6 +!rr.e1. (Cronin)
In the Iirst case the use oI two diIIerent articles in relation to one person throws into relieI
the contradictory Ieatures oI his character.
The second example implies that this article embodies all the good qualities that Andrew
Manson used to have and lost in the eyes oI his wiIe.
The deIinite article in the Iollowing example serves as an intensiIier oI the epithet used in
the character's description:
M* /((1 e--(93 6 )!.1 )0!<e-*3 9%!$ 6r.'/) +e %ere .) $%.)K 6 9!'$ $( )ee $%e e<e'.'/ )0'
/( 1(9' (<er $%e )'(9H$.,,e1 S.e'! Ne<!1!. D.$%.' $%e %(0r %e %!1 ),re!1 $%.) !-- (<er
$%e $(9' !'1 6 9!) ,(.'$e1 (0$ (r $%e re)$ ( +* <.).$ !) $%e +!1 E'/-.)%+!'. (Atkinson)
The deIinite article may contribute to the devices oI gradation or help create the rhythm oI
the narration as in the Iollowing examples:
?0$ $%e' %e 9(0-1 -()e S('1r!3 %.) "(''e"$.(') %ere3 !'1 %.) 0'"-e H $%.) 9(r-1B T%e -())B
T%e -())B T%e -())B (Dreiser)
No article, or the omission oI article beIore a common noun conveys a maximum level oI
abstraction, generalization.
T%e ,()$+!)$er !'1 ,()$+.)$re))3 %0)6!'1 !'1 9.e3 ...-((7e1 "!re0--* !$ e<er* ,.e"e (
+!.-... (Erdrich)
H(9 .'0r.!$.'/ .$ 9!)B L!'1 9%."% -((7e1 -.7e 6!7e1 )!'1 6e"!+e $%e A!r1e' ( E1e' .
('-* *(0 "(0-1 /e$ 9!$er. >(0 "(0-1 1r!9 ! -.'e 9.$% ! ,e'".-K (' ('e ).1e3 ! 9!$er-e))
6!rre'4 (' $%e ($%er3 !' .rr./!$e1 -0;0r.!'"e. (Michener)
N($ )(0'13 '($ C0.<er !) . %(r)e !'1 +!' %!1 $0r'e1 $( +e$!-. (Dolgopolova)
T%e* 9e'$ !) $%(0/% "!r !'1 1r.<er 9ere ('e .'1.<.).6-e 9%(-e. (Dolgopolova)
G.G.G. !_e s`ydes`e^ IcveH c] `_e IHcnchn
The stylistic Iunctions oI the pronoun also depend on the disparity between the traditional
and contextual (situational) meanings. This is the grammatical metaphor oI the Iirst type
based on the transposition oI the Iorm, when one pronoun is transposed into the action
sphere oI another pronoun.
So personal pronouns De3 >(03 T%e* and others can be employed in the meaning diIIerent
Irom their dictionary meaning.
The pronoun De that means "speaking together or on behalI oI other people" can be used
with reIerence to a single person, the speaker, and is called the plural oI majesty (Pluralis
Majestatis). It is used in Royal speech, decrees oI King, etc.
A'1 (r $%!$ (e'"e .++e1.!$e-* 1( 9e e;.-e %.+ %e'"e. (Shakespeare)
The plural oI modesty or the author's 9e is used with the purpose to identiIy oneselI with
the audience or society at large. Employing the plural oI modesty the author involves the
reader into the action making him a participant oI the events and imparting the emotions
prevailing in the narration to the reader.
M* ,((r 1e!r "%.-13 "r.e1 M.)) Cr!9-*3 ....) (0r ,!)).(' 0'reC0.$e1 $%e' F
Are 9e ,.'.'/ .' )e"re$F Te-- +e !--3 !'1 -e$ +e "(')(-e *(0. :T%!"7er!*2
The pronoun *(0 is oIten used as an intensiIier in an expressive address or imperative:
50)$ *(0 /( .' !'1 9.'. (Waugh)
Ae$ (0$ ( +* %(0)e3 *(0 ((-3 *(0 .1.($3 *(0 )$0,.1 (-1 ?r.//). (Thackeray)
In the Iollowing sentence the personal pronoun $%e* has a purely expressive Iunction
because it does not substitute any real characters but has a generalising meaning and
indicates some abstract entity. The implication is meant to oppose the speaker and his
interlocutor to this indeIinite collective group oI people.
A-- $%e ,e(,-e -.7e 0) !re 9e3 !'1 e<er*('e e-)e .) $%e*. (Kipling)
Such pronouns as O'e3 >(03 De have two major connotations: that oI 'identiIication' oI the
speaker and the audience and 'generalization' (contrary to the individual meaning).
Note should be made oI the Iact that such pronouns as De3 O'e3 >(0 that are oIten used in a
generalized meaning oI 'a human being' may have a diIIerent stylistic value Ior diIIerent
Speaking oI such English writers as Aldus Huxley, Bertrand Russel and D. H. Lawrence, J.
Miles writes in her book "Style and Proportion": The power oI Huxley's general ONE is
closer to Russel's WE than to Lawrence's YOU though all are talking about human nature.
She points out that scientists like Charles Darwin, Adam Smith and many others write using
ONE much in the same way as Huxley does.
She maintains that it is not merely the subject oI writing but the attitude, purpose and sense
oI verbal tradition that establish these distinctions in expression (41).
Employed by the author as a means oI speech characterisation the overuse oI the I pronoun
testiIies to the speaker's complacency and egomania while *(0 or ('e used in reIerence to
oneselI characterise the speaker as a reserved, selI-controlled person. At the same time the
speaker creates a closer rapport with his interlocutor and achieves empathy.
H >(0 "!' !-9!*) 60.-1 !'($%er .+!/e (r *(0r)e- $( !-- .' -(<e 9.$%. H N(3 *(0 "!'8$.
T%!$8) $%e $r(06-e3 *(0 -()e $%e "!,!".$* (r 60.-1.'/. >(0 r0' )%(r$ ( $%e )$0 $%!$ "re!$e)
6e!0$.0- .--0).('). (Priestly)
When the speaker uses the third person pronoun instead oI I or 9e he or she sort oI looks at
oneselI Irom a distance, which produces the eIIect oI estrangement and generalization. Here
is an example Irom Katherine MansIield's diary provided in Arnold's book C
(4, C. 187).
@ 1( '($ 9!'$ $( 9r.$e4 @ 9!'$ $( -.<e. D%!$ 1(e) )%e +e!' 6* $%!$F @$8) %!r1 $( )!*.
Possessive pronouns may be loaded with evaluative connotations and devoid oI any
grammatical meaning oI possession.
D!$"% 9%!$ *(08re !6(0$3 +* +!'B (Cronin)
>(0r ,re".(0) C%!r-e) (r Fr!'7 (r *(0r )$0,.1 A)%-e*B (Mitchell)
The same Iunction is IulIilled by the absolute possessive Iorm in structures like De--3 *(0
$e-- $%!$ Her+!' ( *(0r) $( +.'1 %.) (9' 60).'e)). (London)
The range oI Ieelings they express may include irony, sarcasm, anger, contempt,
resentment, irritation, etc.
Demonstrative pronouns may greatly enhance the expressive colouring oI the utterance.
T%!$ H9('1er0- /.r-B T%!$ 6e!0$*B T%!$ 9(r-1 ( 9e!-$% !'1 )(".!- ,().$.(' )%e -.<e1 .'B
T%e)e -!9*er)B D('8$ *(0 7'(9 $%e* 1('8$ e!$ ($e'F (Dreiser)
In these examples the demonstrative pronouns do not point at anything but the excitement
oI the speaker.
Pronouns are a powerIul means to convey the atmosphere oI inIormal or Iamiliar
communication or an attempt to achieve it.
@$ 9!) R(6er$ A"7-*3 $%.) /0*3 $%!$ r((+e1 r./%$ 'e;$ $( +e. (Salinger)
C-!9) .'3 *(0 "!$. (Shaw)
Through the Iigurative use oI the personal pronouns the author may achieve metaphorical
images and even create sustained compositional metaphors.
Thus using the personal pronoun )%e instead oI the word "sea" in one oI his best works T%e
O-1 M!' !'1 $%e Se! Ernest Hemingway imparts to this word the category oI Ieminine
gender that enables him to bring the Ieeling oI the old man to the sea to a diIIerent, more
dramatic and more human level.
He !-9!*) $%(0/%$ ( $%e )e! !) 8-! +!r8 9%."% .) 9%!$ ,e(,-e "!-- %er .' S,!'.)% 9%e' $%e*
-(<e %er. S(+e$.+e) $%()e 9%( -(<e %er )!* 6!1
$%.'/) !6(0$ %er 60$ $%e* !re !-9!*) )!.1 !) $%(0/% )%e 9ere ! 9(+!'. (Hemingway)
'n the same book he calls a huge and strong Iish a %eK
He .) ! /re!$ .)% !'1 I +0)$ "('<.'"e %.+3 %e $%(0/%$. @ +0)$ 'e<er -e$ %.+ <!+ %.)
)$re'/$%. (Hemingway)
Such recurrent use oI these pronouns throughout the novel is charged with the message oI
the old man's animating the elemental Iorces oI the sea and its inhabitants and the vision oI
himselI as a part oI nature. In this case the use oI the pronouns becomes a compositional
All in all we can see that pronouns possess a strong stylistic potential that is realized due to
the violation oI the normal links with their object oI reIerence.
G.G.3. !_e albe^`efe anl e`s s`ydes`e^ ]hn^`ecns
The only grammatical category oI the Enghsh adjective today is that oI comparison.
Comparison is only the property oI qualitative and quantitative adjectives, but not oI the
relative ones.
When adjectives that are not normally used in a comparative degree are used with this
category they are charged with a strong expressive power.
Mr). T%(+,)('3 O-1 M!' Fe--(98) %(0)e7ee,er %!1 (0'1 %.+ 1e!1er $%!' ! 1((r'!.-...
This is a vivid example oI a grammatical transposition oI the second type built on the
incongruity oI the lexical and grammatical meanings.
In the Iollowing example the unexpected superlative adjective degree Iorms lend the
sentence a certain rhythm and make it even more expressive:
....$ee' +.--.(') ( 9(r7er)3 0'1er)$((1 $( 6e $%e )$r!'/e)$3 $%e "0'H'.'/e)$3 $%e 9.--.'/e)$
(0r E!r$% e<er %!1. (Skrebnev)
The commercial Iunctional style makes a wide use oI the violation oI grammatical norms to
captivate the reader's attention:
T%e (r!'/e+()$e)$ 1r.'7 .' $%e 9(r-1.
The transposition oI other parts oI speech into the adjective creates stylistically marked
pieces oI description as in the Iollowing sentence:
A "!+(0-!/e ( /e'er!- )00)e !'1 1.r$*H=e!'e1 1r!6'e)) "(<er) e<er*6(1* !'1 9e +er/e
.'$( $%e 6!"7/r(0'1. (Marshall)
The use oI comparative or superlative Iorms with other parts oI speech may also convey a
humorous colouring:
He 9!) $%e +()$ +!rr.e1 +!' 68<e e<er +e$. (Arnold)
Another stylistic aspect oI the adjective comes to the Iore when an adjective gets
substantivized and acquires the qualities oI a noun such as "solid, Iirm, tangible, hard," etc.
A-- E0r(,e 9!) .' !r+)3 !'1 E'/-!'1 9(0-1 =(.'. T%e .+,()).6-e %!1 %!,,e'e1.
The stylistic Iunction oI the adjective is achieved through the deviant use oI the degrees oI
comparison that results mostly in grammatical metaphors oI the second type (lexical and
grammatical incongruity).
The same eIIect is also caused by the substantivized use oI the adjectives.
G.G.Q. !_e feHa anl e`s s`ydes`e^ IHcIeH`ees
The verb is one oI the oldest parts oI speech and has a very developed grammatical
paradigm. It possesses more grammatical categories that any other part oI speech. All
deviant usages oI its tense, voice and aspect Iorms have strong stylistic connotations and
play an important role in creating a metaphorical meaning. A vivid example oI the
grammatical metaphor oI the Iirst type (Iorm transposition) is the use oI 'historical present'
that makes the description very pictorial, almost visible.
T%e -e$$er 9!) re"e.<e1 6* ! ,er)(' ( $%e r(*!- !+.-*. D%.-e re!1.'/ .$ )%e 9!)
.'$err0,$e13 %!1 '( $.+e $( %.1e .$ !'1 9!) (6-./e1 $( ,0$ .$ (,e' (' $%e $!6-e. A$ $%.) e'$er)
$%e M.'.)$er D... He )ee) $%e -e$$er !'1 /0e))e) %er )e"re$. He .r)$ $!-7) $( %er (' 60).'e))3
$%e' $!7e) (0$ ! -e$$er r(+ %.) ,("7e$3 re!1) .$3 ,0$) .$ 1(9' (' $%e $!6-e 'e!r $%e ($%er
-e$$er3 $!-7) (r )(+e +(re +.'0$e)3 $%e'3 9%e' $!7.'/ -e!<e3 $!7e) $%e r(*!- -!1*8) -e$$er
r(+ $%e $!6-e .')$e!1 ( %.) (9'. T%e (9'er ( $%e -e$$er )!9 .$3 9!) !r!.1 $( )!* !'*$%.'/
(r $%ere 9ere ($%er ,e(,-e .' $%e r((+. ()
The use oI 'historical present' pursues the aim oI joining diIIerent time systems - that oI the
characters, oI the author and oI the reader all oI whom may belong to diIIerent epochs. This
can be done by making a reader into an on-looker or a witness whose timeIrame is
synchronous with the narration. The outcome is an eIIect oI empathy ensured by the
correlation oI diIIerent time and tense systems.
The combination and uniIication oI diIIerent time layers may also be achieved due to the
universal character oI the phenomenon described, a phenomenon that is typical oI any
society at any time and thus make the reader a part oI the events described.
Various shades oI modality impart stylistically coloured expressiveness to the utterance.
The Imperative Iorm and the Present IndeIinite reIerred to the Iuture render determination,
as in the Iollowing example:
E19!r13 -e$ $%ere 6e !' e'1 ( $%.). @ /( %(+e. (Dickens)
The use oI )%!-- with the second or third person will denote the speaker's emotions,
intention or determination:
@ $%ere8) ! 1.),0$e1 1e".).('3 %e )!.1 /e'.!--*3 $%e* )%!-- r!"e !/!.'. (Waugh)
T%e ,r.Ie) )%!-- )$!'1 !+('/ $%e 6!'7 ( -(9er). (Waugh)
Similar connotations are evoked by the emphatic use oI 9.-- with the Iirst person pronoun:
H A1!+. Are *(0 $./%$ !/!.'F
H L((7 (0$ ( $%e 9.'1(9 !'1 )ee . *(0 "!' )ee ! D!.+-er 9!.$.'/. H A1!+3 9%!$ &a-! *(0
6ee' 1(.'/F @ 9.-- 6e $(-1. (Waugh)
Likewise continuous Iorms do not always express continuity oI the action and are
Irequently used to convey the emotional state oI the speaker. Actually ah 'exceptions to the
rule' are not really exceptions. They should be considered as the Iorms in the domain oI
stylistic studies because they are used to proclaim the speaker's state oI mind, his mood, his
intentions or Ieelings.
So continuous Iorms may express:
conviction, determination, persistence:
De--3 )%e8) 'e<er "(+.'/ %ere !/!.'3 @ $e-- *(0 $%!$ )$r!./%$4 (Maugham)
impatience, irritation:
H @ 1.1'8$ +e!' $( %0r$ *(0.
H >(0 1.1. >(08re 1(.'/ '($%.'/ e-)e4 (Shaw)
surprise, indignation, disapproval:
D(+e' 7.-- +e. T%e* !re !-9!*) -e!<.'/ $%e.r /(11!+ 6!/) (0$ .' $%e +.11-e ( $%e !.)-e.
Present Continuous may be used instead oI the Present IndeIinite Iorm to characterize the
current emotional state or behaviour:
H H(9 .) C!r(-F
H ?-((+.'/3 C%!r-e* )!.1. S%e .) 6e.'/ )( 6r!<e. (Shaw)
>(0 !re 6e.'/ <er* !6)0r13 L!0r!3 %e )!.1 "(-1-*. (MansIield)
Verbs oI physical and mental perception do not regularly have continuous Iorms. When
they do, however, we observe a semi-marked structure that is highly emphatic due to the
incompatible combination oI lexical meaning and grammatical Iorm.
D%*3 *(0 +0)$ 6e $%e !+(0) C!,$!.' ?0$-er 9e %!<e 6ee' %e!r.'/ )( +0"% !6(0$ H $%e
6-("7!1e r0''er. (Mitchell)
@ +0)$ )!* *(08re 1.)!,,(.'$.'/ +e3 +* 1e!r e--(9. (Berger)
The use oI non-Iinite Iorms oI the verb such as the inIinitive and participle I in place oI the
personal Iorms communicates certain stylistic connotations to the utterance.
Consider the Iollowing examples containing non-Iinite verb Iorms: E;,e"$ Le( $( ,r(,()e
$( %erB (Lawrence)
The real meaning oI the sentence is @$8) %!r1 $( 6e-.e<e $%!$ Le( 9(0-1 ,r(,()e $( %erB
De!$%B T( 1e".1e !6(0$ 1e!$%B (Galsworthy)
The implication oI this sentence reads He "(0-1'8$ 1e".1e !6(0$ 1e!$%B
T( $!7e )$e,)B H(9F D.'.re18) !!.r 9!) 6!1 e'(0/%B T( %!<e ! 1(06-e 1()e ( ,06-.".$*
.' $%e !+.-*B (Galsworthy)
The meaning oI this sentence could be rendered as He +0)$ $!7e )(+e )$e,) $( !<(.1 !
1(06-e 1()e ( ,06-.".$* .' $%e !+.-*B
F!r 6e .$ r(+ %.+ $( !)7 !$er Re.'%!r$8) 0',re"e1e'$e1 /e$0, !'1 e'<.r('). (Berger)
Such use oI the verb 6e is a means oI character sketching: He 9!) '($ $%e 7.'1 ( ,er)(' $(
!)7 )0"% C0e)$.(').
Since the sentences containing the inIinitive have no explicit doer oI the action these
sentences acquire a generalized universal character. The world oI the personage and the
reader blend into one whole as iI the question is asked oI the reader (what to do, how to
act). This creates empathy. The same happens when participle I is used impersonally:
T%e 9%(-e $%.'/ .) ,re,()$er(0) H ,re,()$er(0)B S-.'/.'/ !""0)!$.(') -.7e $%.)B (Christie)
?0$ @ $e-- *(0 $%ere +0)$ 6e )(+e +.)$!7e. S,-e'1(r $!7.'/ 1(,eB @$8) r.1."0-(0). He .) !
'('"%e+."!- ,%*).".!'3 !+('/ ($%er $%.'/). (Berger)
The passive voice oI the verb when viewed Irom a stylistic angle may demonstrate such
Iunctions as extreme generalisation and deperson-alisation because an utterance is devoid oI
the doer oI an action and the action itselI loses direction.
...%e .) ! -('/H$.+e ".$.Ie' !'1 $( 6e $r0)$e1... (Michener)
L.$$-e Me;."(3 $%e !re! 9!) "!--e1 "('$e+,$0(0)-*3 !) )!1 !'1 .-$%* ! "(--e"$.(' (
19e--.'/) !) %!1 e<er 6ee' !--(9e1 $( e;.)$ .' $%e 9e)$. (Michener)
The use oI the auxiliary 1( in aIIirmative sentences is a notable emphatic device:
@ 1('8$ 9!'$ $( -((7 !$ S.$!. @ )., +* "(ee !) -('/ !) ,()).6-e. T%e' @ 1( -((7 !$ %er !'1
)ee $%!$ !-- $%e "(-(0r %!) -e$ %er !"e3 )%e .) e!r0--* ,!-e. (Erdrich)
So the stylistic potential oI the verb is high enough. The major mechanism oI creating
additional connotations is the transposition oI verb Iorms that brings about the appearance
oI metaphors oI the Iirst and second types.
G.G.6. A]]eVa`ecn anl e`s eVIHessefeness
Unlike Russian the English language does not possess a great variety oI word-Iorming
In Russian we have a very developed system oI aIIixes, with evaluative and expressive
meanings: diminutive, derogatory, endearing, exaggerating, etc.
Consider such a variety oI adjectives Y\X_ H Y\XM^`W_ H Y\a^`W_ H Y\XbM^`W_4
[X^V_ H [X^VM\Q_ H [X^V]cW_3 RLMdHLYM_VW_4 RXa_ H RXa\QM^`W_ H
RXa^`W_. There are no morphological equivalents Ior these in English.
We can Iind some evaluative aIIixes as a remnant oI the Iormer morphological system or as
a result oI borrowing Irom other languages, such as: 9e!7-.'/3 ,./-e$3 r.<0-e$3 /.r-.e3
-!+67.'3 7.$"%e'e$$e.
Diminutive suIIixes make up words denoting small dimensions, but also giving them a
caressing, jocular or pejorative ring.
These suIIixes enable the speaker to communicate his positive or negative evaluation oI a
person or thing.
The suIIix H.!'@He!' means 'like someone or something, especially connected with a
particular thing, place or person', e. g. $%e ,reHT(-)$(*!' '(<e-. It also denotes someone
skilled in or studying a particular subject: ! %.)$(r.!'.
