Chapter III. Socially regulated sublanguages
The use of the sublanguage fettered by formality is as wide as any other, since it is up to us what we regard as formal. There certainly are degrees of formality. Both the Charter of the United Nations (1945) and a business letter signed by a low-ranking official are formal, i.e. as the meaning of the adj ective formal necessarily implies devoid of any indication of private emotions (except when the subject is directly connected with emotions — say, in congratulations and condolences) and — what is perhaps of greater importance, or at least, quite indispensable — devoid of any trace of familiarity. It must be noted here that the word familiar is used here not in the sense of 'acquainted with', or 'known to', but, as The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it, 'unceremonious', 'over-free', 'treating inferiors or superiors as equals'.
Another remark that is of essence. The word officialese usually applies to over-refined, very elaborate, archaically stereotyped sets of linguistic units which are at least slightly ridiculous due to their excessive refinement. Here, in this book and in this chapter, the term is employed as a conventional denomination of any type or degree of officialism.
A very rough and approximate gradation of sub-spheres and their respective sublanguages follows:
a) private correspondence with a stranger;
b) business correspondence between representatives of commercial or other establishments;
c) diplomatic correspondence, international treaties, other documents;
d) legal documents (civil law — testaments, settlements, etc.; criminal law — verdicts, sentences, etc.);
e) personal documents (certificates, diplomas, etc.).
Before giving a more or less detailed description of the above types, a few general or explanatory remarks may be made.
This is the sphere of written lingual intercourse, although texts of some of the types are read aloud in public.
Common to the genres enumerated is:
1. 'Superneutral' features of this whole group of sublanguages.
2. Socially established (as opposed to free creative) character, which, as alluded to before, may be collectively referred to as archaic, i.e. either obsolete or obsolescent.
3. Predetermined lingual form (in all the genres mentioned, though the degree is, of necessity, different).
4. Cliches (different genres have stereotyped expressions of their own).
5. Long (polysyllabic) words of Latin or Greek origin, of ten euphemistic as compared with their counterparts.
|
|
|
6. Periphrastic expressions where a single word might have done just as well.
7. Complex syntax as compared to that of commonly bookish texts.
8. Established forms of composition that cannot be deviated from; they naturally differ in each genre discussed below.
Letters. Tastes and fashions, rules of lingual behaviour included, change with the lapse of time. In the appendix to a dictionary compiled in Germany at the very beginning of this century one can see a collection of elaborate and overpolite letters, as well as recommended opening and closing parts of the same sort ("Kurschners Fiinf-Sprachen-Lexikon" — A Dictionary of Five Languages by Kurschner). Most of the 36 samples offered are uniform in the matter of direct address: nearly every letter begins with "Dear Sir", some with "Gentlemen", and only two with "Dear Sirs". No mention of a feminine addressee. Here are a few openings proposed to a letter-writer of the epoch; laconic, matter-of-fact, businesslike cliches alternate with florid wording:
The purpose of the present is to inform you...
From your favour of 15th inst.I learn with pleasure...
In reply to your favour of...
I beg to thank you for your kind letter of...
Though I have not yet the honour of being acquainted with you...
In pursuance of your kind favour of 28th ult. we beg to... Quite a number of concluding formulas were offered to the reader of some ninety years ago. Among them:
Yours truly
Your ever faithfully
Your very humble servant
I assure you of my feelings of respect and remain sincerely yours...
Hoping you will kindly comply with my request, I am, dear Sir, yours respectfully...
Please believe me to be your humble servant...
Always ready to serve you, we are respectfully yours... The only example of the close of a letter sent to a woman reads:
Allow me, dear Madam, to tell you that I am your most respectful and obedient servant...
Essentially different are the rules of epistolary intercourse of the epoch that began half a century later. The book Etiquette by Emily Post (New York, 1956), 1 published by E. Gluskina in an abridged form in this country
|
|
|
five years later, gives some important information on the forms of salutation and the complimentary close recommended. According to Emily Post, the most formal beginning of a social letter (i.e. not a business letter) is "My dear Mr. Smith" (in America); in Great Britain the more formal opening is "DearMr. Smith". She further gives a gradation of non-formal openings of social letters in America (from the more official one up to the most intimate): "DearMrs. Smith", "DearHelen", "Sally, dear", "Dearest Sally", "Darling Sally".
The complimentary close in social letters is becoming less ornamental than it used to be, say, in the eighteenth century. Even phrases like "Kindest regards", "With kindest remembrances" are fast disappearing. What is left is practically nothing but an abrupt "Sincerely yours".
Business letters. This term implies commercial correspondence for the most part as the most typical, though the subject-matter of a business letter may have nothing in common with merchandise or financial matters. It is probably with reference to business correspondence that we may start speaking of officialese proper. A formal letter to an unknown person would be composed in accordance with certain rules. Formal usage is observed in everything, including the proper variety of direct address, as well as that of what is called the 'complimentary close* by Emily Post. Besides, there must be nothing superfluous in the text, nothing that would disclose subjective emotions, no strong expressions betraying passion or vehemence. And yet, this kind of letters is a borderline case. It would be too hasty to class them all as strictly official.
One more remark. A letter written by an educated person who has to discuss some financial or commercial matters, not being a professional banker or tradesman, will have to use some special terminology and phraseology, but still the most reliable samples of this type of speech are likely to be found in the correspondence of professionals.