The connotations this suIIix may convey are positive and it is Irequently used with proper
names, especially Iamous in art, literature, music, etc. Such adjectives as M(I!r$e!'3
S7!7e),e!re!'3 D!/'er.!' mean -.7e M(I!r$3 S%!7e),e!re3 D!/'er or in that style.
However some oI these adjectives may possess connotations connected with common
associations with the work and liIe oI Iamous people that may have either positive or
negative colouring. For instance The Longman Dictionary oI the English Language and
Culture gives such
deIinitions oI the adjective Dickensian: suggesting Charles Dickens or his writing, e. g. a
the old-Iashioned, unpleasant dirtiness oI Victorian England: M()$ 1e,0$.e) 9(r7 $9( $( !'
(."e .' ! ),!"e ( D."7e').!' /r.+'e)). a the cheerIulness oI Victorian amusements and
customs: ! re!- D."7e').!' C%r.)$+!).
The suIIix H.)% is not merely a neutral morpheme meaning a small degree oI quality like
6-0e H 6-0.)%3 but it serves to create 'delicate or tactIul' occasional evaluative adjectives -
6!-1.)%3 10--.)%3 6.//.)%. Another meaning is 'belonging or having characteristics oI
somebody cH something'.
Most dictionaries also point out that H.)% may show disapproval :)e-.)%3 )'(66.)%3 r!.)%2
and oIten has a derogatory meaning indicating the bad qualities oI something or quahties
which are not suitable to what it describes (e.g. +!''.)% in relation to a woman).
Another suIIix used similarly isHe)C0e3 indicating style, manner, or distinctive character:
!r!6e)C0e3 R(+!'e)C0e. When used with the names oI Iamous people it means 'in the
manner or style oI this particular person'. Due to its French origin it is considered bookish
and associated with exquisite elevated style. Such connotations are implied in adjectives
like D!'$e)C0e3 T0r'ere)C0e3 G!7!e)C0e.
Most Irequently used suIIixes oI the negative evaluation are: H!r13 H)$er3 H!)$er3 Heer or halI-
aIIix H+('/er3 1r0'7!r13 )"!'1!-H+('/er3 6-!"7H+!r7e$eer3 +(6)$er.
Considering the problem oI expressive aIIixes diIIerentiation should be made between
negative aIIixes such as .'H3 0'H3 .rH3 RRH3 etc. :0'6e'1.'/3 .rre/0-!r3 '('H,r(.$2 and
evaluative derogatory aIIixes. Evaluative aIIixes with derogatory connotations demonstrate
speaker's attitude to the phenomenon while negative aIIixes normally represent objects and
phenomena that are either devoid oI some quality or do not exist at all (e. g. a '('H,r(.$
(r/!'.I!$.(' has mostly positive connotations).
All these examples show that stylistic potentials oI grammatical Iorms are great enough.
Stylistic analysis oI a work oI art among other things should include the analysis oI the
grammatical level that enables a student to capture the subtle shades oI mood or rhythmical
arrangement or the dynamics oI the composition.
>.?. S/BliC/iD CBF/aJ
Syntactical categories have long been the object oI stylistic research. There are diIIerent
syntactical means and diIIerent classiIications. The classiIications discussed earlier in this
book demonstrate diIIerent categorization oI expressive means connected with syntax.
However there are a Iew general principles on which most oI the syntactical expressive
means are built. The purpose oI this paragraph is to consider the basic techniques that create
styUstic Iunction on the syntactical level common Ior most styUstic Iigures oI this type and
illustrate them with separate devices.
The major principles at work on the sentence level are
I. The omission or absence oI one or more parts oI the sentence. II. Reiteration (repetition)
oI some parts.
III. The inverted word order.
IV. The interaction oI adjacent sentences.
I, The omission oI the obligatory parts oI a sentence results in ellipsis oI various types. An
elUptical sentence is a sentence with one or more oI the parts leIt out. As a rule the omitted
part can be reconstructed Irom the context. In this case ellipsis brings into relieI typical
Ieatures oI colloquial English casual talk.
The laconic compressed character oI elliptical sentences lends a Ilavour oI liveliness to
colloquial English. In Iiction elliptical sentences have a maniIold stylistic Iunction. First oI
all they help create a sense oI immediacy and local colour. Besides they may add to the
character's make up, they lead to a better understanding oI a mood oI a personage.
D.)% @ 9!) *(0'/ e'(0/% $( 9e!r $%!$ 7.'1 ( $%.'/. O-1er @ /e$ $%e +(re @ -.7e "(-(0r.
De8re 6($% ,re$$* -('/ .' $%e $(($%3 e%F (Waugh)
OIten elliptical sentences are used in represented speech because syntactically it resembles
direct speech. The use oI elliptical sentences in Iiction is not limited to conversation. They
are sometimes used in the author's narration and in the exposition (description which opens
a chapter or a book).
@ re+e+6er '(93 $%!$ S.$!8) 6r!.1 1.1 '($ %0r$. @$ 9!) ('-* )($ !'1 %e!<*3 )+e--.'/ (
C!)$.-e )(!,3 60$ )$.-- @ *e--e1 !) $%(0/% )(+e$%.'/ $err.6-e 9!) %!,,e'.'/. S$(,B Ae$ (B
Le$ /(B ?e"!0)e @ "(0-1'8$ )$!'1 %(9 )$r('/ )%e 9!). (Erdrich)
A variety oI ellipsis in English are one-member nominal sentences. They have no separate
subject and predicate but one main part instead. One-member sentences call attention to the
subject named, to its existence and even more to its interrelations with other objects.
Nominal sentences are oIten used in descriptive narration and in
exposition. The economy oI the construction gives a dynamic rhythm to the passage. One-
member sentences are also common in stage remarks and represented speech.
M!$"%6((7). C(!)$er $r!*). H($e- $(9e-) !'1 9!)%"-($%). He 9!) )e'1.'/ %er $%e )!+,-e)
( 9%!$e<er %e 9!) )e--.'/ !$ $%e $.+e. F0--er 6r0)%e). R!1.( !'$e''!). C!') ( %!.r ),r!*
(r ),e".!- 9('1erH9(r7.'/ -((r "-e!'er). (Erdrich)
Break-in-the narrative is a device that consists in the emotional halt in the middle or
towards the end oI an utterance. Arnold distinguishes two kinds: suppression and
aposiopesis. Suppression leaves the sentence unIinished as a result oI the speaker's
deliberation to do so. The use oI suppression can be accounted Ior by a desire not to
mention something that could be reconstructed Irom the context or the situation. It is just
the part that is not mentioned that attracts the reader's attention. It's a peculiar use oI
emphasis that lends the narration a certain psychological tension.
@ e<er*('e !$ $9e'$* re!-.Ie1 $%!$ %!- %.) -.e 9!) $( 6e -.<e1 !$er (r$*... (Waugh)
Aposiopesis means an involuntary halt in speech because the speaker is too excited or
overwhelmed to continue.
?0$ Mr. Mere1.$%3 E)$%er S.-<er)-ee<e) )!.1 !$ -!)$3 $%e)e ,e(,-e !re %e!$%e')B E)$%er 9!)
$%e +()$ re-./.(0) ( $%e !+.-*. H S0r-* *(0 "!''($ 9.)%... %er <(."e $r!.-e1 (. (RutherIurd)
Decomposition is also built on omission, splitting the sentences into separate snatches. They
are the result oI detachment oI parts oI sentences. This device helps to throw in the eIIect oI
relieI or express
a highly dynamic pace oI narration. Decomposition may be combined with ellipsis.
H.+3 ( !-- $%.'/)B H.+B Ne<erB (Lawrence)
II. Reiteration is never a mechanical repetition oI a word or structure. It is always
accompanied by new connotations. The repetition stresses not the denotative but the
connotative meaning.
The usage area oI reiteration is casual and non-casual speech, prose and poetry.
DiIIerent types oI reiteration may be classiIied on the compositional principle:
Anaphora is the repetition oI the same element at the beginning oI two or more successive
clauses, sentences or verses.
T%e* 9ere ,((r .' ),!"e3 ,((r .' -./%$3 ,((r .' C0.e$3 ,((r .' re,()e3 !'1 ,((r .' $%e
!$+(),%ere ( ,r.<!"* H ,((r .' e<er*$%.'/ $%!$ +!7e) ! +!'8) %(+e %.) "!)$-e. (Cheever)
Framing is an arrangement oI repeated elements at the beginning and at the end oI one or
more sentences that creates a kind oI structural encasement.
He %!1 6ee' /((1 (r +e 9%e' @ 9!) ! "!--(9 !'1 !' ./'(r!'$ *(0$%4 %e 9!) /((1 (r +e
'(9. (Shute)
Anadiplosis is such a Iigure in which a word or group oI wqrds completing a sentence is
repeated at the beginning oI a succeeding sentence. It oIten shows the interaction oI
diIIerent parts oI a paragraph or text.
M* 9.e %!) 6r(9' %!.r3 1!r7 e*e)3 !'1 ! /e'$-e 1.),().$.('. ?e"!0)e ( %er /e'$-e
1.),().$.('3 @ )(+e$.+e) $%.'7 $%!$ )%e ),(.-) $%e "%.-1re'. (Cheever)
Epiphora consists in the repetition oI certain elements at the end oI two or more successive
clauses, sentences or paragraphs.
Tr(06-e .)3 @ 1('8$ 7'(9 . @ 9!'$ ! 60).'e)) (r '($. Or e<e' . @ "!' ,!* (r .$3 . @ 1.1 9!'$
.$. (Shute)
III. Inversion is upsetting oI the normal order oI words, which is an important Ieature oI
By changing the logical order this device helps to convey new shades oI meaning. The
denotative meaning is the same but the emotive colouring is diIIerent.
Galperin describes Iive types oI inversion that are connected with the Iixed syntactical
position oI the sentence members. Each type oI inversion produces a speciIic stylistic
eIIect: it may render an elevated tone to the narration:
O 6ee"%e' /ree'3 !'1 )%!1(9) '0+6er-e))3
S.'/e)$ ( )0++er .' 0--H$%r(!$e1 e!)e.
@ 9.-- +!7e +* 7.$"%e'3 !'1 *(0 9.-- 7ee, *(0r r((+3 D%ere 9%.$e -(9) $%e r.<er !'1
6r./%$ 6-(9) $%e 6r((+.
- or make it quick-paced and dynamic: @' %e /($ !'1 !9!* $%e* 9e'$. (Waugh)
?!'/ 9e'$ P%.-6r."78) re<(-<er. O $r($$e1 $%e 6(*) (' !'($%er r!"e. (Waugh)
Sometimes inversion may contribute to the humorous eIIect oI the description or speech
T( +!r"% !6(0$ *(0 9(0-1 '($ -.7e 0)F )0//e)$e1 $%e )$!$.('+!)$er3 (Waugh)
IV. Interaction oI adjacent sentences is a compositional syntactical technique.
One oI the major emphatic means is the use oI parallel constructions. They are similarly
built and used in close succession. It is a variety oI repetition on the level oI a syntactical
model. Parallel constructions more than anything else create a certain rhythmical
arrangement oI speech. The sameness oI the structure stresses the diIIerence or the
similarity oI the meaning. Sometimes parallel constructions assume a peculiar Iorm and the
word order oI the Iirst phrase is inverted in the second. The resulting device is called
chiasmus. It is oIten accompanied by a lexical repetition:
T%e* %!1 -(<e1 %er3 !'1 )%e %!1 -(<e1 $%e+. (Caldwell)
D(r7 H 9(r7 H 9(r7B
Fr(+ 9e!r* "%.+e $( "%.+eB
D(r7 H 9(r7 H 9(r7
A) ,r.)('er) 9(r7 (r "r.+eB
?!'13 !'1 /0))e$3 !'1 )e!+
Se!+3 !'1 /0))e$3 !'1 6!'1...
The climax is such an arrangement oI a series oI clauses or phrases that Iorm an ascending
scale, in which each oI the sentences is stronger in intensity oI expression than the previous
De8re '."e ,e(,-e !'1 $%ere .)'8$ /(.'/ $( 6e r((+ (r '."e ,e(,-e !'* +(re. @$8) e'1e13 .$8)
!-- (<er3 .$8) 1e!1. (Cheever)
Another device is the anticlimax, also called back gradation, which is a Iigure oI speech that
consists in an abrupt and oIten ludicrous descent, which contrasts with the previous rise.
The descent is oIten achieved by the addition oI a detail that ruins the elevated tenor oI the
previous narration.
Its main stylistic Iunction is to give the thought an unexpected humorous or ironic twist.
@ %!$e !'1 1e$e)$ e<er* 6.$ ( .$3 )!.1 Pr(e))(r S.-e'0) /r!<e-*. N($%.'/ @ %!<e e<er 1('e
%!) "!0)e1 +e )( +0"% 1.)/0)$. D.$% ! 1ee, )./% %e r()e r(+ $%e $!6-e !'1 9!-7e1 r(+
$%e r((+3 $%e (r7 9.$% 9%."% %e %!1 6ee' e!$.'/ )$.-- %e-1 .' %.) %!'1. (Waugh)
E. What are the basic principles oI stylistic grammar? How does grammatical metaphor
correlate with lexical metaphor?
1. What is the essence oI the grammatical gradation theory? Describe the types oI
grammatical transposition and provide your own examples to illustrate each type.
3. Consider the Iollowing sentences and comment on the Iunction oI morphological
grammatical categories and parts oI speech that create stylistic Iunction:
O'e './%$ @ a. 'ta$3$2 .' r('$ ( M.'1*8) re)$!0r!'$ (' ?r(!19!*3 $%.'7.'/ (
,r!"$."!--* '($%.'/ 9%!$e<er3 9%e' !-- ( ! )011e' @ ee- ! <er* $err.6-e ,!.' .' +* -e$ (($.
@$8) /((13 t&at, $( )ee *(0 !/!.'3 Mr. P%.-.,3 )!.1 5.+. (Caldwell)
E!r$% "(-(0r) !re %.) $%e+e. D%e' %e )%(9) 0, !$ $%e 1((r3 9e )ee $%!$ %e8) e<e' 3r!''$2
.' $%e+. H.) ,!'$) !re /re*. H.) )%.r$ .) $%e )!+e "(-(0r !) %.) )7.'. F-e)% "(-(0r. (Erdrich)
?#0, $%e A'1(rr!') 9ere ! 6r!<e3 9!r-.7e ,e(,-e "e'$0r.e) !/(3 !) e<er*6(1* 9!) !$ ('e
$.+e (r !'($%er H (r e;!+,-e3 $!7e /#)r A))*r.!')3 9%( !re '(9 e;$.'"$4 (r /#)r S9e1e)3
9%( (0/%$ .' $%e T%.r$* >e!r)8 D!r 60$ %!<e'8$ 1('e +0"% ).'"e e;"e,$ -.e .' $%e )0' !'1
$0r' 6r(9'... (Berger)
A /!0'$ !'1 <a11#0!!$'& /r.' 9!) ,-!)$ere1 $( %er !"e. (Erdrich)
@ 9!-7e1 ,!)$ Mr). S%0+9!*3 9%( =er7e1 %er %e!1 !r(0'1 .' ! )$!r$-e1 0##3,!c;!r'&
9!*... (Erdrich)
S%e8) t&! H('(0r!6-e Mr). ?e)$eHC%e$9*'1e3 *(0 7'(9 H ).)$erH.'H-!9 ( L(r1 P!)$+!)$er H
! <er* 9e!-$%* 9(+!'3 S(0$% A+er."!'. (Waugh)
...$%ere !re $9( 7.'1) ( ,e(,-e3 9%."% 9e +!* "!-- $%e &)rt!r' !'1 $%e &)rt!!'. T%e .r)$
/e$ $%e.r )!$.)!"$.(' 6* 9(r7.'/ $%e.r 9.-- (' )(+e6(1* e-)e. T%e )e"('1 -.7e $( 6e .+,()e1
0,('. (Burger)
T( %e!r %er 9!) t# 4! 4!2$$$2 $( 1e),!.r. (Jarrell)
?0$ $%e* 1(+!'!/e $%e 60.-1.'/F Mr). D(06-e1!* )!.1 $( %.+. (Cheever)
A 6!'1 .'1ee1B >(08 11 4! &a-$2 .re9(r7) 'e;$. (Waugh)
@ )$!re 1(9' !$ $%e 6r./%$ (r!'/e "!,)0-e)... @ %!<e $( -.)$e'... )( 0! 1##; at !ac& #t&!r, 0,
!'1 1(9'3 !'1 0, !'1 1(9'... D.$%(0$ 0)3 t&!/ 'a/, 9.$%(0$ L(.)e3 .$8) $%e )$!$e %(),.$!-.
A%B T%!$ +0)$ 6e A0'$ A0/0)$!. O'-* re-!$.<e)3 (r "re1.$(r)3 e<er r.'/ .' $%!$ Aa2$!ra$
+!''er. (Wilde)
@ /($ '($%.'/ !/!.')$ 5(e C%!,.'3 60$ %e8) '($ +e. @8+ +e3 !'1 a$#t&!r +!' .) )$.-- a$#t&!r
+!'. (O'Hara)
T%!$8) '($ t&! Mr. L.$$-e=(%' @ 0)e1 $( 7'(9. (Waugh)
@ ,r('(0'"e $%!$ $%e )e'$e'"e (' $%e 1ee'1!'$)3 N(e--e P!/e !'1 L!9re'"e D(0/-!)3 '&a11
6e e;e"0$.(' 6* ! .r.'/ )C0!1. (Sheldon)
T%e* ar! !-- 4!$2 )( (r+!-. Le$8) ,-!* ! /!+e $( 6re!7 $%e ."e. (Bell)
@ 9('1ere1 %(9 $%e M(r(""!' 6(*... "(0-1 )$!'1 +ee7-* !).1e !'1 9!$"% %er /( ( 9.$%
!'($%er +!'.
Dct#r', @ $%(0/%$. T%e* +0)$ 1.<.1e $%e+)e-<e) .'$( "(+,!r$+e'$). (Shaw)
O%3 @ /0e)) @ -(<e *(03 @ 3# -(<e $%e "%.-1re'3 60$ @ -(<e +*)e-3 @ -(<e +* -.e3 .$ %!) )(+e
<!-0e !'1 )(+e ,r(+.)e (r +e... (Cheever)
I!t %.+ )!* %.) ,.e"e3 t&! 1!r-.'/. @)'8$ %e 1.<.'eF (Waugh)
@$ 'e<er 9!) $%e .'1.<.10!- )(0'1) ( ! -!'/0!/e3 60$ $%e +e-(1.e) 6e%.'1 $%e+3 $%!$ Dr.
R()e'6!0+ .+.$!$e1. F(r $%e)e %.) e!r 9!) :#Jarta$. (Jarrell)
T%e* !re !--(9e1 $( %!<e $%e $r!.' )$(,,e1!$ e<er* "r())Hr(!1)... (Atkinson)
4. Arrange syntactical expressive means described in Galperin's classiIication into Iour
groups according to the major principles oI stylistic syntax in addition to the illustrations
given in the chapter above.
5. IdentiIy syntactical stylistic devices used in the examples below and comment on their
meaning in the context:
@ )%(0-1 %!<e 6r(0/%$ 1(9' ! +(re !$$r!"$.<e 1re)). T%.) ('e3 9.$% .$) 9%.$e ,e$!-) /('e
10-- .' $%e )%(9er )$e!+3 9.$% .$) 6e-$ ( -!<e'1er !'1 ,r."7-.'/ -!"e !$ e!"% ,0-)e ,(.'$3 @
1('8$ -.7e. (Erdrich)
@ 6e/.' +* 9.'1)%.e-1H9.,er 9!<e3 !) .')$r0"$e1 6* (0r /*+ $e!"%er3 9%( %!) 6ee' !
"('$e)$!'$ (r M.)) N(r$% D!7($!. ?!"7 !'1 (r$% <er* )-(9-*. S+.-e3 )+.-e3 )+.-e. (Erdrich)
E;"e,$ (r $%e 9(r7 .' $%e C0!rr.e)3 -.e !$ E/1(' 9!) !-+()$ $%e )!+e !) !$ ?-!"7)$('e.
8S-(,) (0$).1e38 "%!,e-3 ,r.<!"*. (Waugh)
$ 9!) (r $%.) re!)(' $%e re"$(r %!1 )( !6=e"$-* "0r-e1 0,3 )$.-- )( !6=e"$-* "0r-e1 0, 6e(re
S%eH9%(H9!) C*'$%.!K 6e"!0)e ( %.) )-!<e8) e!r ( %er "('$e+,$3 $%e "('$e+,$ ( ! 6(r'H
ree '!$0re (r ! 6!)eH6(r' '!$0re. (Lawrence)
T%e 9!r1er r!'/ $%e 6e-- H @').1e3 *(0 $9(B %e )%(0$e1. (Waugh)
H O-1 +!'3 M.-e) )!.1 !+.!6-*3 . @ +!* )!* )(3 @ $%.'7 *(08re +.)).'/ $%e ,(.'$.
H @ @ +!* )!* )(3 ).r3 P%.-.,,e )!.13 @ $%.'7 @ !+ +.)).'/ '($%.'/. D%!$ .) $%e ,(.'$F (Shaw)
>(0 !)7e1 +e 9%!$ @ %!1 /(.'/ $%.) $.+e. D%!$ @ %!<e /(.'/ .) 9.'e. D.$% $%e 9!* $%e
9(r-18) 1r.'7.'/ $%e)e 1!*)3 6e.'/ .' 9.'e .) -.7e %!<.'/ ! -."e')e $( )$e!-. (Shaw)
H(9 7.'1 ( *(03 A-re1B S%e %!) !)7e1 !6(0$ *(03 !'1 e;,re))e1 %er .'$e'$.(' H %er
.'$e'$.('3 . *(0 ,-e!)eB H $( 7'(9 *(0. (Caldwell)
D%e' ('e .) .' $(9' ('e !+0)e) ('e)e-. D%e' ('e .) .' $%e "(0'$r* ('e !+0)e) ($%er
,e(,-e. (Wilde)
H T%ere !re -($) ( $%.'/) @ 9!'$e1 $( 1( H @ 9!'$e1 $( "-.+6 $%e M!$$er%(r' 60$ @ 9(0-1'8$
6-!+e $%e !"$ $%!$ @ %!<e'8$ (' !'*('e e-)e.
H >(0. C-.+e $%e M!$$er%(r'. H!. >(0 "(0-1'8$ e<e' "-.+6 $%e D!)%.'/$(' M('0+e'$.
T%ere 9!) '( O-/!. @ %!1 '( "(')(-!$.('. T%e' @ e-$ 1e),er!$e3 1e)(-!$e3 "r0)%e1.
H >(0 /e$ "(-13 r.1.'/ ! 6."*"-eF %e !)7e1.
H M* %!'1)B )%e )!.1 "-!),.'/ $%e+ 'er<(0)-*. (Lawrence)
@ $%e +!' %!1 6ee' r./%$e'.'/ 6e(re3 %e 9!) '(9 ! ,ere"$ %(rr(r. (Berger)
M* 1e!r e--(93 $%e 9!* *(0 -.r$ 9.$% A9e'1(-e' .) ,ere"$-* 1.)/r!"e0-. @$ .) !-+()$ !)
6!1 !) $%e 9!* A9e'1(-e' -.r$) 9.$% *(0. (Wilde)
Tr(06-e .)3 @ 1('8$ 7'(9 . @ 9!'$ ! 60).'e)) (r '($. Or e<e' . @ "!' ,!* (r .$3 . @ 1.1 9!'$
.$. (Shute)
A +!' %!) ! r./%$ $( /e$ +!rr.e1 !'1 %!<e "%.-1re'3 !'1 @81 e!r'e1 $%e r./%$ $( %!<e ! 9.e3
6($% .' 9(r7 !'1 +('e*. A +!'8) /($ ! r./%$ $( -.<e .' %.) (9' ,-!"e. A +!' %!) ! r./%$ $(
+!7e %.) -.e 9%ere %e "!' -((7 !$er %.) D!1 !'1 M0+ ! 6.$ 9%e' $%e* /e$ (-1. (Shute)
...!-re!1* 9e 9ere (,er!$.'/ .<e !.r"r!$ ( (0r 1.ere'$ $*,e)3 !'1 .
9e /($ ! Tr!+, 9e )%(0-1 %!<e ).; !.r"r!$ ( .<e $*,e)...
A Tr!+, .$ 9(0-1 %!<e $( 6e3 !'1 @ $(-1 $%e+ ( +* +('e* 1.."0-$*.
D!+re* P%('/3 $%(0/% %e!-$%*3 .) ! %0+.1 ,-!"e. (Shute)
He8) +!1e %.) 1e"-!r!$.('. He -(<e) +e. He "!'8$ -.<e 9.$%(0$ +e. He81 9!-7 $%r(0/% .re $(
%e!r $%e '($e) ( +* <(."e. (Cheever)
T%!$8) $%e ((-e)$ $%.'/ @ e<er %e!r1. (Berger)
+hapter 4
The Theory of Functional Styles
!_e nc`ecn c] s`yde $n ]hn^`ecnad s`ydes`e^s. %cHHeda`ecn c] s`ydeA ncHm anl ]hn^`ecn en
`_e danihaie. #anihaie faHee`ees> HeiecnadA sc^eadA c^^hIa`ecnad. An cfeHfeev c]
]hn^`ecnad s`yde sys`ems. kes`en^`efe denihes`e^ ]ea`hHes c] `_e mabcH ]hn^`ecnad s`ydes c]
?.=. N.I FG/iGF GE C/BlI iF E!FD/iGFal C/BliC/iDC
The notion oI style has to do with how we use the language under speciIic circumstances
Ior a speciIic purpose. The notion oI using English, Ior instance, involves much more than
using our knowledge oI its linguistic structure. It also involves awareness oI the numerous
situations in which English can be used as a special medium oI communication with its own
set oI distinctive and recognizable Ieatures. The various branches oI linguistics that
investigate the topic, such as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, pragmatics, discourse
analysis, textlinguistics, and stylistics present a remarkable range oI methodologies and
emphases. We'll be interested in how stylistic research treats oI the subject.
Linguistic literature gives various deIinitions oI the notion 'style' that generally boil down to
the Iollowing three meanings oI this term:
A variety oI the national language traditionally used in one oI the socially identiIiable
spheres oI liIe that is characterised by a particular set oI linguistic Ieatures, including
vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation. These are chieIly associated with the social and
regional varieties, such as educated, colloquial, low colloquial, dialectal, uneducated, etc.
From this point oI view the most broad and well known subdivision in many national
languages today usually describes these varieties as 'e0$r!-3 -.$er!r* :%./%2 and "(--(C0.!-
:-(92K e.g. Cockney, upper-class, educated English.
Generally accepted linguistic identity oI oral and written units oI discourse, such as public
speech, a lecture, a Iriendly letter, a newspaper article, etc. Such units demonstrate style not
only in a special choice oI linguistic means but in their very arrangement, i. e. composition
oI a speech act, that creates a category oI text marked by oratory, scientiIic, Iamiliar or
pubhcist style.
Individual manner oI expression determined by personal Iactors, such as educational
background, proIessional experience, sense oI humour, etc.: e.g. personal style oI
communication, the style oI Pushkin's early poetry.
Style is our knowledge how language is used to create and interpret texts and conversational
interactions. It involves being aware oI the range oI situations in which a language can be
used in a distinctive and predictable way and oI the possibilities available to us when we
want to produce or respond to creative uses oI the language.
Stylistic Ieatures relate to constraints on language use that may be only temporary Ieatures
oI our spoken or written language. We oIten adopt diIIerent group uses oI language as we
go through our day; we may use a diIIerent style speaking with our children in the Iamily,
reporting to our boss at work or practicing sports. We change our speaking or writing style
to make a particular eIIect: imitating somebody's accent when telling a story, giving a
humorous account oI events in an inIormal letter and so on. Style is Iirst and Ioremost the
result oI our choice oI content oI our message and the appropriate range oI language means
to deliver the message eIIectively.
Uses oI English in numerous situations that require deIinite stylistic Ieatures are studied by
the theory oI Iunctional styles.
This theory involves consideration oI such notions as norm and Iunction in their relation to
?.@. TGIla/iGF GE C/BlIR FGm aFL E!FD/iGF iF /.I laFO!aOI
Any national language uses the notion oI 'correct language' which involves conIormity to
the grammatical, lexical and phonetic standards accepted as normative in this society. The
Iavoured variety is usually a version oI the standard written language, especially as
encountered in literature or in the Iormal spoken language that most closely reIlects litterary
style. It is presented in dictionaries, grammars and other oIIicial manuals. Those who speak
and write in this way are said to be using language 'correctly', those who do not are said to
be using it 'incorrectly'. Correct usage is associated with the notion oI the linguistic norm.
The norm is closely related to the system oI
the language as an abstract ideal system. The system provides and determines the general
rules oI usage oI its elements, the norm is the actual use oI these provisions by individual
speakers under speciIic conditions oI communication.
Individual use oI the language implies a personal selection oI linguistic means on aU levels.
When this use conIorms to the general laws oI the language this use wiU coincide with
what is called the literary norm oI the national language.
However the literary norm is not a homogeneous and calciIied entity. It varies due to a
number oI Iactors, such as regional, social, situational, personal, etc.
The norm will be dictated by the social roles oI the participants oI communication, their age
and Iamily or other relations. An important role in the selection oI this or that variety oI the
norm belongs to the purpose oI the utterance, or its Iunction. InIormal language on a Iormal
occasion is as inappropriate as Iormal language on an inIormal occasion. To say that a
usage is appropriate is only to say that it is perIorming its Iunction satisIactorily. We shall
use diIIerent 'norms' speaking with elderly people and our peers, teachers and students,
giving an interview or testimony in court. This brings us to the notion oI the norm variation.
The norm oI the language implies various realisations oI the language structure that are
sometimes called its subsystems, registers or varieties.
I. V. Arnold presents these relations as a system oI oppositions:
Structure : : norm : : individual use National norm : : dialect
Neutral style : : colloquial style : : bookish style Literary correct speech : : common
Functional styles are subsystems oI the language and represent varieties oI the norm oI the
national language. Their evolution and development has been determined by the speciIic
Iactors oI communication in various spheres oI human activity. Each oI them is
characterised by its own parameters in vocabulary usage, syntactical expression,
phraseology, etc.
The term 'Iunctional style' reIlects peculiar Iunctions oI the language in this or that type oI
communicative interaction. Proceeding Irom the generally acknowledged language
Iunctions ProI. I. V. Arnold suggested a description oI Iunctional styles based on the
combination oI the linguistic Iunctions they IulIil.

colloquial ,
poetic , ,
, ,
oIIicial , , ,
scientiIic , , , ,
The table presents Iunctional styles as a kind oI hierarchy according to the number oI
Iunctions IulIilled by each style, oratorical and scientiIic being almost complete opposites.
4.3. Language varieties: regional, social, occupational
However not all texts have boundaries that are easy to identiIy in the use oI distinctive
language. For example, the oratorical style has a lot. oI common Ieatures with the publicist
one, which in its turn is oIten comparable with the style oI humanities, such as political
science, history or philosophy.
The point oI departure Ior discerning Iunctional styles is the so-called neutral style that is
stylistically non-marked and reIlects the norms oI the language. It serves as a kind oI
universal background Ior the expression oI stylistically marked elements in texts oI any
Iunctional type. It can be rarely observed in the individual use oI the language and as
Skrebnev remarked, perhaps, only handbooks Ior Ioreigners and primers could be qualiIied
as stylistically neutral (47, p. 22).
?.>. UaFO!aOI KaiI/iIC:
IOiGFalR CGDialR GDD!0a/iGFal
The particular set oI Ieatures, which identiIies a language variety, does not represent the
Ieatures oI the language as a whole. Variety Ieatures depend on the presence oI certain
Iactors in a social situation. ClassiIications oI these Iactors vary, but we may group them
into two types according to most general dimensions: sociolinguistic and stylistic Iactors.
Sociolinguistic Iactors are connected with very broad situational constraints on language
use. They chieIly identiIy the regional and social varieties oI the language. They are
relatively permanent Ieatures oI the spoken and written language, over which we have
comparatively little conscious control. We tend not to change our regional or social
group way oI speaking in every-day communication and usually we are not aware oI using
Stylistic Iactors relate to restrictions on language use that are much more narrowly
constrained, and identiIy individual preIerences in usage (phraseology, special vocabulary,
language oI literature) or the varieties that are associated with occupational groups
(lawyers, journalists, scholars). These are Ieatures, over which we are able to exercise some
degree oI conscious control.
As David Crystal, a Iamous British linguist puts it, regional language variation oI English
provides a geographical answer to the question 'Where are you Irom, in the English-
speaking world?'
Social language variation provides an answer to a somewhat diIIerent question 'Who are
you?' or 'What are you in the eyes oI the English-speaking society to which you belong?'
(33, p. 393). Actually social variation provides several possible answers, because people
may acquire several identities as they participate in the social structure. One and the same
person may belong to diIIerent social groups and perIorm diIIerent social roles. A person
may at the same time be described as 'a parent', 'a wiIe', 'an architect', 'a Ieminist', 'a senior
citizen', 'a member oI Parliament', 'an amateur sculptor', 'a theatre-goer'; the possibIIities
may be endless.
Any oI these identities can have consequences Ior the kind oI language we use. Language
more than anything else will testiIy to our permanent and temporary roles in social liIe.
Some Ieatures oI social variation lead to particular linguistic consequences. In many ways
our pronunciation, choice oI words and constructions, general strategy oI communication
are deIined by the
age, sex and socio-economic aspects. Choice oI occupation has a less predictable inIluence,
though in some contexts, e. g. medicine or law it can be highly distinctive.
Adopting a speciIic social role, such as making a congratulatory speech or conducting a
panel talk, invariably entails a choice oI appropriate linguistic Iorms.
Across the world attitudes to social variation diIIer a lot. All countries display social
stratiIication, though some have more clearly deIined boundaries than others and thereIore
more distinct Ieatures oI class dialect. Britain is usually said to be linguistically more class-
conscious than other English-speaking countries.
For example, in England one accent has traditionally dominated over all others and the
notion oI respectable social standing is usually associated with Received Pronunciation
(RP), considered to be the 'prestige accent'.
However today with the breakdown oI rigid divisions between social classes and the
development oI mass media RP is no longer the prerogative oI social elite. Today it is best
described as an 'educated' accent which actually has several varieties. Most educated people
have developed an accent, which is a mixture oI RP and various regional Ieatures that
sometimes is called 'modiIied RP'.
This is one example that shows a general trend in modern English-regionally modiIied
speech is no longer stigmatised as 'low', it can even be an advantage, expressing such social
values as solidarity and democracy. A pure RP accent, by contrast can even evoke hostility,
especially in those parts oI Britain that have their own regional norms, e. g. Scotland and
Occupational varieties oI the national language are normally associated with a particular
way oI earning a living. They belong to the group oI stylistically determined varieties and
diIIer Irom both regional and social sublanguages.
Features oI language that identiIy people's geographical or social origins, once established
can hardly change over a short period oI time. It would be very diIIicult to change your
accent iI you move Irom one part oI the country to another with a diIIerent regional norm; it
is equally diIIicult to transIorm the linguistic indicators oI our social background
(vocabulary and structural expression).
Occupational varieties are not like that. Their linguistic Ieatures may be just as distinctive
as regional or social Ieatures, but they are only in temporary use. They 'go with the territory'
- adopted as we begin work and given up as we Iinish it. People who cannot stop 'talking
shop' even when they are not at work are rather an exception to the rule.
Any proIessional Iield could serve as an illustration oI occupational linguistic identity.
There are no class distinctions here. Factory workers have to master a special glossary oI
technical terms and administrative vocabulary :)e'.(r.$* -!6e-)3 $er+ ( )er<."e3 )e<er!'"e
,!*3 r.'/e 6e'e.$)3 )!e$* re/0-!$.('2 in order to carry out proIessional communication. To
IulIil their tasks they develop jargon and proIessional slang, which set them apart Irom
outsiders. The more specialised the occupation and the more senior or proIessional the
position the more technical the language. Also, iI an occupation has a long-lasting and
Iirmly established tradition it is likely to have its own linguistic rituals which its members
accept as a criterion oI proIiciency. The highly distinctive languages oI law, government
and religion provide the clearest cases, with their unique grammar,
vocabulary, and patterns oI discourse. OI course, all occupations are linguistically
distinctive to a certain degree. In some cases it involves only special terms; in others it may
be a combination oI linguistic Ieatures on diIIerent levels as will be shown in the last
section oI this chapter.
As has been mentioned beIore there are a great many classiIications oI language varieties
that are called sublanguages, substyles, registers and Iunctional styles that use various
criteria Ior their deIinition and categorisation. The term generally accepted by most Russian
scholars is Iunctional styles. It is also used in this course. A Iew classiIications oI the
Iunctional styles in modern English will be considered in this chapter.
Books by $. R. +adIeHen on English Stylistics (1958, 1971, 1977) are among most
acknowledged sources oI stylistic research in this country.
Galperin distinguishes 5 Iunctional styles and suggests their subdivision into substyles in
modern English according to the Iollowing scheme:
E. !_e [eddesJ#e``Hes `yde>
a) poetry;
b) emotive prose;
c) the language oI the drama.
1. \hade^es` `yde>
a) oratory and speeches;
b) the essay;
c) articles.
G. *evsIaIeH `yde>
a) brieI news items;
b) headlines;
c) advertisements and announcements;
d) the editorial.
3. ^een`e]e^ \Hcse `yde.
Q. !_e `yde c] &]]e^ead lc^hmen`s>
a) business documents;
b) legal documents;
c) the language oI diplomacy;
d) military documents.
ProI. Galperin diIIers Irom many other scholars in his views on Iunctional styles because he
includes in his classiIication only the written variety oI the language. In his opinion style is
the result oI creative activity oI the writer who consciously and deliberately selects
language means that create style. Colloquial speech, according to him, by its very nature
will not lend itselI to careIul selection oI linguistic Ieatures and there is no stylistic intention
expressed on the part oI the speaker. At the same time his classiIication contains such
varieties oI publicist style as oratory and speeches. What he actually means is probably not
so much the spoken variety oI the language but spontaneous colloquial speech, a viewpoint
which nevertheless seems to give ground Ior debate. As we pointed out in sections two and
three oI this chapter individual speech, oral variety included, is always marked by stylistic
Ieatures that show the
speaker's educational, social and proIessional background. Moreover we always assume
some socially determined role and consciously choose appropriate language means to
perIorm it and achieve the aim oI communication.
Scholars' views vary on some other items oI this classiIication. There is no unanimity about
the belles-lettres style. In Iact Galperin's position is not shared by the majority. This notion
comes under criticism because it seems rather artiIicial especiaUy in reIerence to modern
prose. It is certainly true that many works oI Iiction may contain emotionally coloured
passages oI emotive writing that are marked by special image-creating devices, such as
tropes and Iigures oI speech. These are typically Iound in the author's narrative, lyrical
digressions, expositions, descriptions oI nature or reIlections on the characters' emotional or
mental state.
At the same time many writers give an account oI external events, social liIe and reproduce
their characters' direct speech. Sometimes they quote extracts Irom legal documents,
newspapers items, advertisements, slogans, headlines, e. g. K. Vonnegut, J. Dos Passos, etc.
which do not belong to beUes-lettres style in its traditional meaning.
As a matter oI Iact, in modern works oI Iiction we may encounter practicaUy any Iunctional
speech type imaginable. So most other classiIications do not distinguish the language oI
Iiction as a separate style.
In 1960 the book "Stylistics oI the English Language" by q. k. KuIc-netz and Y. q.
kHeanef appeared. The book was a kind oI brieI outline oI stylistic problems. The styles
and their varieties distinguished by these authors included:
E. #e`eHaHy cH [cckes_ `yde>
a) publicist style;
b) scientiIic (technological) style;
c) oIIicial documents.
1. 'Hee tC%cddcrheadCo `yde>
a) literary colloquial style;
b) Iamiliar colloquial style.
As can be seen Irom this classiIication, both poetry and imaginative prose have not been
included (as non-homogeneous objects) although the book is supplied with a chapter on
Next comes the well-known work by I, V. Arnold "Stylistics oI Modern English" (decoding
stylistics) published in 1973 and revised in 1981. Some theses oI this author have already
been presented in this chapter (i. e. those that concern the notions oI norm, neutrality and
Iunction in their stylistic aspect). Speaking oI Iunctional styles, Arnold starts With the a
kind oI abstract notion termed 'neutral style'. It has no distinctive Ieatures and its Iunction is
to provide a standard background Ior the other styles. The other 'real' styles can be broadly
divided into two groups according to the scholar's approach: diIIerent varieties oI colloquial
styles and several types oI literary bookish styles.
E. %cddcrhead `ydes>
a) literary colloquial;
b) Iamiliar colloquial;
c) common colloquial.
1. #e`eHaHy [cckes_ `ydes>
a) scientiIic;
b) oIIicial documents;
c) publicist (newspaper);
d) oratorical;
e) poetic.
This system presents an accurate description oI the many social and extralinguistic Iactors
that inIluence the choice oI speciIic language Ior a deIinite communicative purpose. At the
same time the inclusion oI neutral style in this classiIication seems rather odd since unlike
the others it's non-existent in individual use and should probably be associated only with the
structure oI the language.
One type oI sublanguages suggested by Arnold in her classiIication - publicist or newspaper
- Iell under the criticism oI Skrebnev who argues that the diversity oI genres in newspapers
is evident to any layman: along with the "leader" (or editorial) the newspaper page gives a
column to political observers, some space is taken by sensational reports; newspapers are
oIten Iull oI lengthy essays on economics, law, morals, art, etc. Much space is also given to
miscellaneous news items, local events; some papers publish sequences oI stories or novels;
and most papers sell their pages to advertising Iirms. This enumeration oI newspaper genres
could go on and on. ThereIore, Skrebnev maintains, we can hardly speak oI such Iunctional
style at all.
OI course Arnold is quite aware oI the diversity oI newspaper writings. However what she
really means is the newspaper material speciIic oI the newspaper only: political news,
police reports, press reviews, editorials.
In a word, newspaper style should be spoken oI only when the materials that serve to
inIorm the reader are meant. Then we can speak oI distinctive style - Iorming Ieatures
including a special choice
oI words, abundance oI international words, newspaper cliches and nonce words, etc.