Business letters are mostly very short ("Time is money!"). I.R. Galperin remarks that they hardly ever excede 8 or 10 lines.2 The rules of composition are very strict. The heading of the letter gives the address of the writer and the date (in the upper right-hand corner); next (lower, in the left-hand corner) the name of the addressee and his (her) address. Then follow: the polite form of direct address (mostly 'Dear Sir/s/', or 'Gentlemen' — the latter when addressing more than one individual). A personal name is practically never used in the direct address of a business letter. The text proper is followed (as we know) by the complimentary close and, finally, the signature of the sender. In one of Galperin's books the following closing phrases are given without any comment:
|
|
|
Yours very truly...
We remain your obedient servants...
Yours obediently...
Yours faithfully... Yours respectfully...
Emily Post is more particular on this point, informing the reader what expression ought to be used by whom, with reference to whom, and in what kind of letters. So she points out, for instance, that the close of a business letter should be "Yours truly" or "Yours very truly". "Respectfully", she says, is used only by a tradesman to a customer, by an employee to an employer, or by an inferior, never by a person of equal position. No lady, the reader is further made to know, should ever sign a letter "Respectfully", except as a part of the long, formal "have the honour to remain" close of a letter to the head of the Government.
It is known that, historically, openings and closing formulas were not mere tributes to the existing traditional standard, not customary signs of politeness no one takes notice of or pays attention to. Originally, they were functional necessities: a letter writer (especially one of a lower social standing than the addressee) was morally obliged to emphasize his submissiveness and humbleness, his inferiority to the person addressed. The words humble, obedient, faithful, servant and the like were meant to affect the person of high position, to beg for a morsel of the man's sympathy by lavishly flattering his pride. The learner, it is expected, knows about a similar social phenomenon in the history of Russia. The very action of asking for the sovereign's merciful attention was kneeling reverently and bowing so low as to strike one's forehead against the ground: бить челом; hence the archaic word челобитная (literally: 'forehead-beating') which meant 'petition' (an official juridical term before the eighteenth century).
|
|
|
In English letters of earlier centuries we can meet such pearls of timid submission and self-humiliation as: "I do most humbly entreat your honour to be pleased to procure me my audience from His Highness..." The close of the letter reads: "Your honour's most humble and obedient servant..." (from a letter quoted by Galperin in the above-mentioned book).
Business letters dealing with trade or finances abound in special terms. Even the following short acknowledgement contains, along with words used in every kind of more or less official written communication, also several lexical units dealing with pecuniary affairs. A few explanations concerning the former. The word favour is (or was) a trite metonymy of euphemistic and flattering nature, denoting the correspondent's letter; the abbreviation inst. standing for instant means 'of the current month'; ult. (standing for the Latin ultimo) means 'in the month preceding that now current'.
The terms used in the letter are: Inc. — 'incorporated' (formed into a corporation); remit (here: 'transmit money'); bill (here: 'order to pay'); drawee ('person on whom bill is drawn'); debit (here: 'charge with sum of money').
23 Convent Street
Newcastle
March 21,1992
Mr. Slatty & Sons, Inc. 12 Park Lane, London
Gentlemen,
We acknowledge receipt of your favour of 18. inst. By the present we beg to remit you two bills of £3410 together requesting you to get them accepted. If the drawees, contrary to all probability, should refuse acceptance, please return the bills without protest debiting us for your expenses.
Awaiting your reply we are, Gentlemen, Yours very truly
Johnson & Co.
Diplomatic sphere. It is evident a priori that diplomatic notes or other documents of international significance (especially treaties) determine the fate of whole nations, or even of the whole planet; therefore compilers of this kind of texts feel acute responsibility for what they undertake, for every word or expression that may be misinterpreted.
What is meant by the diplomatic sphere here concerns only what is written to be handed to the other party. To be sure, ambassadors and foreign ministers (Secretary of State in the USA), as well as Prime Minister or President (in Great Britain and the United States respectively) often converse in private. Naturally, their talks, though extremely official, are most probably not quite devoid of emotions and, generally, of deviations from diplomatic protocol, but being inaccessible to the rest of the world, give no grounds for discussion.
Public speeches of statesmen, as well as of diplomatists are made known to the public from parliamentary minutes — especially moves of some historic significance that appear in the dailies. Usually, a political figure has experience in speaking not only in a free and fluent manner, using, if necessary, complicated syntactical structures, but also employing impressive stylistic devices, to convince the listeners by both the factual and appellative qualities of his discourse. A diplomat, as well as a statesman (the latter being often in the former's shoes) are simultaneously reticent, careful, and violently expressive, no matter if the speech was written previously or made offhand.
Most of the parliamentary speeches known to history must have been prepared in advance. A British Member of Parliament or a Congressman in the USA is expected to give his ideas, his political convictions, his platform not only good logical foundations, but artistic, emotive form as well. So, what we are discussing now is not diplomacy, only what approaches it in some ways: official public speeches. We shall have to return to them when discussing the sphere of law later on. Lord Byron's ardent speech in defence of the Luddites has been mentioned. Here, a few extracts from Patric Henry's speech before the Virginia Convention of 1775 will be quoted. The reader is sure to notice their generally exalted tone — the presence of tropes, allusions to mythology, archaic negatives, rhetorical questions, etc. In a way, what the speaker says reminds one — in some places at least — of a sermon:
"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth — and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not the things that so nearly concern their temporal salvation? (...)
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience (...)
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
As for documents (treaties, declarations, credentials, and the like), their wording can be collectively characterized as highly traditional, stereotyped, elaborate, and exacting: even a shade of ambiguity is to be avoided here — often at the cost of aesthetic value of the text in question. The characteristic is, of course, fully applicable to proceedings (i.e. to documentary records) of civil and criminal law. In the next section, the affinity of both diplomatic and legal spheres will be discussed and illustrated; here, to conclude the brief discourse on diplomacy and statesmanship, two extracts are given.
Дата добавления: 2016-01-04; просмотров: 14; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!