It should be noted however that many scholars consider the language oI the press as a
separate style and some researchers even single out newspaper headlines as a Iunctional
One oI the relatively recent books on stylistics is the handbook by A. N. qcHck_cfsky and
his co-authors &. \. ncHcaycfaA *. $. #ekJncs_eHs` anl Z. n. !emcs_enkc "Stylistics oI
the English language" published in Kiev in 1984. In the Iinal chapter oI the book "Stylistic
DiIIerentiation oI Modern English" a concise but exhaustive review oI Iactors that should
be taken into account in treating the problem oI Iunctional styles is presented. The book
suggests the Iollowing style classes:
E. &]]e^ead ahseness s`yde.
1. ^een`e]e^JIHc]essecnad s`yde.
G. \hade^es` s`yde.
3. #e`eHaHy ^cddcrhead s`yde.
Q. 'amedeaH ^cddcrhead s`yde.
Each style, according to Morokhovsky has a combination oI distinctive Ieatures. Among
them we Iind oppositions like 'artistic - non-artistic', 'presence oI personality - absence oI
it', 'Iormal - inIormal situation', 'equal - unequal social status' (oI the participants oI
communication), 'written or oral Iorm'. Morokhovsky emphasizes that these Iive classes oI
what he calls "speech activity" are abstractions rather than realities, they can seldom be
observed in their pure Iorms: mixing styles is the common practice.
On the whole Morokhovsky's concept is one oI the Iew that attempt to diIIerentiate and
arrange the taxonomy oI cardinal linguistic notions. According to Morokhovsky's approach
language as a system includes types oI thinking diIIerentiating poetic and straightIorward
language, oral and written speech, and ultimately, bookish and colloquial Iunctional types
oI language. The next problem is stylistics oI 'speech activity' connected with social
stereotypes oI speech behaviour. Morokhovsky deIines this in the Iollowing way:
"Stereotypes oI speech behaviour or Iunctional styles oI speech activity are norms Ior wide
classes oI texts or utterances, in which general social roles are embodied - poet, journalist,
manager, politician, scholar, teacher, Iather, mother, etc." (15, p. 234).
The number oI stereotypes (Iunctional styles) is not unlimited but great enough. For
example, texts in oIIicial business style may be administrative, juridical, military,
commercial, diplomatic, etc. Still Iurther diIIerentiation deals with a division oI texts into
genres. Thus military texts (oIIicial style) comprise 'commands, reports, regulations,
manuals, instructions'; diplomatic documents include 'notes, declarations, agreements,
treaties', etc. In addition to all this we may speak oI 'the individual style' with regard to any
kind oI text.
In the same year (1984) V. A. Maltzev published a smaller book on stylistics entitled
"Essays on English Stylistics" in Minsk.
His theory is based on the broad division oI lingual material into "inIormal" and "Iormal"
varieties and adherence to Skrebnev's system oI Iunctional styles.
\Hc]. kHeanef uses the term sublanguages in the meaning that is usually attributed to
Iunctional styles. The major diIIerence in his use oI this term is that he considers
innumerable situational communicative
products as sublanguages, including each speaker's idiolect. Each act oI speech is a
sublanguage. This makes the notion oI Iunctional style somewhat vague and diIIicult to
deIine. At the same time Skrebnev recognizes the major opposition oI 'Iormal' and
'inIormal' sphere oI language use and suggests "a very rough and approximate gradation oI
subspheres and their respective sublanguages" (47, p. 200).
The Iormal sublanguages in Skrebnev's opinion belong exclusively to the written variety oI
lingual intercourse. He avoids the claim oI inconsistency Ior including certain types oI
speeches into this sphere by arguing that texts oI some oI the types can be read aloud in
His rough subdivision oI Iormal styles includes:
a) private correspondence with a stranger;
b) business correspondence between representatives oI commercial or other establishments;
c) diplomatic correspondence, international treaties;
d) legal documents (civil law - testaments, settlements; criminal law - verdicts, sentences);
e) personal documents (certiIicates, diplomas, etc.).
The inIormal colloquial sphere includes ah types oI colloquial language - literary, non-
literary, vulgar, ungrammatical, social dialects, the vernacular oI the underworld, etc. This
cannot be inventoried because oI its unlimited varieties.
OI course Iormal and inIormal spheres do not exist in severely separated worlds.
The user oI the Iirst speech type is Iully aware oI his social responsibility. He knows the
requirements he has to meet and the conventions he
must observe. But the same person may change his lingual behaviour with the change oI the
environment or situation. Sometimes he is Iorced to abide by laws that are very diIIerent
Irom those he regularly uses: speaking with children, making a speech beIore parliament or
during an electoral campaign.
The Iirst type oI speech - 'Iormal' - comprises the varieties that are used in spheres oI
oIIicial communication, science, technology, poetry and Iiction, newspaper texts, oratory,
etc. It's obvious that many oI these varieties can be Iurther subdivided into smaller classes
or sublanguages. For example, in the sphere oI science and technology almost each science
has a metalanguage oI its own. The language oI computer technology, e. g., is not so limited
to the technological sphere as at the time oI its beginnings - 'to be computer-Iriendly' has
given rise to many other coinages like 'media-Iriendly', 'market-Iriendly', 'envhonmentally
Iriendly', etc.
In the inIormal type oI speech we sh n't Iind so many varieties as in the Iormal one, but it is
used by a much greater number oI people. The Iirst and most important inIormal variety is
colloquial style. This is the language used by educated people in inIormal situations. These
people may resort to jargon or slang or even vulgar language to express their negative
attitude to somebody or something.
Uneducated people speak "popular" or ungrammatical language, be it English or Russian.
There is also a problem oI dialects that would require special consideration that cannot be
done within this course. Dialects are not really "ungrammatical" types oI a national
language, some scholars hold, but a diIIerent language with its own laws. However
it may have been true in the last century but not now. And what Skrebnev writes on this
problem seems to be argumentative enough.
"Dialects are current in the countryside; cities are nearly untouched by them. In the 19th
century England some oI the aristocracy were not ashamed oI using their local dialects.
Nowadays owing to the sound media (radio, cinema and TV) non-standard English in
Britain is nearly, as in this country, a sure sign oI cultural inIeriority, e. g. the status oI
Cn." (47, p. 198).
In his classiIication oI Iunctional styles oI modern English that he calls language varieties
the Iamous British linguist D. Crystal suggests the Iollowing subdivision oI these styles:
regional, social, occupational, restricted and individual. (33, 34)
geiecnad faHee`ees oI English reIlect the geographical origin oI the language used by the
speaker: Lancashire variety, Canadian English, Cockney, etc.
c^ead faHea`ecns testiIy to the speaker's Iamily, education, social status background: upper
class and non-upper class, a political activist, a member oI the proletariat, a T.+e) reader,
&^^hIa`ecnad s`ydes present quite a big group that includes the Iollowing types:
a) religious English;
b) scientiIic English;
c) legal English;
d) plain (oIIicial) English;
e) political English;
I) news media English Iurther subdivided into:
ges`He^`el )nides_ includes very tightly constrained uses oI language when little or no
linguistic variation is permitted. In these cases special rules are created by man to be
consciously learned and used. These rules control everything that can be said. According to
Crystal restricted varieties appear both in domestic and occupational spheres and include
the Iollowing types:
a) knitwrite in books on knitting;
b) cookwrite in recipe books;
c) congratulatory messages;
d) newspaper announcements;
e) newspaper headlines;
I) sportscasting scores;
g) airspeak, the language oI air traIIic control;
h) emergencyspeak, the language Ior the emergency services;
i) e-mail variety, etc.
$nlefelhad faHea`ecn involves types oI speech that arise Irom the speaker's personal
diIIerences meaning such Ieatures as physique, interests, personality, experience and so on.
A particular blend oI
social and geographical backgrounds may produce a distinctive accent or dialect.
Educational history, occupational experience, personal skills and tastes, hobbies or literary
preIerences will Ioster the use oI habitual words and turns oI phrase, or certain kinds oI
grammatical construction.
Also noticeable will be Iavourite discourse practices - -a tendency to develop points in an
argument in a certain way, or an inclination Ior certain kinds oI metaphor. Some people are
'good conversationalists', 'good story-tellers', 'good letter-writers', 'good speech-makers'.
What actually makes them so is the subject oI stylistic research.
There are also a number oI cases where individuality in the use oI English - a personal style
- is considered to be a matter oI particular importance and worthy oI study in its own right.
Such is the study oI the individual style oI a writer or poet: Shakespeare's style, Faulkner's
style, and the like.
?.;. MiC/iFD/iKI liFO!iC/iD EIa/!IC GE /.I maXG E!FD/iGFal C/BlIC
A description oI Iive major Iunctional styles given in this section is based on their most
distinctive Ieatures on each level oI the language structure: pnonetical (where possible),
morphological, syntactical, lexical and compositional. A peculiar combination oI these
Ieatures and special emphasis on some oI them creates the paradigm oI what is called a
scientiIic or publicist text, a legal or other oIIicial document, colloquial or Iormal speech.
4.5.1. #e`eHaHy ^cddcrhead s`yde
%ho"etic $eatures
Standard pronunciation in compliance with the national norm, enunciation.
Phonetic compression oI Irequently used Iorms, e.g. .$8)3 1('8$3 F<e.
Omission oI unaccented elements due to the quick tempo, e. g. *(0 7'(9 %.+ F
-orpho)ogica) $eatures
Use oI regular morphological Ieatures, with interception oI evaluative suIIixes e. g. 1e!r*3
1(//.e3 10"7.e.
Sy"tactica) $eatures
Use oI simple sentences with a number oI participial and inIinitive constructions and
numerous parentheses.
Syntactically correct utterances compliant with the literary norm.
Use oI various types oI syntactical compression, simplicity oI syntactical connection.
Prevalence oI active and Iinite verb Iorms.
Use oI grammar Iorms Ior emphatic purposes, e. g. progressive verb Iorms to express
emotions oI irritation, anger etc.
Decomposition and ellipsis oI sentences in a dialogue (easily reconstructed Irom the
Use oI special colloquial phrases, e.g. $%!$ r.e'1 ( *(0r). (e&ica) $eatures
Wide range oI vocabulary strata in accordance with the register oI communication and
participants' roles: Iormal and inIormal, neutral and bookish, terms and Ioreign words.
Basic stock oI communicative vocabulary - stylistically neutral.
Use oI socially accepted contracted Iorms and abbreviations, e. g. r.1/e (r rer./er!$(r3
."e (r ."eH"re!+3 TU (r $e-e<.).('3 CD (r "(+,!"$ 1.)73 etc.
Use oI etiquette language and conversational Iormulas, such as '."e $( )ee *(03 +*
,-e!)0re3 (' 6e%!- (3 etc.
Extensive use oI intensiIiers and gap-Iillers, e.g. !6)(-0$e-*3 1e.'.$e-*3 !90--*3 7.'1 (3 )(
$( ),e!73 @ +e!'3 . @ +!* )!* )(.
Use oI interjections and exclamations, e. g. De!r +e3 M* A(13 A((1'e))3 9e--3 9%*3 '(93
Extensive use oI phrasal verbs -e$ )6 1(9'3 ,0$ 0, 9.$%3 )$!'1 )6 0,. Use oI words oI
indeIinite meaning like $%.'/3 )$0. Avoidance oI slang, vulgarisms, dialect words, jargon.
Use oI phraseological expressions, idioms and Iigures oI speech.
+opositio"a) $eatures
Can be used in written and spoken varieties: dialogue, monologue, personal letters, diaries,
essays, articles, etc.
Prepared types oI texts may have thought out and logical composition, to a certain extent
determined by conventional Iorms (letters, presentations, articles, interviews).
Spontaneous types have a loose structure, relative coherence and uniIormity oI Iorm and
4.5A1. 'amedeaH ^cddcrhead s`yde
Represented in spoken variety.
%ho"etic $eatures
Casual and oIten careless pronunciation, use oI deviant Iorms, e. g. /(''! instead oI /(.'/
$(3 9%!$"%! instead oI 9%!$ 1( *(03 10''( instead oI 1('8$ 7'(9.
Use oI reduced and contracted Iorms, e.g. *(08re3 $%e*8<e3 @81.
Omission oI unaccented elements due to quick tempo, e.g. *(0 %e!r +eF
Emphasis on intonation as a powerIul semantic and styUstic instrument capable to render
subtle nuances oI thought and Ieeling. -
Use oI onomatopoeic words, e.g. 9%(()%3 %0)%3 )$(, *(1e--.'/3 *0+3 *!7.
-orpho)ogica) $eatures
Use oI evaluative suIIixes, nonce words Iormed on morphological and phonetic analogy
with other nominal words: e. g. 6!-1.)%3 +!97.)%3 +((1*3 %!'7*H,!'7*3 %e-$erH)7e-$er3
,-!$e) ( +ee$ :ee$23 (7e*1(7e3
Extensive use oI collocations and phrasal verbs instead oI neutral and literary equivalents:
e.g. $( $0r' .' instead oI $( /( $( 6e1.
Sy"tactica) $eatures
Use oI simple short sentences.
Dialogues are usually oI the question-answer type.
Use oI echo questions, parallel structures, repetitions oI various kinds.
In complex sentences asyndetic coordination is the norm.
Coordination is used more oIten than subordination, repeated use oI conjunction !'1 is a
sign oI spontaneity rather than an expressive device.
Extensive use oI ellipsis, including the subject oI the sentence e.g. C!'8$ )!* !'*$%.'/.
Extensive use oI syntactic tautology, e. g. T%!$ /.r-3 )%e 9!) )(+e$%.'/ e-)eB
Abundance oI gap-Iillers and parenthetical elements, such as )0re3 .'1ee13 $( 6e +(re e;!"$3
(7!*3 9e--.
(e&ica) $eatures
Combination oI neutral, Iamiliar and low colloquial vocabulary, including slang, vulgar and
taboo words.
Extensive use oI words oI general meaning, speciIied in meaning by the situation /0*3 =(63
/e$3 1(3 .;3 !!.r.
Limited vocabulary resources, use oI the same word in diIIerent meanings it may not
possess, e. g. 8)(+e8 +e!'.'/ /((1K )(+e /0*B )(+e /!+eB 8'."e8 +e!'.'/ .+,re)).<e3
!)".'!$.'/3 %./% C0!-.$*K '."e +0).".
Abundance oI speciIic colloquial interjections: 6(*3 9(93 %e*3 $%ere3 !%(*.
Use oI hyperbole, epithets, evaluative vocabulary, trite metaphors and simile, e.g. . *(0 )!*
.$ ('"e +(re @8-- 7.-- *(03 !) (-1 !) $%e %.--)3 %(rr.13 !9e)(+e3 etc.
Tautological substitution oI personal pronouns and names by other nouns, e.g. *(0H6!6*3
Mixture oI curse words and euphemisms, e. g. 1!+'3 1!)%3 1!r'e13 )%(($.
+opositio"a) $eatures
Use oI deviant language on all levels.
Strong emotional colouring.
Loose syntactical organisation oI an utterance.
Frequently little coherence or adherence to the topic. No special compositional patterns.
4.Q.G. \hade^es` tmeleao s`yde
%ho"etic $eatures .i" oratory/
Standard pronunciation, wide use oI prosody as a means oI conveying the subtle shades oI
meaning, overtones and emotions.
Phonetic compression. -orpho)ogica) $eatures
Frequent use oI non-Iinite verb Iorms, such as gerund, participle, inIinitive.
Use oI non-perIect verb Iorms.
Omission oI articles, link verbs, auxiliaries, pronouns, especially in headlines and news
Sy"tactica) $eatures
Frequent use oI rhetorical questions and interrogatives in oratory speech.
In headlines: use oI impersonal sentences, elliptical constructions, interrogative sentences,
inIinitive complexes and attributive groups.
In news items and articles: news items comprise one or two, rarely three, sentences.
Absence oI complex coordination with chain oI subordinate clauses and a number oI
Prepositional phrases are used much more than synonymous gerundial phrases.
Absence oI exclamatory sentences, break-in-the narrative, other expressively charged
Articles demonstrate more syntactical organisation and logical arrangement oI sentences.
(e&ica) $eatures
Newspaper cliches and set phrases.
Terminological variety: scientiIic, sports, political, technical, etc. Abbreviations and
Numerous proper names, toponyms, anthroponyms, names oI enterprises, institutions,
international words, dates and Iigures.
Abstract notion words, elevated and bookish words.
In headlines: Irequent use oI pun, violated phraseology, vivid stylistic devices.
In oratory speech: words oI elevated and bookish character, colloquial words and phrases,
Irequent use oI such stylistic devices as metaphor, alliteration, allusion, irony, etc. Use oI
conventional Iorms oI address and trite phases. Compositional Ieatures
Text arrangement is marked by precision, logic and expressive power. CareIully selected
vocabulary. Variety oI topics.
Wide use oI quotations, direct speech and represented speech.
Use oI parallel constructions throughout the text.
In oratory: simplicity oI structural expression, clarity oI message, argumentative power.
In headlines: use oI devices to arrest attention: rhyme, pun, puzzle, high degree oI
compression, graphical means.
In news items and articles: strict arrangement oI titles and subtitles, emphasis on the
CareIul subdivision into paragraphs, clearly deIined position oI the sections oI an article:
the most important inIormation is carried in the opening paragraph; oIten in the Iirst
4.5.4. !_e s`yde c] c]]e^ead lc^hmen`s
Morphological Ieatures
Adherence to the norm, sometimes outdated or even archaic, e. g. in legal documents.
Syntactical Ieatures
Use oI long complex sentences with several types oI coordination and subordination (up to
70 oI the text).
Use oI passive and participial constructions, numerous connectives.
Use oI objects, attributes and all sorts oI modiIiers in the identiIying and explanatory
Extensive use oI detached constructions and parenthesis.
Use oI participle I and participle II as openers in the initial expository statement.
A general syntactical mode oI combining several pronouncements into one sentence.
InIormation texts are based on standard normative syntax reasonably simpliIied.
Lexical Ieatures
Prevalence oI stylistically neutral and bookish vocabulary.
Use oI terminology, e. g. legal: !"C0.$$!-3 $e)$.+('*3 !//r!<!$e1 -!r"e'*4 commercial:
!1<!'"e ,!*+e'$3 .')0r!'"e3 9%(-e)!-e3 etc.
Use oI proper names (names oI enterprises, companies, etc.) and titles.
Abstraction oI persons, e. g. use oI ,!r$* instead oI the name. OIIicialese vocabulary:
cliches, opening and conclusive phrases.
Conventional and archaic Iorms and words: 7.')+!'3 %ere(3 $%ere$(3 $%ere6*3 .-7.
Foreign words, especially Latin and French: )$!$0) C0(3 (r"e +!=e0re3 ,er)('! RR /r!$!.
Abbreviations, contractions, conventional symbols: M. P. :+e+6er ( P!r-.!+e'$23 L$1
:-.+.$e123 e3 etc.
Use oI words in their primary denotative meaning.
Absence oI tropes, no evaluative and emotive colouring oI vocabulary.
Seldom use oI substitute words: .$3 ('e3 $%!$. Compositional Ieatures
Special compositional design: coded graphical layout, clear-cut subdivision oI texts into
units oI inIormation; logical arrangement oI these units, order-oI-priority organisation oI
content and inIormation.
Conventional composition oI treaties, agreements, protocols, etc.: division into two parts, a
preamble and a main part.
Use oI stereotyped, oIIicial phraseology.
Accurate use oI punctuation.
Generally objective, concrete, unemotional and impersonal style oI narration.
4.5.5. ^een`e]e^$a^aleme^ s`yde Morphological Ieatures
Terminological word building and word-derivation: neologism Iormation by aIIixation and
Restricted use oI Iinite verb Iorms.
Use oI 'the author's we' instead oI I.
Frequent use oI impersonal constructions.
Syntactical Ieatures
Complete and standard syntactical mode oI expression.
Syntactical precision to ensure the logical sequence oI thought and argumentation.
Direct word order.
Use oI lengthy sentences with subordinate clauses. Extensive use oI participial, gerundial
and inIinitive complexes. Extensive use oI adverbial and prepositional phrases. Frequent
use oI parenthesis introduced by a dash. Abundance oI attributive groups with a descriptive
PreIerential use oI prepositional attributive groups instead oI the descriptive ( phrase.
Avoidance oI ellipsis, even usually omitted conjunctions like 'that' and 'which'.
Prevalence oI nominal constructions over the verbal ones to avoid time reIerence Ior the
sake oI generalisation.
Frequent use oI passive and non-Iinite verb Iorms to achieve objectivity and impersonality.
Use oI impersonal Iorms and sentences such as +e'$.(' )%(0-1 6e +!1e3 .$ "!' 6e .'erre13
!))0+.'/ $%!$3 etc.
(e&ica) $eatures
Extensive use oI bookish words e. g. ,re)0+e3 .'er3 ,re"('"e,$.('3 "(/'.$.<e.
Abundance oI scientiIic terminology and phraseology.
Use oI words in their primary dictionary meaning, restricted use oI connotative contextual
Use oI numerous neologisms.
Abundance oI proper names.
Restricted use oI emotive colouring, interjections, expressive phraseology, phrasal verbs,
colloquial vocabulary.
Seldom use oI tropes, such as metaphor, hyperbole, simile, etc.
+opositio"a) $eatures
Types oI texts compositionally depend on the scientiIic genre: monograph, article,
presentation, thesis, dissertation, etc.
In scientiIic proper and technical texts e.g. mathematics: highly Iormalized text with the
prevalence oI Iormulae, tables, diagrams supplied with concise commentary phrases.
In humanitarian texts (history, philosophy): descriptive narration, supplied with
argumentation and interpretation.
Logical and consistent narration, sequential presentation oI material and Iacts.
Extensive use oI citation, reIerences and Ioot-notes.
Restricted use oI expressive means and stylistic devices.
Extensive use oI conventional set phrases at certain points to emphasise the logical
character oI the narration, e.g. !) 9e %!<e )ee'3 .' "('"-0).('3 .'!--*3 !) +e'$.('e1 !6(<e.
Use oI digressions to debate or support a certain point,
DeIinite structural arrangement in a hierarchical order: introduction, chapters, paragraphs,
Special set oI connective phrases and words to sustain coherence and logic, such as
"(')eC0e'$-*3 (' $%e "('$r!r*3 -.7e9.)e.
Extensive use oI double conjunctions like !)... !)3 e.$%er... (r3 6($%... !'13 etc.
Compositionally arranged sentence patterns: postulatory (at the beginning), argumentative
(in the central part), Iormulative (in the conclusion).
Distinctive Ieatures described above by no means present an exhaustive nomenclature Ior
each type. A careIul study oI each Iunctional style requires investigation oI the numerous
types oI texts oI various genres that represent each style. That obviously cannot be done in
the Iramework oI this course. It is also one oI the reasons why the style oI literature has not
been included in this description. It is hardly worthwhile trying to make any generalizations
about the sphere oI belles-lettres style, which includes such an array oI genres whether in
prose, or poetry, or drama, let alone the peculiar styles oI separate authors.
1. What extralinguistic Iactors are involved in the notion oI style? How do style and
personal Iactors correlate? What styles exist in any national language?
2. What is the literary norm oI a language? What does the term 'a norm variation' imply?
How is each style characterised by the
. Iunction it IulIils?
3. Comment on the sociolinguistic and stylistic Iactors that account Ior the use oI regional,
social, and occupational varieties oI the language.
4. Compare the classiIications oI Iunctional styles in English described in this chapter.
5. IdentiIy the Iunctional style in each oI the texts given below and point out the distinctive
Ieatures that testiIy to its speciIic character.
@@ %!) -('/ 6ee' 7'(9' $%!$ 9%e' e;,()e1 $( -./%$ 0'1er )0.$!6-e "('1.$.(') ( $e+,er!$0re
!'1 +(.)$0re3 $%e /ree' ,!r$) ( ,-!'$) 0)e "!r6(' 1.(;.1e r(+ $%e !$+(),%ere !'1 re-e!)e
(;*/e' $( .$. T%e)e e;"%!'/e) !re $%e (,,().$e ( $%()e3 9%."% (""0r .' re),.r!$.('. T%e
,r("e)) .) "!--e1 ,%($()*'$%e).). @' ,%($()*'$%e).)3 "!r6(%*1r!$e) !re )*'$%e).Ie1 r(+
"!r6(' 1.(;.1e !'1 9!$er 6* $%e "%-(r(,-!)$) ( ,-!'$ "e--) .' $%e ,re)e'"e ( -./%$. O;*/e'
.) $%e ,r(10"$ ( $%e re!"$.('. F(r e!"% +(-e"0-e ( "!r6(' 1.(;.1e 0)e13 ('e +(-e"0-e (
(;*/e' .) re-e!)e1. A )0++!r* "%e+."!- eC0!$.(' (r ,%($()*'$%e).) .)K
O - C
>(0 9!) )%!r,3 9!)'8$ *(03 $( "!$"% +e -.7e $%!$3 e%F ?* A!H!r13 *(0 %!1 +e .;e1 ,r(,er3
,r(,er *(0 %!1. D!r' +e3 *(0 .;e1 +e 0, ,r(,er H ,r(,er3 *(0 1.1.
@ 1('8$ $%.'7 '( 9(r)e ( *(0 (r .$3 '(3 1!r'e1 . @ 1(. F.'e ,-0"7 .' ! 9(+!'8) 9%!$ @
!1+.re. T%!$ @ 1( .'1ee1.
Dee$r(+ $%e )$!r$3 9e 1.1. A'13 +* 9(r13 *(0 6e/.' !/!.' C0."7 $%e +.'0$e *(0 )ee +e3
*(0 1.1. D!+ +e3 *(0 9!) $(( )%!r, (r +e. A 1!r' .'e 9(+!'3 ,0$) 0, ! 1!r' /((1 ./%$.
D!+ +e . @ "(0-1 .'1 ! 9(+!' .' !-- $%e 1!r' S$!$e) !) "(0-1 /e$ +e 1(9' -.7e $%!$.
D('1er0- .'e 9(+!' *(0 6e3 $r0$% $( )!*3 !$ $%.) +.'0$e. (Lawrence)
Aa1>:art t#13 t# ra'! K!r.a$ ,rc!'
D!-HM!r$8) E0r(,e!' e;,!').(' ,-!') )0ere1 $%e.r )e"('1 6-(9 .' ! 9ee7 !) $%e Aer+!'
"(+,e$.$.(' !0$%(r.$* (r1ere1 $%e re$!.-er $( r!.)e 7e* ,r."e) .' .$) Aer+!' %*,er+!r7e$).
Pr$c! t# 4)/ Lrc&M>%N'ta;!
Pr.'"e A-HU!-ee1 ( S!01. Ar!6.! ,-!') $( 60* ! 3.2 ,er "e'$ )$!7e .' $%e ,!* $e-e<.).('
(,er!$.(' ( Aer+!' Le( G.r"%.
Oa,a$!'! 3!4t 3#0$2ra3!3 '!c#$3 t.!
T%e 5!,!'e)e /(<er'+e'$ 9!) )$r0"7 ! %0+.-.!$.'/ 6-(9 9%e' M((1*8)3 $%e US "re1.$
r!$.'/ !/e'"*3 1(9'/r!1e1 5!,!'8) 1(+e)$." "0rre'"* 1e6$ (r $%e )e"('1 $.+e .' $9(
"DP ,rc!' c#$')1ta$c/ at t#, #( ra$2!
SAP3 E0r(,e8) -!r/e)$ )($9!re /r(0,3 .) -.7e-* $( ,r."e )%!re) .' SAP S@3 .$) "(')0-$!'"*3 !$
$%e $(, ( .$) 6((7H60.-1.'/ r!'/e.
*$!1 ')4'3ar/ .)11' 6$(#'tra3a 4)/
E'e-3 @$!-*8) +!.' e-e"$r.".$* 0$.-.$*3 e;,re))e1 )$r('/ .'$ere)$ .' .$) $e-e"(++0'."!$.(')
)06).1.!r*3 D.'13 60*.'/ .$) @$!-.!' .;e1H-.'e r.<!-3 @'()$r!1!.
@' *(0r -e$$er ( P&
0-$.+( *(0 !1<.)e 0) ( $%e ,r(6-e+ ( .'1.'/ )7.--e1 ,er)(''e-. @' $%.)
"(''e"$.(' 9e 9.)% $( )$!$e $%!$ ('-* !6(0$ 12 ,er "e'$ ( )7.--e1 9(r7(r"e .) e'/!/e1 .'
+.'(r .'10)$r.!- !"$.<.$* !))(".!$e1 9.$% )er<.".'/ $%e ".$*8) /r(9$%.
De e'"-()e %ere9.$% ! )"%e10-e ( $%e 9(r7 !'1 $%e 9(r7 ,r(/re)) re,(r$ $%ere(' !'1 9e
9.)% $( )$!$e $%!$ !+('/ "(').1er!$.(') .'-0e'".'/ $%e )e-e"$.(' ( ).$e) .) $%e 1e).re $(
+!.'$!.' re).1e'$.!- !+e'.$*. De 9.)% $( )$!$e $%!$ )e<er!- ),e".!-.Ie1 .'10)$r.e) %!<e 6ee'
e)$!6-.)%e1 .' $er+) ( !r$."-e 3 ( $%e )!.1 "('$r!"$.
E@$ "er$!.'-* .) /re!$ fWr6RBE )!.1 ?!r$-e$$3 )+!"7.'/ %.) -.,) !'1 ,0$$.'/ %.) /-!)) 6!"7
(' $%e $r!*.
E>(0 6e$ .$ .)BE Are/ !/ree1. E@ +e!' *(0 "!'8$ 60* $%!$ 7.'1 ( )$0 !'* +(re. @ +e!' .$8)
re!- )$0. >(0 %e-, *(0r)e- 9%e' *(0 9!'$ !'($%er. Mr. ?!r$-e$$ .) /(.'/ $( )$!* !-- './%$3
)9ee$%e!r$. @ $(-1 %.+ %e "(0-1
/e$ ! 9%(-e -($ +(re ( ! -.'e (' 0) $%!$ 9!* $%!' =0)$ .'$er<.e9.'/ +e .' $%e (."e. @ +e!'
@8+ $('/0eH$.e1 9%e' .$ "(+e) $( $!-7.'/ !6(0$ ./ 9(r7 !'1 +* )0""e)). @ +e!' .$8) 6e$$er
$( )ee +e (0$ %ere !) @ !+. $ +* %(+e3 9.$% +* !+.-*.E
E?0$3 )9ee$%e!r$3E )!.1 %.) 9.e3 E9%!$ !6(0$ Mr. L!$%!+ FE
EA()%B @ (r/($ !-- !6(0$ %.+B @ +0)$ ,%('e !'1 )ee . @ "!' "!-- .$ (.
T%!$8) $err.6-eBE (Lardner)
6. Find texts demonstrative oI each Iunctional type and analyse their distinctive Ieatures on
all levels as described in chapter 4.
+hapter 5
eco!ing Stylistics
an! "ts Fun!amental #otions
`ydes`e^s c] `_e ah`_cH anl c] `_e HealeH. !_e nc`ecns c] en^cleni anl le^cleni.
)ssen`ead ^cn^eI`s c] le^cleni s`ydes`e^ anadyses anl `yIes c] ]cHeiHchnleni.
How oIten with all the theoretical experience oI method accumulated in me over the years
have I stared blankly quite similar to one oI my beginning students at a page that would not
yield its magic.
Le( S,.$Ier. Linguistic and Literary History
u t , gQ t - , x , gQ
t - .
h. iMQ\M\K H
;.=. S/BliC/iDC GE /.I a!/.G aFL GE /.I IaLI. The FG/iGFC GE
Decoding stylistics is the most recent trend in stylistic research that employs theoretical
Iindings in such areas oI science as inIormation theory, psychology, statistical studies in
combination with linguistics, .literary theory, history oI art, literary criticism, etc.
Decoding goes beyond the traditional analysis oI a work oI Iiction which usually gives
either an evaluative explanatory commentary on the historical, cultural, biographical or
geographical background oI the work and its author or suggests a kind oI stylistic analysis
that comprises an inventory oI stylistic devices and expressive means Iound in the text.
Neither oI these approaches seems quite satisIactory. The Iirst kind oI analysis is typically
done by a literary critic and may tend to become an arbitrary or judgmental reIlection oI his
personal esthetic or other preIerences and tastes. Such critiques may be detached Irom the
text and based on the critic's inIerences oI what he conjectures as the author's intention.
Many authors resent critical analysis oI this sort as an attitude but not real evaluation.
The other approach tends to pursue another extreme: a Iormal registration oI the data oI the
text. It divests a work oI art oI its magic and poetry by a pragmatic and statistical treatment
that dissects the text and explains but little.
Decoding stylistics makes an attempt to regard the esthetic value oI a text based on the
interaction oI speciIic textual elements, stylistic devices and compositional structure in
delivering the author's
message. This method does not consider the stylistic Iunction oI any stylistically important
Ieature separately but only as a part oI the whole text. So expressive means and stylistic
devices are treated in their interaction and distribution within the text as carriers oI the
author's purport and creative idiom. By this the stylistic study oI a literary work acquires a
new, semasiological dimension in which the stylistic elements become signs oI the author's
vision oI the world.
Decoding stylistics helps the reader in his or her understanding oI a literary work by
explaining or decoding the inIormation that may be hidden Irom immediate view in speciIic
allusions, cultural or political parallels, peculiar use oI irony or euphemy, etc.
The term 'decoding stylistics' came Irom the application oI the theory oI inIormation to
linguistics by such authors as M. RiIIatrre, R. Ja-cobson, F Guiraud, F. Danes, Y. Lotman,
I. V. Arnold and others.
In a rather simpliIied version this theory presents a creative process in the Iollowing mode.
The writer receives diverse inIormation Irom the outside world. Some oI it becomes a
source Ior his creative work. He processes this inIormation and recreates it in his own
esthetic images that become a vehicle to pass his vision to the addressee, his readers. The
process oI internalizing oI the outside inIormation and translating it into his imagery is
called 'encoding'.
To encode certain inIormation an author resorts to certain means-meaningIul units that are
organized according to certain rules. The salient Ieature oI this inIormation encoded by the
author is called the message.
The process oI encoding will only make any sense iI besides the encoder who sends the
inIormation it includes the recipient or the
addressee who in this case is the reader. The reader is supposed to decode the inIormation
contained in the text oI a literary work.
However to encode the inIormation does not mean to have it delivered or passed intact to
the recipient. There are more obstacles here than meet the eye. In contrast to the writer who
is always concrete the reader who is addressed is in Iact an abstract notion, he is any oI the
thousands oI people who may read this book. This abstract reader may not be prepared or
willing to decode the message or even take it. The reasons are numerous and various.
A literary work on its way to the reader encounters quite a number oI hindrances oI all sorts
- social, historical, temporal, cultural and so on. Many oI these diIIerences between the
author and his reader are inevitable. Readers and authors may be separated by historical
epochs, social conventions, religious and political views, cultural and national traditions.
Moreover, even iI the author and the reader belong to the same society no reader can
completely identiIy himselI with the author either emotionally, intellectually or esthetically.
Apart Irom these objective and personal Iactors we cannot disregard the complexity oI
certain works oI art. Many oI them are quite sophisticated in Iorm and content. Some are
Iull oI implications that create more than one semantic plane and may contain
understatements, semantic accretion, or open-ended composition that makes the reader
waver about the outcome. Others require oI the reader a wide educational thesaurus and
knowledge oI history, philosophy, mythology or religion.
The readers will diIIer not only Irom the author but also Irom each other. They have a
diIIerent liIe experience, educational background, cultural level and tastes
All these Iactors oIten preclude easy decoding and show how diIIicult it is Ior the message
to reach the reader and be appropriately construed by him. The message encoded and sent
may diIIer Irom the message received aIter decoding.
So the result may be a Iailure on either side. The reader may complain that he couldn't
understand what the author wanted to say, while the author may resent being
misinterpreted. A good illustration oI the problem oI mutual understanding is provided in
M. Tsvetaeva's essay "Poets on Critics" in which she maintains that reading is co-creative
work on the part oI the reader iI he wants to understand and enjoy a work oI art. Reading is
not so much a hobby done at leisure as solving a kind oI puzzle. What is reading but
divining, interpreting, unraveling the mystery, wrapped in between the lines, beyond the
words, she writes. So iI the reader has no imagination no book stands a chance (29, p. 274-
From the reader's point oI view the important thing is not what the author wanted to say but
what he managed to convey in the text oI his work.
That's why decoding stylistics deals with the notions oI stylistics oI the author and stylistics
oI the reader.
Decoding stylistics investigates the same levels as linguastylistics - phonetic, graphical,
lexical, and grammatical. The basic diIIerence is that it studies expressive means provided
by each level not as isolated
devices that demonstrate some stylistic Iunction but as a part oI the general pattern
discernible on the background oI relatively lengthy segments oI the text, Irom a paragraph
to the level oI the whole work. The underlying idea implies that stylistic analysis can only
be valid when it takes into account the overall concept and aesthetic system oI the author
reIlected in his writing.
Ideas, events, characters, emotions and an author's attitudes are all encoded in the text
through language. The reader is expected to perceive and decipher these things by reading
and interpreting the text. Decoding stylistics is actually the reader's stylistics that is engaged
in recreating the author's vision oI the world with the help oI concrete text elements and
their interaction throughout the text.
A systematic and elaborate presentation oI decoding stylistics as a branch oI general
stylistics can be Iound in the book oI ProI. Arnold C
. (C ) so here we shall limit ourselves to the
description oI its most general principles and concepts.
One oI the Iundamental concepts oI decoding stylistics is Ioregrounding. The notion itselI
was suggested by the scholars oI the Prague linguistic circle that was Iounded in 1926 and
existed until early 50s. Among its members were some oI the most outstanding linguists oI
the 2#
century, such as N. S. Trubetskoy, S. O. Kartsevsky, R. Jacobson, V. Matezius,
B.Trnka, J.Vachek, V. Skalichka and others (20). The Prague circle represented a trend oI
structural linguistics and developed a number oI ideas and notions that made a valuable
contribution into modern linguistic theory, Ior example, phonology and the theory oI
oppositions, the theory oI Iunctional sentence perspective, the notions oI norm and
codiIication, Iunctional styles and dialectology, etc.
The Prague school introduced into linguistics a Iunctional approach to language. Their
central thesis postulated that language is not a rigorous petriIied structure but a dynamic
Iunctional system. In other words language is a system oI means oI expression that serve a
deIinite purpose in communication. Their views exerted proIound inIluence on stylistic
research in areas oI Iunctional styles study, the norm and its variations in the national
language, as well as the study oI poetic language, i. e. the language oI literature. It was Ior
this latter sphere that the notion oI Ioregrounding was Iormulated.
ProI. Arnold has highlighted various treatments oI the term by diIIerent authors in her book
on decoding stylistics but the essence oI the concept consists in the Iollowing.
Foregrounding means a speciIic role that some language items play in a certain context
when the reader's attention cannot but be drawn to them. In a literary text such items
become stylistically marked Ieatures that build up its stylistic Iunction.
Descriptive, statistical, distributional and other kinds oI linguistic analysis show that there
are certain modes oI language use and arrangement to achieve the eIIect oI Ioregrounding.
It may be based on various types oI deviation or redundancy or unexpected combination oI
language units, etc. Arnold points out that sometimes the eIIect oI Ioregrounding can be
achieved in a peculiar way by the very absence oI any expressive or distinctive Ieatures
precisely because they are expected in certain types oI texts, e. g. the absence oI rhythmical
arrangement in verse.
However decoding stylistics laid down a Iew principal methods that ensure the eIIect oI
Ioregrounding in a literary text. Among them we can name convergence oI expressive
means, irradiation, deIeated expectancy, coupling, semantic Iields, semi-marked structures.
QA1.1. %cnfeHien^e
Convergence as the term implies denotes a combination or accumulation oI stylistic devices
promoting the same idea, emotion or motive. Stylistic Iunction is not the property and
purpose oI expressive means oI the language as such. Any type oI expressive means will
make sense stylistically when treated as a part oI a bigger unit, the context, or the whole
text. It means that there is no immediate dependence between a certain stylistic device and a
deIinite stylistic Iunction.
A stylistic device is not attached to this or that stylistic eIIect. ThereIore a hyperbole, Ior
instance, may provide any number oI eIIects: tragic, comical, pathetic or grotesque.
Inversion may give the narration a highly elevated tone or an ironic ring oI parody.
This "chameleon" quality oI a stylistic device enables the author to apply diIIerent devices
Ior the same purpose. The use oI more than one type oI expressive means in close
succession is a powerIul technique to support the idea that carries paramount importance in
the author's view. Such redundancy ensures the delivery oI the message to the reader.
An extract Irom E. Waugh's novel "Decline and Fall" demonstrates convergence oI
expressive means used to create an eIIect oI the glamorous appearance oI a very colorIul
lady character who symbolizes the high style oI living, beauty and grandeur.
T%e 1((r (,e'e1 !'1 r(+ $%e "0)%.(') 9.$%.' e+er/e1 ! $!-- *(0'/ +!' .' ! "-.'/.'/
1(<eH/r!* "(!$. A$er %.+3 -.7e $%e .r)$ 6re!$% ( ),r.'/ .' $%e C%!+,)HE-*)ee "!+e Mr).
?e)$eHC%e$9*'1e H $9( -.I!r1H)7.' ee$3 ).-7 -e/)3 "%.'"%.--! 6(1*3 ! $./%$ -.$$-e 6-!"7 %!$3
,.''e1 9.$% ,-!$.'0+
!'1 1.!+('1)3 !'1 $%e %./% .'<!r.!6-e <(."e $%!$ +!* 6e %e!r1 .' !'* R.$I H($e- r(+ Ne9
>(r7 $( ?01!,e)$.
@'<er).(' used in both sentences :...r(+ $%e "0)%.(' 9.$%.' e+er/e1 ! $!-- +!'4 ...-.7e $%e
.r)$ 6re!$% ( ),r.'/ "!+e Mr). ?e)$eHC%e$9*'1e2 at once sets an elevated tone oI the
T%e ).+.-e that brings about a sensory image oI awakening nature together with the allusion
to Paris - the symbol oI the world's capita oI pleasures - sustains this impression: -.7e $%e
.r)$ 6re!$% ( ),r.'/ .' $%e C%!+,)HE-* )ee. A Iew other !--0).(') to the world capitals and
their best hotels - Ne9 >(r73 ?01!,e)$3 !'* R.$I H($e- all symbolize the wealthy way oI liIe
oI the lady who belongs to the international jet-set distinguished Irom the rest oI the world
by her money, beauty and aristocratic descent.
The use oI +e$('*+* creates the cinematographic eIIect oI shots and Iragments oI the
picture as perceived by the gazing crowd and suggests the details usually blown up in
Iashionable newspaper columns on high society liIe: $9( -.I!r1H)7.' ee$3 ).-7 -e/)3 "%."%.--!
6(1*3 ! $./%$ -.$$-e 6-!"7 %!$... $%e .'<!r.!6-e <(."e.
The "%(."e ( 9(r1) associated with high-quality liIe style: exotic materials, expensive
clothes and jewelry creates ! )e+!'$." .e-1 that enhances the impression still Iurther
:-.I!r13 ).-73 "%.'"%.--!3 ,-!$.'0+ !'1 1.!+('1)2. A special contribution to the high-Ilown
style oI description is made by the careIul choice oI words that belong to the -.$er!r*
6((7.)% stratum: e+er/e3 "0)%.(')3 1(<e3 .'<!r.!6-e.
Even the name oI the character - Mr). ?e)$eHC%e$9*'1e H .) a device in itselI, it's the so-
called speaking name, a variety oI !'$('(+!).!. Not only its implication :6e)$2 but also the
structure symbolizes the
lady's high social standing because hyphenated names in Britain testiIy to the noble
ancestry. So the total eIIect oI extravagant and glamour is achieved by the concentrated use
oI at least eight types oI expressive means within one paragraph.
Q.1.1. ke]ea`el eVIe^`an^y
DeIeated expectancy is a principle considered by some linguists (Ja-cobson, RiIIaterre) as
the basic principle oI a stylistic Iunction. Its use is not limited to some deIinite level or type
oI devices. The essence oI the notion is connected with the process oI decoding by the
reader oI the literary text.
The linear organization oI the text mentally prepares the reader Ior the consequential and
logical development oI ideas and unIolding oI the events. The normal arrangement oI the
text both in Iorm and content is based on its predictability which means that the appearance
oI any element in the text is prepared by the preceding arrangement and choice oI elements,
e.g. the subject oI the sentence will normally be Iollowed by the predicate, you can supply
parts oI certain set phrases or collocation aIter you see the Iirst element, etc.
An example Irom Oscar Wilde's play "The Importance oI Being Earnest" perIectly
illustrates how predictability oI the structure plays a joke on the speaker who cannot
extricate himselI Irom the grip oI the syntactical composition:
M.)) F!.r!;3 e<er ).'"e @ +e$ *(0 @ %!<e !1+.re1 *(0 +(re $%!' !'* /.r-... @ %!<e +e$...
).'"e @ +e$ *(0. (Wilde)
The speaker is compelled to unravel the structure almost against his will, and the pauses
show he is caught in the trap oI the structure unable either to stop or say anything new. The
clash between the
perIectly rounded phrase and empty content creates a humorous eIIect and shows at the
same time how powerIul are the inherent laws oI syntagmatic arrangement.
Without predictability there would be no coherence and no decoding. At the same time
stylistically distinctive Ieatures are oIten based on the deviation Irom the norm and
predictability. An appearance oI an unpredictable element may upset the process oI
decoding. Even though not completely unpredictable a stylistic device is still a low
expectancy element and it is sure to catch the reader's eye. The decoding process meets an
obstacle, which is given the Iull Iorce oI the reader's attention. Such concentration on this
speciIic Ieature enables the author to eIIect his purpose.
DeIeated expectancy may come up on any level oI the language. It may be an unusual word
against the background oI otherwise lexically homogeneous text.
It may be an author's coinage with an unusual suIIix; it may be a case oI semantic
incongruity or grammatical transposition. Among devices that are based on this principle
we can name pun, zeugma, paradox, oxymoron, irony, anti-climax, etc.
DeIeated expectancy is particularly eIIective when the preceding narration has a high
degree oI orderly organized elements that create a maximum degree oI predictability and
logical arrangement oI the contextual linguistic material.
Paradox is a Iine example oI deIeated expectancy. The Iollowing example demonstrates
how paradox works in such highly predictable cases as proverbs and phraseology.
Everybody knows the proverb M!rr.!/e) !re +!1e .' He!<e'.
Oscar Wilde, a renowned master oI paradox, introduces an unexpected element and the
phrase acquires an inverted implication D.<(r"e) !re +!1e .' He!<e'. The unexpected
ironic connotation is enhanced by the Iact that the substitute is actually the antonym oI the
original element. The reader is Iorced to make an eIIort at interpreting the new maxim so
that it would make sense.
Q.1.G. %chIdeni
Coupling is another technique that helps in decoding the message implied in a literary work.
While convergence and deIeated expectancy both Iocus the reader's attention on the
particularly signiIicant parts oI the text coupling deals with the arrangement oI textual
elements that provide the unity and cohesion oI the whole structure. The notion oI coupling
was introduced by S. Levin in his work "Linguistic Structures in Poetry" in 1962 (40).
Coupling is more than many other devices connected with the level oI the text. This method
oI text analysis helps us to decode ideas, their interaction, inner semantic and structural
links and ensures compositional integrity.
Coupling is based on the aIIinity oI elements that occupy similar positions throughout the
text. Coupling provides cohesion, consistency and unity oI the text Iorm and content.
Like deIeated expectancy it can be Iound on any level oI the language, so the aIIinity may
be diIIerent in nature; it may be phonetic, structural or semantic. Particularly prominent
types oI aIIinity are provided by the phonetic expressive means. They are
obviously cases oI alliteration, assonance, paranomasia, as well as such prosodic Ieatures as
rhyme, rhythm and meter.
Syntactical aIIinity is achieved by all kinds oI parallelism and syntactical repetition -
anadiplosis, anaphora, Iraming, chiasmus, epiphora to name but a Iew.
Semantic coupling is demonstrated by the use oI synonyms and antonyms, both direct and
contextual, root repetition, paraphrase, sustained metaphor, semantic Iields, recurrence oI
images, connotations or symbols.
The latter can be easily detected in the works oI some poets who create their own system oI
recurrent esthetic symbols Ior certain ideas, notions and belieIs.
Some oI the well-known symbols are seasons (cI. the symbolic meaning oI winter in Robert
Frost's poetry), trees (the symbolic meaning oI a birch tree, a maple in Sergei Yesenin's
poetic work, the meaning oI a moutain-ash tree Ior Marina Tsvetaeva), animals (the
leopard, hyena, bulls, Iish in Ernest Hemingway's works) and so on. These symbols do not
only recur in a separate work by these authors but also generally represent the typical
imagery oI the author's poetic vision.
An illustration oI the coupling technique is given below in the passage Irom John O'Hara's
novel Te' N(r$% Fre1er."7. The main organizing principle here is contrast.
L-(*1 D.--.!+) -.<e1 .' C(--.er*<.--e3 ! +.'.'/ $(9' $%ree (r (0r +.-e) r(+ 10 N(r$%
Fre1er."73 60$ )e,!r!$e1 r(+ $%e C%!,.')8 %(+e !'1 $%e.r -.e 6* $%e !""e,$e1 1.ere'"e)
( +('e* !'1 ,re)$./e4 $%e +.'er)8 ,((-r((+3 !'1 $%e A.66)<.--e C-064 )."7e'.'/ ,(<er$*3
!'1 (0r -.<eH.'
)er<!'$) (r ! !+.-* ( (0r4 T%e Se"('1 T%0r)1!*)3 !'1 $%e "%."7e'H!'1H9!-e )0,,er) (
$%e E'/-.)% L0$%er!' C%0r"%. 5(e C%!,.' L-(*1 D.--.!+) 9ere "(0r$%(0)eH"(rr.1(r r.e'1)
!'1 e--(9 Re,06-0"!') 60$ 5(e 9!) ! C(+,!'* +!' !'1 L-(*1 D.--.!+) 9!) ! U'.(' +!'
9%( 9!) ! Re,06-."!' 6e"!0)e $( 6e !'*$%.'/ e-)e .' L!'$e'e'/( C(0'$* 9!) 0$.-e !'1
((-.)%. (O'Hara)
The central idea oI the passage is to underline the diIIerence between two men who actually
represent the class diIIerences between the rich upper class and the lower working class. So
the social contrast shown through the details oI personal liIe oI the two characters is the
message with a generalizing power. This passage shows how coupling can be an eIIective
tool to decode this message.
There is a pronounced aIIinity oI the syntactical structure in both sentences. The Iirst
contains a chain oI parallel detached clauses connected by !'1 (which is an adversative
conjunction here). They contain a number oI antitheses. The contrast is enhanced by the use
oI contextual antonyms that occupy identical positions in the clauses: $%e +.'er)8 ,((-r((+
!'1 $%e A.66)e<.--e C-064 )."7e'.'/ ,(<er$* !'1 (0r )er<!'$) (r ! !+.-* ( (0r3 T%e
Se"('1 T%0r)1!*) !'1 $%e C%0r"% )0,,er). The same device is used in the second sentence:
5(e 9!) ! C(+,!'* +!' !'1 L-(*1 D.--.!+) 9!) ! U'.(' +!'. There are a Iew instances
oI phonetic aIIinity, alliteration: (0r )er<!'$) (r ! !+.-* ( (0r4 "(0r$%(0)eH"(rr.1(r3
r.e'1) !'1 e--(9 Re,06-."!')4 0$.-e !'1 ((-.)%.
The passage presents an interesting case oI semantic coupling through symbols. The details
oI personal and class diIIerence chosen by the author are all charged with symbolic value.
There is a deIinite connection between them all however diverse they may appear at Iirst
sight. They are all grouped so that they symbolize either money and prestige or poverty and
social deprivation.
The Iirst group creates the semantic Iield oI wealth and power: +('e*3 )(".!- ,re)$./e3 $%e
A.66)<.--e C-06 (symbol oI wealth, high social standing, belonging to the select society),
(0r -.<eH.' )er<!'$) (r ! !+.-* ( (0r (that only rich people can aIIord), T%e Se"('1
T%0r)1!*) (traditional reception days Ior people oI a certain circle, Iormal dinner parties Ior
people oI high standing), ! C(+,!'* +!' (a member oI a Iinancially and socially
inIluential group, political elite). The second semantic Iield comprises words denoting and
symbolizing poverty and social inIeriority: +.'er)8 ,((-r((+ (a working class kind oI
leisure), )."7e'.'/ ,(<er$*3 "%."7e'H!'1H9!-e )0,,er) (3 $%e E'/-.)% L0$%er!' C%0r"%
(implying inIormal gatherings where people cook together and share Iood), ! U'.(' +!' (a
representative oI the working class).
The similarity oI these elements' positions in this text makes the contrast all the more
A minor case oI coupling in the passage above is the use oI zeugma in the Iirst sentence
when the word )e,!r!$e1 is simultaneously linked to two diIIerent objects %(+e and -.e in
two diIIerent meanings - direct and Iigurative.
Q.1.4. eman`e^ ]eedl
Semantic Iield is a method oI decoding stylistics closely connected with coupling. It
identiIies lexical elements in text segments and the whole work that provide its thematic
and compositional cohesion. To reveal this sort oI cohesion decoding must careIully
observe not only lexical and synonymous repetition but semantic aIIinity which Iinds
expression in cases oI lexico-semantic variants, connotations and associations aroused by a
speciIic use or distribution oI lexical units, thematic pertinence oI seemingly unrelated
This type oI analysis shows how cohesion is achieved on a less explicit level sometimes
called the vertical context. Lexical elements oI this sort are charged with implications and
adherent meanings that establish invisible links throughout the text and create a kind oI
semantic background so that the work is laced with certain kind oI imagery.
Lexical ties relevant to this kind oI analysis will include synonymous and antonymous
relations, morphological derivation, relations oI inclusion (various types oI hyponymy and
entailment), common semes in the denotative or connotative meanings oI diIIerent words.
II a word maniIests semantic links with one or more other words in the text it shows
thematic relevance and several links oI this sort may be considered a semantic Iield, an
illustration oI which was oIIered in the previous example on coupling. Semantic ties in that
example (mostly implicit) are based on the adherent and symbolic connotations :C%0r"%
+e!-)3 C-06 +e+6er3 -.<eH.' )er<!'$)3 U'.(' +!'3 e$"2 and create a semantic Iield speciIic
to the theme and message oI this work: the contrast between wealth and poverty, upper
class and working class.
In the next example we observe the semantic Iield oI a less complicated nature created by
more explicit means.
5(e 7e,$ )!*.'/ %e 1.1 '($ 9!'$ ! (r$.e$% 6.r$%1!* ,!r$*. He )!.1 %e 1.1 '($ -.7e ,!r$.e) H !
,!-,!6-e 0'$r0$% H !'1 ,!r$."0-!r-* !'1 e),e".!--* ! -!r/e ,!r$* .' %('(r ( %.) re!"%.'/
A$ .r)$ $%ere 9ere /(.'/ $( 6e (r$* /0e)$) 60$ $%e .'<.$!$.(' -.)$ /re9 -!r/er !'1 $%e ,!r$*
,-!') +(re e-!6(r!$e3 0'$.- Ar$%0r )!.1 $%!$ 9.$% )( +!'* ,e(,-e $%e* (0/%$ $( %.re !'
(r"%e)$r!3 !'1 9.$% !' (r"%e)$r!
$%ere 9(0-1 6e 1!'".'/3 !'1 9.$% 1!'".'/ $%ere (0/%$ $( 6e ! /((1H).Ie (r"%e)$r!. T%e
(r./.'!- )+!-- 1.''er 6e"!+e ! 1.''er 1!'"e !$ $%e L!'$e'e'/( C(0'$r* C-06. @'<.$!$.(')
9ere )e'$ $( +(re $%!' $%ree %0'1re1 ,er)(')... (O'Hara)
The thematic word oI the passage is ,!r$*. It recurs Iour times in these Iour sentences. It is
obviously related to such words used as its substitutes as 1.''er and 1.''er 1!'"e which
become contextual synonyms within the Irame oI the central stylistic device oI this piece -
the climax.
Semantic relations oI inclusion by entailment and hyponymy are represented by such words
as 6.r$%1!* :,!r$*23 :,!r$*2 .' %('(r3 :,!r$*2 ,-!')3 .'<.$!$.(' :-.)$23 /0e)$)3 ,e(,-e3 ,er)(')3
(r"%e)$r!3 1!'".'/.
The subtheme oI the major theme is the scale oI the celebration connected with the
importance oI the date - the main character reached the age oI Iorty considered an important
milestone in a man's liIe and career. So there is a semantic Iield around the Iigure (r$* H its
lexical repetition and morphological derivation :(r$* H (r$*H(r$.e$%2 and the word -!r/e
ampliIied throughout by contextual synonyms, morphological derivatives and relations oI
entailment :-!r/e H -!r/er H +(re H +!'* H /((1H).Ie H +(reH$%ree %0'1re12.
Another type oI semantic relationship that contributes to the semantic Iield analysis is the
use oI antonyms and contrastive elements associated with the themes in question: -!r/e H
)+!--3 (r$* H $%ree %0'1re13 )+!-- 1.''er H 1.''er 1!'"e3 (r"%e)$r! H /((1H).Ie1 (r"%e)$r!3
1.1 '($ -.7e H 0'$r0$%. The magnitude and importance oI the event are Iurther enhanced by
the use oI synonymous intensiIiers ,!r$."0-!r-* !'1 e),e".!--*.
Q.1.Q. emeJmaHkel s`Hh^`hHes
Semi-marked structures are a variety oI deIeated expectancy associated with the deviation
Irom the grammatical and lexical norm. It's an extreme case oI deIeated expectancy much
stronger than low expectancy encountered in a paradox or anti-climax, the unpredictable
element is used contrary to the norm so it produces a very strong emphatic impact.
In the Iollowing lines by G. Baker we observe a semi-marked structure on a grammatical
T%e )$0,.1 %e!r$ $%!$ 9.-- '($ -e!r' T%e e<er*9%ere ( /r.e.
The word e<er*9%ere is not a noun, but an adverb and cannot be used with an article and a
preposition, besides /r.e is an abstract noun that cannot be used as an object with a noun
denoting location. However the lines make sense Ior the poet and the readers who interpret
them as the poetic equivalent oI the author's overwhelming Ieeling oI sadness and dejection.
Lexical deviation Irom the norm usually means breaking the laws oI semantic compatibility
and lexical valency. Arnold considers semi-marked structures as a part oI tropes based on
the unexpected or unpredictable relations established between objects and phenomena by
the author.
II you had to predict what elements would combine well with such words and expressions
as $( $r* ('e8) 6e)$ $(...3 $( -.7e ... or what epithets you would choose Ior words like !$%er or
+(<e+e'$ you would hardly come up with such incompatible combinations that we observe
in the Iollowing sentences:
S%e ... tr!3 &!r 4!'t t# ',#1 $%e ,!r$*. (Erdrich)
M('$eI0+! !'1 Ar"%0-e$! %!1 re"e'$-* )$!r$e1 ! .#c;H)er.(0))e,!r!$.). +(<e+e'$3
)ee7.'/ $( =(.' Ne9 Me;."(. (Michener)
D(0-1 *(0 6e-.e<e .$3 $%!$ )$$at)ra1 (at&!r 9(0-1'8$ )$0+, 0,. (Waugh)
He 1;!3 $%e )21/ -.$$-e "(--e/e... (Waugh)
Such combination oI lexical units in our normal everyday speech is rare. However in spite
oI their apparent incongruity semi-marked structures oI both types are widely used in
literary texts that are Iull oI sophisticated correlations which help to read sense into most
unpredictable combinations oI lexical units.
This chapter contains but a brieI outline oI decoding stylistics and its basic principles and
notions. As has been mentioned above more detailed and extensive description oI decoding
analysis and its correlation with the traditional stylistic methods and notions can be Iound in
the works oI such Russian and Ioreign authors as M. RiI-Iaterre, G. Leech, S. Levin, P.
Guiraud, L, Dolezel, I. V. Arnold. Yu. M. Lotman, Yu. S. Stepanov and others.
The role and purpose oI this trend in stylistics was appropriately summed up by I.V.Arnold
in her book on decoding stylistics: "Modern styUstics in not so much interested in the
identiIication oI separate devices as in discovering the common mechanism oI tropes and
their eIIect." (4, p. 155).
Now, using the achievements oI the 2#
century linguistics, scholars try to answer the
question how styUstic Iunction works rather than what eIIect it produces.
1. What is implied in the separation oI the author's stylistics Irom the reader's? How do the
processes oI encoding and decoding diIIer?
2. Comment on the Iactors that may prevent the reader Irom adequately decoding the
author's imagery and message?
3. Speak on the origin and importance oI the notion Ioregrounding
Ior stylistic analysis.
4. There is a convergence oI expressive means in the passage below. Try to identiIy
separate devices that contribute to the poetic description oI a beautiIul young girl: types oI
repetition, metaphor, sustained metaphor, catachresis, aUiteration,
, inversion, coupling, semantic Iield:
O' %er !"e 9!) $%!$ $e'1er -((7 ( )-ee,3 9%."% ! '(11.'/ -(9er %!) 9%e' .$ .) 0-- (0$.
L.7e ! +*)$er.(0) e!r-* -(9er3 )%e 9!) 0-- (0$3 -.7e ! )'(91r(, 9%."% ),re!1) .$) $%ree
9%.$e 9.'/) .' ! -./%$ .'$( $%e 9!7.'/ )-ee, ( .$) 6r.e 6-())(+.'/. T%e 9!7.'/ )-ee, ( %er
0--H(,e'e1 <.r/.'.$*3 e'$r!'"e1 -.7e ! )'(91r(, .' $%e )0')%.'e3 9!) 0,(' %er. (Lawrence)
The basic principle in the next passage (that describes how only one oI the two relatives
became the sole heir to the old man's money) is that oI contrast and the method oI
convergence ensures the ample interpretation oI the author's intention. Explain the intention
and Iind the devices that deliver it.
Fr(+ $%e )$!r$ P%.-6r."7 9!) $%e !,,-e ( $%e (-1 "%!,8) e*e3 9%.-e %e "(0-1'8$ )$."7 M.))
Ar!1e !$ !'* ,r."e.
P%.-6r."7 "(0-1 ),(0$ S%!7e),e!re !'1 <a.1!t !'1 $%.'/) 6* $%e *!r1 6e(re Ar!1e "(0-1
re!1 ET%e "!$ )!$ (' $%e +!$E. D%e' %e 9!) e./%$ %e %!1 ! )(''e$ ,r.'$e1 .' $%e -("!-
,!,er. A$er $%!$ Ar!1e 9!)'8$ .' .$ !'*9%ere. S%e -.<e1 9.$% $%e )er<!'$) -.7e C.'1ere--!.
5. How is the eIIect oI deIeated expectancy achieved in the examples below? What are the
speciIic devices employed in each case?
Ce-e)$.'e .'!--* $0r'e1 (' $%e 6e'"% !'1 ,0$ %er %!'1 (<er D($8). H H('e*3 )%e )!.13
9(0-1 .$ 7.-- *(0 $( )!* 8*e)8F
H >e)3 )!.1 D($. (Erdrich)
S$. U!-e'$.'e8) D!*3 @ re+e+6ere13 !''.<er)!r* (r -(<er) !'1 +!))!"re. (Shaw)
H @$8) -.$$-e )$.'7er) -.7e *(03 %e )!.13 9%( $0r' 1e"e'$ +!)$er) )!<!/e. H D( *(0 $%.'7 $%!$8)
)( <er* "(+,-.+e'$!r*F
H @ $%.'7 .$8) ('e ( $%e +()$ "(+,-.+e'$!r* $%.'/) @ e<er %e!r1 )!.1 !6(0$ ! +!)$er3 )!.1
?e)$eHC%e$9*'1e. (Waugh)
@ $%.'7 $%!$3 . !'*$%.'/3 ),(r$) !re r!$%er 9(r)e $%!' "('"er$)3 )!.1 Mr. Pre'1er/!)$. T%e*
!$ -e!)$ %!,,e' .'1((r). (Waugh)
...$%e @'1.!' 60r.!- +(0'1 $%.) $(9' .) '!+e1 (r "('$!.' $%e $%.'/) $%!$ e!"% @'1.!' 0)e1
.' $%e.r -.<e). Pe(,-e %!<e (0'1 )$('e /r.'1er)3 %0'$.'/ !rr(9) !'1 =e9e-r* ( "(-(re1
6('e). S( @ $%.'7 .$8) '( 0)e. E<e' 60r.e13 (0r $%.'/) )0r<.<e. (Erdrich)
H D(0-1 $%.) 6e ( !'* 0)eF A)7e1 P%.-6r."73 ,r(10".'/ !' e'(r+(0) )er<."e re<(-<er.
O'-* $!7e "!re3 .$8) -(!1e1.
H T%e <er* $%.'/3 )!.1 $%e D("$(r. O'-* .re .'$( $%e /r(0'13 +.'1. De +0)$ 1( e<er*$%.'/
9e "!' $( !<(.1 !' !"".1e'$. D( *(0 !-9!*) "!rr* $%!$ !6(0$ 9.$% *(0F
H O'-* 9%e' @8+ 9e!r.'/ +* 1.!+('1)3 )!.1 P%.-6r."7. (Waugh)
D%e' 9e <.).$e1 A$%e')3 9e )!9 $%e A,("!-*,)e. (Maleska)
Te;!')3 C0.$e !,!r$ r(+ 6e.'/ $!-- !'1 -e!'3 $0r'e1 (0$ $( 6e )%(r$ !'1 )$(0$3 %(),.$!6-e3
)$.'/* $( ! 1e/ree3 /e'er(0) $( ! !0-$3 e<e'H$e+,ere13 "!'$!'7er(0)3 1(-e0-3 !'1 %!,,* !)
$%e 1!* .) -('/. (Atkinson)
6. Explain how the principle oI coupling can be used in analyzing the Iollowing passages.
What types oI coupling can you identiIy here?
Fee1.'/ !'.+!-) 9%.-e +e' !'1 9(+e' )$!r<e3 %e )!.1 6.$$er-*. @$ 9!) ! $(,."4 ! $(,." 1r*3
)"e'$-e)) !'1 "(-(0r-e)) !) ! ,re))e1 -(9er4 ! $(,." (' 9%."% .' $%e )"%((- 1e6!$.'/
)(".e$* ('e %!1 1e),!.re1 ( .'1.'/ !'*$%.'/ 'e9 $( )!*. (Waugh)
>(0 !)7e1 +e 9%!$ @ %!1 /(.'/ $%.) $.+e. D%!$ @ %!<e /(.'/ .) 9.'e. D.$% $%e 9!* $%e
9(r-18) 1r.'7.'/ $%e)e 1!*)3 6e.'/ .' 9.'e .) -.7e %!<.'/ ! -."e')e $( )$e!-. (Shaw)
7. In many cases coupling relies a lot on semantic Iields analysis. Show how these
principles interact in the Iollowing passage.
T%e $r0$% .) $%!$ +($(rH"!r) (er ! <er* %!,,* .--0)$r!$.(' ( $%e +e$!,%*)."!- 1.)$.'"$.('
6e$9ee' 86e.'/8 !'1 86e"(+.'/8. S(+e "!r)3 +ere <e%."-e)3 9.$% '( ,0r,()e !6(<e 6!re
-("(+($.('3 +e"%!'."!- 1r01/e)... %!<e 1e.'.$e 86e.'/8 =0)$ !) +0"% !) $%e.r (""0,!'$).
T%e* !re 6(0/%$ !-- )"re9e1 0, !'1 '0+6ere1 !'1 ,!.'$e13
!'1 $%ere $%e* )$!* $%r(0/% <!r.(0) 1e"-e').(') ( (9'er)%.,3 6r./%$e'e1 '(9 !'1 $%e'
9.$% ! -."7 ( ,!.'$... 60$ )$.-- +!.'$!.'.'/ $%e.r e))e'$.!- .1e'$.$* $( $%e )"r!, %e!,.
N($ )( $%e r!a1 "!r)3 $%!$ 6e"(+e +!)$er) ( +e'4 $%()e <.$!- "re!$.(') ( +e$!- 9%( e;.)$
)(-e-* (r $%e.r (9' ,r(,0-).(' $%r(0/% ),!"e3 (r 9%(+ $%e.r 1r.<er) !re !) .+,(r$!'$ !)
$%e )$e'(/r!,%er $( ! )$("76r(7er. T%e)e !re .' ,er,e$0!- -0;4 ! <(r$e; ( "(+6.'.'/ !'1
1.).'$e/r!$.'/ 0'.$)3 -.7e $%e "('-0e'"e ( $r!." 9%ere +!'* r(!1) +ee$. (Waugh)
8. Workings in groups oI two or three try to deIine the themes oI the Iollowing text with a
description oI a thunderstorm. Let each group arrange the vocabulary oI the passage into
semantically related Iields, Ior example: storm sounds, shapes, colors, supernatural Iorces,
De... -((7e1 (0$ $%e +0"7.'/ %(-e $( 9%ere ! $(9er ( -./%$'.'/ )$((1. @$ 9!) ! 6r(!1 r(0'1
)%!$ -.7e ! /re!$ r!1.!'$ !0/er3 6(r.'/ .'$( "-(01 !'1 +01 !$ ('"e. ?0r'.'/. Tr!'),!re'$.
A'1 .').1e $%.) "*-.'1er ( 9%.$eH,0r,-e -./%$ )9!+ )%(!-) ( "re!$0re) 9e "(0-1 'e<er %!<e
.+!/.'e1. S%!,e) .-+* !'1 .r.1e)"e'$ !'1 <e.'e1 -.7e 1r!/('-* 9.'/) err!'1e1 6e$9ee'
$%e e!r$% !'1 %e!<e'). T%e* 9ere +(<.'/ $( ! +0)." 9e "(0-1'8$ %e!r3 $%e $%0'1er 6-($$.'/
.$ (0$ (r 0). Or +!*6e $%e "!''('!1e ( $%0'1er 9!) +0)." (r $%e+3 60$ +e!)0re $%!$ 9e
"(0-1'8$ 0'1er)$!'1.
De 1.1'8$ 7'(9 9%!$ $%e* 9ere.
T%e* 9ere )$(r+ !'/e-). Or +!*6e $%e* 9ere '!$0r!- "re!$0re) 9%()e '!$0r!- e-e+e'$ 9!)
)$(r+3 !) $%e )e! .) '!$0r!- $( $%e )C0.1 !'1 )%!r7. De "(0-1'8$ +!7e (0$ $%e.r 9%(-e
)%!,e). Dere $%e* +er+!.1) (r $./er)F Dere $%e* "-($%e1 .' )%.'.'/ -.'e' (r .' -!)%.'/
!r+(rF De )!9 9%!$ 9e $%(0/%$ 9e )!93 9%!$e<er $%e* 9ere3 9%!$e<er $%e* 9ere .'
,r("e)) ( 6e"(+.'/.
T%.) $(9er ( e'er/.e) 9e'$ !9!* $%e'3 !'1 $%ere 9!) !'($%er $%r0)$ ( -./%$'.'/ =0)$
(0$).1e $%e 9!--. @$ 9!) ! -e)) .+,re)).<e 1.),-!*3 =0)$ !' (r1.'!r* -./%$'.'/ )$r(7e3 60$ .$
-.$e1 $%e $%ree ( 0) $%r!)%.'/ .' +.1!.r (r ! -('/ +(+e'$3 $%e' 1r(,,e1 0) 6re!$%-e)) !'1
)./%$-e)) (' $%e 1!+, /r(0'1. (Chappell)
9. Comment on the type oI deviation in the Iollowing semi-marked structures.
D.1 *(0 e<er )ee ! 1re!+ 9!-7.'/F (Cheever)
M!' .' $%e 1!* (r 9.'1 !$ './%$
L!.1 $%e "r(,) -(93 6r(7e $%e /r!,e8) =(*. (Thomas)
@ $%.'7 "!r1) !re 1.<.'e3 ,!r$."0-!r-* $%e 7.'/). S0"% $a)2&t/ (-1 !"e)B (Waugh)
T%e M!7er8) 9%.$e "(!$ !'1 6-!"7 <.)!/e %!1 1.)!,,e!re1 r(+ $%e )$ree$ 1((r9!*.
Re.'%!r$ /($ ! ,re+('.$.(' ( 1((+ 9%e' %e )!9 $%e "(-(r "(+6.'!$.(' 9.$% 9%."% $%e*
%!1 6ee' re,-!"e1K ,(-."e+!'8) +.1'./%$ 6-0e !'1 S-!<."Hre1 !"e3 60$ $%e ,!"e %e-,e1
7ee, %.) 0,,er -., )$.. (Berger)
A)7 P!+e-!4 )%e8) )( 6r!<e !'1 +!'-*. (Waugh)
@@ 9!) Ar!''* 9%(+ )%e "!+e $( 1e$e)$ 9.$% !-- %er )(0-... %er ><e$$e re!--* %!$e13 9.$%
$%!$ ,0re3 )%eer %!$re1 9%."% .) !-+()$ ! =(*. (Lawrence)
...e<er*('e 9%( ),(7e3 .$ )ee+e13 9!) 60$ 6.1.'/ %.) $.+e $( )%(0$ $%e (-1 <.--!/e )$ree$
rer!.' 9%."% %!1 %!0'$e1 %.+ !-- %.) -.e3 EN.//erB H N.//erB H D%.$e N.//erBE (Dunbar-
T( %e!r %.+ ),e!7 Fre'"%3 . *(0 1.1'8$ $r* $( 0'1er)$!'1 9%!$ %e 9!) )!*.'/3 9!) !) /((1
!) !$$e'1.'/ EP%e1reEK %e )ee+e1 ! "-(01 $%!$ %!1 1.<(r"e1 ! $e;$6((7 ( /e(+e$r* $(
+!rr* A0.--!0+e A,(--.'!.re... (Jar-rell)
10. Read the story by Paul Jennings and try to apply some oI the principles oI decoding to
Iind out the real meaning and the implications oI what the author encoded. Comment on the
author's use oI such devices as sustained metaphor, allegory, allusions, irony and
phonographical means. Can you Iind instances oI semi-marked structures, deIeated
expectancy, convergence and other means oI Ioregrounding. Speak about the theme and the
message oI this story.
=!3>41##3!3 PQR r#'!
T%ere 9!) ('"e !' !r$."-e .' $%e H4'!r-!r 6* Dr ?r('(9)7. .' 9%."% %e )!.1 $%!$
+!$%e+!$.") (0/%$ $( 6e $!0/%$ !) ! -!'/0!/e. A$ $%e $.+e @ %!1 !'$!).e) ( ,!))!/e) -.7e
E@$ .) $.+e :$%e A(<er'+e'$2
0, $( $%e ).$0!$.('.
the country , ,
O' T 1 .))0eHHH3 !'1 0'-e)) $%e* $re!$ $%e O,,().$.(' !)H
.' %!++er.'/ (0$ ! 6.,!r$.)!' ,(-."* $%e* 9.-- '($ /e$ $( (our troubles). A-- $%e (+e') . 2
$r(06-e .' $%e M.11-e E!)$...E j
Crib Ior art students, beatniks, peasants: (The Government)
: the government squared. ~
1: more than one. : equals.
(our troubles): the root oI our troubles. . 2: point to recurring.
?0$ ( "(0r)e $%!$ 9!)'8$ $%e .1e! !$ !--. >e!r) !/( @ /($ ( $%e +!$%e+!$.") $r!.' !$
N0!1r!$." EC0!$.(') H ! 'e!$3 !.r* -.$$-e )$!$.(' 9.$% $re--.)3 .<*3 r()e)3 ! )0'-.$ ,-!$(r+.
T%ere 9!) =0)$ ! %.'$ ( 9e.r1'e)) '(9 !'1 $%e' H )$!$.('+!)$er +!1e "-."7.'/ '(.)e) .' %.)
$%r(!$3 $%ere 9!) !' (""!).('!- !rH( %!r+('.(0) %0++.'/ .' $%e )7*3 )$r!'/e 6e--) r!'/4
('e 7'e9 $%e r('$.er 9!) '($ !r !9!*3
D%ere $%e -.'e "r())e) .'$( $%e <!)$ "(0'$r* ( @'"(+,re%e').6.-.$*3 $%e =!//e1 ,e!7) ( $%e
C!-"0-0) M(0'$!.') )$!'1.'/ 0,3 ! 1!*8) =(0r'e* (<er .$) .--.+.$!6-e ,-!.').
T%e $r!.' $%0'1ere1 ( .'$( $%()e '( 1(06$ e;%.-!r!$.'/ ),!"e)3 60$ 9.$%(0$ +e. @ )'.e1
$%e +(0'$!.'* !.r ! -.$$-e3 $%e' @ "r())e1 $%e -.'e 6* $%e (($6r.1/e !'1 9e'$ 6!"7 .' ! 0)$*
)060r6!' $r!.' $( +* %(+e $(9'. C('$e+,$.6-e @/'(r!'"e. T%.) $r!.' %!1 '( e'/.'e4 .$ 9!)
).+,-* ! $r!.' ( "!rr.!/e) r(--.'/ /e'$-* 1(9' $%r(0/% $%e 9!r+ (r"%!r1) ( A+'e).! H.--.
T%e ('-* -!'/0!/e 9e ),e!7 .' $%!$ $(9' .)3 9e--3 -!'/0!/e :9e8re '($ .a3 !6(0$ .$ -.7e
$%()e ,e(,-e !$ O;(r14 9e 7'(9 $%e 9(r-1 .) .'.'.$e !'1 re!-3 -!'/0!/e .) !6(0$ .$3 .$ .)'8$
.$2. ?0$ 9e %!<e /($ $*,e9r.$er)3 !'1 $%e* .'$r(10"e +!$%e+!$.") .'$( -!'/0!/e .' $%e.r (9'
E<e' 9.$%(0$ $%()e ./0re) (' $%e $(, r(93 1 $( 9 :!-- *(0 'ee12 $%ere .) )(+e$%.'/
'tat'tca1 !6(0$ $%e $*,e9r.$er !) .$ ).$) $%ere. @$ "('$!.') .')$!'$!'e(0)-* $%e e'$.re
!-,%!6e$3 $%e !90- ,re/'!'$ ,($e'$.!-.$* ( e<er*$%.'/. @ !+ "er$!.' +()$ re!1er) ( $%.)
!r$."-e 9.-- %!<e re!1 )(+e9%ere (r ($%er ! reere'"e $( $%e (11) !/!.')$ ! +('7e*8) ).$$.'/
!$ ! $*,e9r.$er !'1 9r.$.'/ <a.1!t.
F(r )(+e re!)(' ,%.-()(,%."!- 9r.$er) !6(0$ "%!'"e3 1e)./' !'1 ,0r,()e !re -e1
.rre).)$.6-* $( $%.) !'!-(/*. N(6(1* e<er )0//e)$) $%e +('7e*8)
9r.$.'/ <a.1!t 9.$% ! ,e'3 !) S%!7e),e!re 1.1. D.$% ! ,e' ! +('7e* 9(0-1 /e$ 1.)$r!"$e13
1r!9 0''* !"e)3 (0'1 ! )"%((- ( ,(e$r* ( .$) (9'. T%ere8) )(+e$%.'/ !6(0$ %!<.'/ $%e
9%(-e !-,%!6e$ .' r('$ ( .$3 (' ! +!"%.'e3 $%!$ /(!1) $%e +('7e* $( /( ('3 (r .11#$' (
*e!r) :60$ )0re-* $%e e<(-0$.(' 9(0-1 6e C0."7erF23 ,er)e<er.'/ !$er %e!r$6re!7.'/
)e$6!"7)4 $%.'7 ( /e$$.'/ $%e 9%(-e ( L$2 I!ar r./%$ 0'$.- .$ "!+e $( $%e -.'e) (<er $%e
1e!1 6(1* ( C(r'e-.!3 9%."% 9(0-1 "(+e (0$K
%&#)S6t c#.! $# .#r! ?!-!r, $!-!r, $!-!r, $!-!r, !-!r (r3 (' ./ $*,e9r.$er H ?!c!r,
$!-!3, 1!-!r, $!+!1. -r!-$!/.
T%e $*,e9r.$er 7'(9) <er* 9e-- %(9 $( +.; -!'/0!/e !'1 +!$%e+!$.")3 $%e re)(0r"e)
6e$9ee' D !'1 k !'1 1 !'1 9, .' .$) (9' )-* 9!*. M.'e -.7e) $( ,0$ lJm .')$e!1 ( $%e -e$$er
,. H(9 6r.--.!'$-* $%.) .'$r(10"e) ! '0!'"e3 ! (r''#$ ( "%!'"e !'1 1(06$ .'$( +!'* 9(r1)
$%!$ 6e/.' )( 9e-- 9.$% $%.) "('.1e'$3 e;,-().<e "(')('!'$B H(9 ($e' .) ('e 1.)!,,(.'$e1
6* ! 9!$er*
!-e !-eB H(9 ($e' 1(e) )(+e +0"%H,06-.".Ie1 +ee$.'/ ( )$!$e)+e' re)0-$
.' $%e )./'.'/ ( )(+e$%.'/ $%!$ $%e $*,.)$) ( 6($% ).1e) 7'(9 .) =0)$ !
!"$B H(9 +!'*

!,.)$) ('e 7'(9)B H(9 +!'* ,e(,-e ,r!.)e1 (r $%e.r "(0r!/e !re '($ )( +0"% ,-0"7* !)
M()$ ( !--3 .) '($ $%e +()$ "(++(' (r+ ( )(".!- (""!).(' $(H1!* $%e "("7$!.-
O'e !-9!*) /(e) e;,e"$.'/ ! re!- ,!r$*3 60$ '.'e $.+e) (0$ ( $e' $0r') (0$ $( 6e \
!-- $%e ,e(,-e $%ere %!<e )(+e )(r$ ( "(''e"$.(' 9.$% $%e 8
8 !r$) )0"% !) !1<er$.).'/3
.-+)3 'e9)
!,er) H !-$%(0/% $%ere .) ($e' ! re!-
!.'$er (r $9(. A$er ! e9
.'7 /.')
('e ( $%e
!.'$er) +!7e) !
!)) !$ ('e ( $%()e )$r!'/e ).-e'$ /.r-)3 9.$% -('/ %!.r !'1
(0$.'/ -.,)3 $%!$ ('e !-9!*) )ee) !$
!r$.e) :1(06$-e)) %e $%.'7) )%e 9.-- 6e

-.!6-e2. T%ere +!* 6e
)(+e U. @.3
:(' +* $*,e9r.$er $%e "!,.$!-
.) !
) " !) $%e "%.e /0e)$ H !' M.
3 (r !
re!"%er :'($%.'/ )( /r!'1 !) $%e
r.+e M.'.)$er3 ( "(0r)e. A0e)$) -.7e
$%!$ !re ('-* !$ re!- ,!r$.e)3 /.<e' 6* T(,
e(,-e24 60$ !$ !
!r$* .$ .) !-9!*) 1.."0-$ $(
/e$ $%e .'$ere)$.'/ /0e)$ $( %.+)e-3 $(
.' %.+ 1(9' .' !' !r/0+e'$3 6e"!0)e ( $%e

r!$$-e /(.'/ (' !-- r(0'1.
O "(0r)e $%.) .)'8$ +!$%e+!$."!- -!'/0!/e .' Dr ?r('(9)7.8) )e')e. ?0$ *(08<e /($ $(
!1+.$ .$8) ./0r!$.<e.
That's mathematics Ior you. I have an obscure Ieeling it should be either
Glossary for the Course of Stylistics
a^chs`e^ 1*23u:sti3 adj. concerned with sound
al_eHen` *#2hi*r*"t adj. added shades c] meaning
a]]ene`y *2$iti4 n. similarity, inherent likeness
addeicHy 12&)ig*ri4 n. a story, poem, painting, etc. in which the characters and actions
represent general truths, good and bad qualities, etc.
adde`eHa`ecn *R)it*2reSh n. repetition oI the same consonant or sound group at the
beginning oI two or more words that are close to each other
addhsecn 1*2)u:5" n. reIerence to some literary, historical, mythological, biblical, etc.
character or event commonly known
analeIdcses *"*#ip2)ousis n. repetition oI the last word or phrase in one clause or
poetic line at the beginning oI the next
anaI_cHa *'"&$*r* n. repetition oI a word or phrase at the beginning oI successive
clauses or lines oI verse
anas`HcI_e wYZ "&str*$i4 n. a term oI rhetoric, which means upsetting Ior eIIect oI the
normal order oI a preposition beIore a noun or oI an object aIter a verb, cI. inversion
an`e^demaV 12&"ti23)ai*3s n. a sudden drop Irom the digniIied or important in thought
or expression to the commonplace or trivial, sometimes Ior humorous eIIect
an`erhe 1*"2ti:34 adj. the ancient style, esp. Greek or Roman; classical
an`e`_eses 1a"2tiT*sis4 n. opposition or contrast oI ideas, notions, qualities in the parts oI
one sentenceor in diIIerent sentences
an`cncmasea *"t*"*2eiS*4 n. the use oI a proper name in place oI a common one or
vice versa to emphasise some Ieature or quality
apokoinu 1*p*23oi"u4 n. a construction in which the subject oI one sentence is at the
same time the subject oI the second, a kind oI ellipsis
aIcsecIeses 1*2pousio2pi:sis n. a sudden breaking oII in the midst oI a sentence as iI
Irom inability or unwillingness to proceed
aHic` 'a:gou n. the vocabulary peculiar to a particular class oI people, esp. that oI an
underworld group devised Ior private communication
AHes`c`de 2&ristot) n. Greek philosopher, pupil oI Plato (384-382 BC)
asscnan^e 12&s*"*"s4 n. 1. resemblance oI sounds 2. partial rhyme created by the
stressed vowel sounds
as`_eesm 12*sTi:64 n. deprecation meant as approval
asynle`cn *2si"#*t*" n. the omission oI conjunctions
aeddes de``Hes 2!e)2)et*4 n. literature or writing about literary subjects

^a`a^_Heses '3*t*23ri:sis n. incorrect use oI a word, as by misapplication oI terminology

or by strained or mixed metaphor
^_easmhs 3ai2&6*s n. inversion oI the second oI two parallel phrases or clauses
^de^_e '3)i:Sei n. an expression or idea that has become trite
^demaV 23)ai*3s4 n. a rhetorical series oI ideas, images, etc. arranged progressively so
that the most IorceIul is last
^cdcn '3o)*" n. in Greek prosody a section oI a prosodic period, consisting oI a group
Irom two to six Ieet Iorming a rhythmic unit with a principal accent
^cnnc`a`ecn 23o"*2teiS" n. idea or notion suggested by or associated with a word,
phrase, etc. in addition to its denotation
^cnnc`a`efe 3*2"out*tr'4 123o"*2teiti' adj. having connotations
^cnfeHien^e 3*"2'*:#5*"s n. concentration oI various devices and expressive means
in one place to support an important idea and ensure the delivery oI the message
^chIde` 1237p*t4 n. two successive lines oI poetry, esp. oI the same length that rhyme
^chIdeni [Z37p)i8\ n. the aIIinity oI elements that occupy a similar position and
contribute to the cohesion oI the text
la^`yd '#&3tr) n. a metrical Ioot that consists oI one accented syllable Iollowed by two
unaccented ones
keme`Hehs c] AdeVanlHea #i2etri*s *' &)ig26&"#ri*4 n. Greek orator and
philosopher (b. 350 BC)
lenc`a`efe #i "out*ti'4 1#i"ou2teiti' adj. indicative oI the direct explicit meaning or
reIerence oI a word cH term
le`a^_men` #i2t&tS*"t n. a seemingly independent part oI a sentence that carries
some additional inIormation
lefe^e di'vais n. a literary model intended to produce a particular eIIect in a work oI
kecnysehs c] (ade^aHnasshs #ai*2"iS*s *' h&)i3a2 "&s*s4 n. Greek rhetorician, critic
and historian (1
cent. BC)
eddeIses *2)ipsis n. all-sorts oI omission in a sentence
emc`efe i2outi'4 adj. characterised by, expressing or producing emotion
emIa`_y 12ep*Ti4 n. ability to share in another's emotions, thoughts or Ieelings
enbamaenen` i"2#5&e"t4 n. in prosody: the running on oI a sentence Irom one line to
the next without a syntactical break
enhmeHa`ecn 1i9":ue2reiS" n. a device by means oI which homogeneous parts oI a
sentence are made semantically heterogeneous
eIenadeIses ep*"*2)epsis4 n. a term oI rhetoric meaning repetitive use oI conjunctions
in close succession, (cI. polysyndeton)
eIeiHam 2*pigra n. 1. a short poem with a witty or satirical point 2. any terse, witty,
pointed statement, oIten with a clever twist in thought.
eIeI_cHa 1*2pi$*r*4 n. repetition oI words or phrases at the end oI consecutive clauses or
eIe`_e` 2epiT*t4 n. an adjective or descriptive phrase used to characterise a person or
object with the aim to give them subjective evaluation
ehI_cne^ :u2$o"ik adj. characterised by euphony
ehI_cny 12:u:$*"i4 n. a harmonious combination oI sounds that create a pleasing eIIect to
the ear
efadha`efe i:'&e):u2eitiv adj. giving judgement about the value oI something
explicit iks'plisit adj. clearly stated and leaving nothing implied
]eihHe c] sIee^_ n. a stylistic device oI whatever kind, including tropes and syntactical
expressive means
]eihHes c] ^cn`Has`y> those based on opposition (incompatibility) oI co-occurring notions
]eihHes c] ^cJc^^hHHen^ey> devices based on interrelations oI two or more units oI meaning
actually Iollowing one another
]eihHes c] elen`e`yy> co-occurrence oI synonymous or similar notions
]eihHes c] enerhade`yy> those based on diIIerentiation oI co-occurring notions
]eihHes c] rhade`yy> renaming based on radical qualitative diIIerence between notion
named and notion meant
]eihHes c] rhan`e`yy> renaming based on only qualitative diIIerence between traditional
names and those actually used
]eihHes c] HeIda^emen`y> tropes, 'renamings', replacing traditional names by situational
iaIJsen`en^e denk seemingly incoherent connection oI two sentences based on an
unexpected semantic leap; the reader is supposed to grasp the implied motivation Ior such
These terms and their deIinitions belong to ProI. Skrebnev
+cHieas 2g(#5i*s n. Greek philosopher (483-375 [.C.), Iounded one oI the Iirst rhetoric
iHaI_cn gr*2$o" n. intentional misspelling to show deviations Irom received
pronunciation: individual manner, mispronunciation, dialectal Ieatures, etc.
Hellenistic h*)*2"isti3 adj. oI Greek history, language and culture aIter the death oI
Alexander the Great (323 [.C.)
hierarchical hai2ra:3i3*l adj. arranged in order oI rank, grade, class, etc.
_yIeHacde hai2p*:!o)i n. exaggeration Ior eIIect not meant to be taken literally
eamahs ai2&!*s n. a metrical Ioot, consisting oI one unaccented syllable Iollowed by
one accented
elecde^` 12 i#io)*3t n. a particular person's use oI language, individual style oI expression
emaieHy 2i*#5*ri n. ideas presented in a poetical Iorm; Iigurative descriptions and
Iigures oI speech collectively
emIde^e` ip2)iisit adj. implied: suggested or to be understood though not plainly
en_eHen` 1i"2hi*r*"t adj. existing in something or someone as a permanent and
inseparable element, quality or attribute
enfeHsecn in2'*:S" n. a reversal oI the normal order oI words in a sentence
eHcny 2air*"i n. a stylistic device in which the words express a meaning that is oIten the
direct opposite oI the intended meaning
eHHalea`ecn 1i9r*#i2eiS"4 n. the inIluence oI a speciIically coloured word against the
stylistically diIIerent tenor oI the narration
baHicn 2#5a:g*" n. the language, esp. the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade,
proIession or group
bhHele^ad 1#5u2ri#i3*) adj. related to the law
de`c`es 1)ai2touti:s4 n. understatement Ior eIIect, esp. that in which an aIIirmative is
expressed by a negation oI the contrary
madaIHcIesm 2&)*propi6*4 n. ludicrous misuse oI words, esp. through conIusion
caused by resemblance in sound
meecses mi'ousis n. expressive understatement, litotesme`aI_cH 'metapho: n. the
application oI a word or phrase to an object or concept it does not literally denote, in order
to suggest comparison with another object or concept
me`aI_cH shs`aenel{eV`enlel a chain oI metaphors containing the central image and some
contributory images
me`eH 2i:t* n. rhythm in verse; measured patterned arrangement oI syllables according
to stress or length
me`cnymy 1e2to"ii4 n. transIer oI name oI one object onto another to which it is
related or c] which it is a part
my`_cdciy i2To)o#5i n. myths collectively and the belieIs that they contain
ncHma`efe 12"o: *ti' adj. having to do with usage norms

cncma`cIceea ,o"**tou2pi:* n. the Iormation oI a word by imitating the natural

sound; the use c] words whose sounds reinIorce their meaning or tone, esp. in poetry
cHa`cHe^ad 9or*2tori3*) n. characteristic oI or given to oratory
cHa`cHy 'oretri n. the art oI an orator; skill or eloquence in public speaking
cVymcHcn 9o3si2o:r*" n. a Iigure oI speech in which opposite or contradictory ideas
are combined
IaHaleas`cda p*r*#i2&st*)*4 n. in Greek poetic texts: the lengthening oI a syllable
regularly short
IaHaddeddesm 12p&r*)*)i64 n. the use oI identical or similar parallel syntactical structure
in two or more sentences or then parts
IaHancmasea 9p*r*"*2ei5* n. using words similar in sound but diIIerent in meaning
Ior euphonic eIIect
IaHdan^e 12pa: )*"s4 n. a style or manner oI speaking or writing
IeHeI_Hases 1pe2ri$r*sis4 n. renaming oI an object by a phrase that emphasises some
particular Ieature oI the object
IeHscnaie 12p*:s*"*#54 n. a character in a play or book, or in history
IeHscne]e^a`ecn p*9so"i$i3eiS"4 n. the attribution oI personal nature or character to
inanimate objects or abstract notions
Icdysynle`cn 1po)i2si"#eto"4 n. the use oI a number oI conjunctions in close succession
IHcscly 12pros*#i4 n. 1. the science or art oI versiIication, including the study oI metrical
structure, stanza Iorm, etc. 2. the stress patterns oI an utterance
IHcVeme`y 1pro23siiti4 n. nearness in place, time, order, occurrence or relation
Ihade^es` 'pAblisist n. reIerring to writing and speaking on current public or political
He^hH ': v. to happen or occur again, appear at intervals
He^hHHen^e n'kvrans n. the instance oI recurring, return, repetition
H_e`cHe^ 'retorik n. 1. the art or science oI all specialized literary-uses oI language in prose
or verse, including the Iigures oI speech 2. the art oI using language eIIectively in speaking
or writing 3. artiIicial eloquence
H_e`cHe^ad n'torikal adj. using or characterised by rhetoric
H_yme raim n. a regular recurrence oI corresponding sounds at the ends oI lines in verse
H_y`_m n. 1. a regular recurrence oI elements in a system oI motion: the rhythm oI
speech, dancing music, etc. 2. an eIIect oI ordered movement in a work oI art, literature,
drama, etc. attained through patterns in the timing, spacing, repetition, accenting, etc. oI the
elements 3. in prosody: a metrical (Ieet) or rhythmical (iambus, trochee, etc.) Iorm
semede 'simili n. a Iigure oI speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared by
the use oI -.7e3 !)3 re)e+6-e3 e$".
scdemn 'solam adj. arousing Ieelings oI awe, very impressive
scI_es`Hy,'soIistri n. in ancient Greece: the methods or practices oI the sophists, any group
oI teachers oI rhetoric, politics, philosophy, some oI whom were notorious Ior their clever
specious arguments. 2. misleading but clever, plausible and subtle reasoning
s`an|a 'stxnzq n. a group oI lines in a repeating pattern Iorming a division oI a poem
shsIense sqs'pens n. a compositional device that consists in withholding the most
important inIormation or idea till the end oI the sentence, passage or text
syddeIses si'lepsis n. a term oI rhetoric: the use oI a word or expression to perIorm two
syntactic Iunctions, cI. zeugma
syne^lc^_e si'nekdoki n. a Iigure oI speech based on transIer by contiguity in which a
part is used Ior a whole, an individual Ior a class, a material Ior a thing or the reverse oI any
oI these; a variety oI metonymy
`ah`cdciy tL'tolqdZi n. needless repetition oI an idea in a diIIerent word, phrase or
sentence; redundancy; pleonasm
`eHmencdciy 'tq:mi 'nolqdZi n. the system oI terms used in a speciIic science, art or
specialised subject
`Hc^_ee 'trouki: n. in prosody: a Ioot oI two syllables, a stressed Iollowed by an unstressed
`Hans]eH traens'Ib: v. to convey, carry, remove or send Irom one position, place or person
to another
`Hans]eH 'traensIa: n. the act oI transIerring
`Hans]eHen^e 'trsensIarans n. the act or process oI transIerring
!Hasema^_hs tre'zimskas n. Greek philosopher, together with Gorgius created one oI the
Iirst schools oI rhetoric in ancient Greece (c. 4 xo
trope troup n. a Iigure oI speech based on some kind oI transIer oI denomination
feHse]e^a`ecn ,vq,siIi'keiSh n. 1. the art, practice or theory oI poetic composition 2. the
Iorm or style oI a poem; metrical structure
|ehima 'zju:gmq n. a Iigure oI speech in which a single word, usually a verb or adjective,
is syntactically related to two or more words, though having a diIIerent sense in relation to
1. TU <. <. . .: V, 1951.
2. A . ., 1936.
3. V W. . - II
I C. . ., 1984. C. 3-11.
4. V W. . C : C
. .: H, 1990.
5. XU Y. . C . ." 1983.
6. XMZ . . . ., 1967.
7. Z . C, , . ., 1963.
8. Z . . H x II B. 1955. 1.
9. M[ W, X. . .: B
, 1989.
10. \ ]. . C ] . ., 1987.
11. ^TMU_ . Y. . H. C. ., 1977.
12. ]M Y.\., [ `. Y. C . ., 1972.
13. aT `.Y. A . ., 1972.
14. aT `. Y. C x II O . CH.:
H, 2000.
15. YbU_ . W., [V c. ., abU W. W., dT P. .
C . K, 1984.
16. e f. a. H II C. . .
HHH . .. 1982. B. 198. C. 106-116.
17. H x : . ., 1980. B. 9.
18. H x :
uCC. .: H, 1988.
19. c f. f. C . .: VCC, 2004.
20. Hx x. C I H . H. A. K.
., 1967.
21. e. Y. t . ., 1989.
22. Z e. W. Lectures in stylistic grammar. t, 1972.
23. MfM . g. II B 1995. 6.
24. dM h.i. . ., 1986.
25. jUfU_ X. . H . CH.: A, 2000.
26. k . f. O t . -.A 1971.
27. lTU_ e. C II H x . .,
1962. B. 2.
28. lMZ . . K a
] II . 1999. 5.
29. m Y. H II C : B 7 . . 5:
A] . Ct. . H. .: , 1994.
30. nVU g. W. ] II . 1972. 3.
31. nVU g. W. Ct I t
II B, 1982. 4.
32. ?r(9' D.G.3 O-+)$e1 S. P. Language and literature. N.Y., 1962.
33. Cr*)$!- D. The Cambridge encyclopedia oI the English language. CUP, 2000.
34. Cr*)$!- D. The English language. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
35. Essays on style and language I Ed. By R. Fowler. London, 1967.
36. A!-,er.' @. n. Stylistics. Moscow: Higher school, 1977.
37. H!--.1!* M. Linguistic Iunction and literary style. The Hague, 1971.
38. 5!"(6)(' R. Linguistics and poetics II Style and language. The M. I. T. Press, 1966.
39. Lee"% A.A. A linguistic guide to poetry. London, 1973.
40. Le<.' S. Linguistic structures in poetry. Mouton, 1962.
41. M!-$Ie< N.A. Essays on English stylistics. Minsk, 1984.
42. M"Cr0+ R.3 M!"Ne.- R.3 Cr!' D. The story oI English. London-Boston: BBC Books,
43. M.-e) 5. Style and proportion. Boston, 1967.
44. M.+) H.A. Grammatical diIIerences that make a diIIerence in the proIessional world.
Cleveland: Cleveland State University, 1990.
45. R.!$erre M. Criteria Ior style analysis II Essays on the language oI literature. Boston;
N.Y., 1967.
46. R.!$erre M. The stylistic Iunction II Proceedings oI the ninth International congress oI
Linguists. The Hague, 1964.
47. S7re6'e< >.M. Fundamentals oI English stylistics. Moscow, 1994.
48. S,.$Ier L. Essays on English and American literature. Princreton, 1962.
49. U--+!'' S. Language and style. N. Y, 1964.
50. Ct I B.H..
.: C , 1990.
51. De<-.' 5. A Dictionary oI Synonyms and Antonyms. N.Y.: Popular Library, Inc., 1961.
52. Dictionary oI English Language and Culture. Longman: Addison Wesley Longmans
Limited, 1992
53. Dictionary oI Contemporary English. Longman: Longman Group Ltd, 1995.
54. Encyclopedia Britannica CD 99 I Multimedia edition. 1999.
55. The Random House College Dictionary I Revised Edition. N. Y: Random House Inc.,
56. Webster's New World Dictionary oI American English. N. Y.: Webster's New World,
57. H(r'6* A. S.3 A!$e'6* E. U.3 D!7e.e-1 H. The Advanced Learner's Dictionary oI
Current English. London: OUP, 1958.
58. k.++er+!' 5. E. Dictionary oI Classical Mythology. Bantam Books, 1980.
UiC/ GE V!/.GC aFL H!]liDa/iGFC ^!G/IL
An Anthology oI English and American Verse. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972.
A-1.'/$(' R. Death oI a Hero. M., 1958.
?e-- 5.3 A(9er R. Matters. Upper Intermediate. Longman, 1996.
?-!7e D. Songs oI Experience. N.Y.: Dover Publications, 1984.
C!-19e-- T. This side oI Innocence. N. Y: Popular Library, 1977.
C%!,,e- F. I Am One oI You Forever. Louisiana State University Press, 1985.
C%ee<er5. Selected Prose. M.: Ht "x", 2000.
C%r.)$.e A. Hercule Poirot's Christmas. N. Y: Pocket Books, 1969.
C%r.)$.e A. Dumb Witness. London: Pan Books, 1979.
Cr('.'A. The Citadel. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1963.
D(-/(,(-(<! k.G.3 ?-(7% M. >.3 De'.)(<! U. S.3 Le6e1e<! A. >. Exercises in
English Articles. Moscow: International Relations Publishing House, 1969.
D('-e!<* 5. P. The Plays. London: Penguin Books, 1972.
Dre.)er T%. The American Tragedy. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1964.
Er1r."% L. The Beet ueen. Bantam Books, 1987.
Financial Times. September 9-10, 2000. London: The Financial Times Limited, 2000.
F(--e$$ G. The Third Twin. N. Y: Fawcett Crest, 1996.
He+.'/9!* E. The Old Man and the Sea. Kiev, 1973.
Great Short Stories By American Women I Ed. By Candance Ward. Toronto:
Dover Publications, 1996.
Aree' A3 The uiet American. London: Penguin Books, 1975. L!9re'"e D. H. Selected
Prose. M.: Ht "x", 2000. M!.-er N. An American Dream. London:
Panther, Granada Publishing, 1979. M!-e)7! E. T. A Pleasure in Words. N. Y: A Fireside
Book, 1981. M!0/%!+ D. S. Rain and Other Short Stories. M., 1977. M!'/0+ R. L. The
PerIect Murder II K . ., 3. ., . A., . .
C, C, Vt. .: H, 1971.
M."%e'er 5.A. Centennial. N. Y: Fawcett Crest, 1978. Milan is Milano I Ed. by S. Peroni.
Milan, 1994.
M.$"%e-- M. Gone with the Wind. London: Pan Books, Macmillan, 1979.
O8H!r! 5. Ten North Frederick. N. Y: Bantam Books, 1967.
People. N. Y, November, 1990. Vol. 34, No. 23.
M E.A. Prose and Poetry. Moscow: Raduga Publishers, 1983.
R0$%er(r1 E. London. N. Y: Fawcett Crest, 1997.
S!-.'/er 5. D. Nine Stories. Franny and Zooey. Raise High the RooI Beam, Carpenters.
Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1982.
S%!7e),e!re D. King Lear. N. Y: A Signet Classic. New American Library, 1963.
S%!7e),e!re D. Sonnets. London, 1967.
S%!r, P. 5. How to Prepare Ior the TOEFL. N. Y: Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1986.
S%!9 @. Nightwork. London and Sydney: Pan Books, 1976.
S%e-1(' S. Memories oI Midnight. London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1994.
The Norton Anthology oI Poetry I m
edition. N.Y.: Norton and Company Inc., 1970.
The Penguin Book oI Modern Humour I Selected by Alan Coren. London: Penguin Books,
D!0/% E. Prose. Memoirs. Essays. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1980. D!0/% E. Vile
Bodies. London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1970. D.-1e O. The Importance oI Being Earnest. M.:
Ht , 1947.
D.-1e . Fairy Tales. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979.
oWX\Q E. K . E:
B, 1993.

Вам также может понравиться