Correlation of style, norm and function in the language
Any national language uses the notion of 'correct language' which involves conformity to the grammatical, lexical and phonetic standards accepted as normative in this society. The favoured variety is usually a version of the standard written language, especially as encountered in literature or in the formal spoken language that most closely reflects literary style. It is presented in dictionaries, grammars and other official 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 of the linguistic norm. The norm is closely related to the system of the language as an abstract ideal system. The system provides and determines the general rules of usage of its elements, the norm is the actual use of these provisions by individual speakers under specific conditions of communication.
Individual use of the language implies a personal selection of linguistic means on all levels. When this use conforms to the general laws of the language this use will coincide with what is called the literary norm of the national language.
However the literary norm is not a homogeneous and calcified entity. It varies due to a number of factors, such as regional, social, situational, personal, etc.
The norm will be dictated by the social roles of the participants of communication, their age and family or other relations. An important role in the selection of this or that variety of the norm belongs to the purpose of the utterance, or its function. Informal language on a formal occasion is as inappropriate as formal language on an informal occasion. To say that a usage is appropriate is only to say that it is performing its function satisfactorily. We shall use different 'norms' speaking with elderly people and our peers, teachers and students, giving an interview or testimony in court. This brings us to the notion of the norm variation.
The prevailing public attitude is that certain forms of usage are "correct" and others — "incorrect". Teachers of English are supposed to know the difference between "right" and "wrong" in language. The real fact about usage in natural languages is that it is diverse and subject to change. What determines the appropriateness is the speakers' age, education, sophistication, social position.
Some scientists describe Standard English as current (neither old-fashioned nor faddishly new), widespread (not limited to a particular locale or group) and generally accepted (suggested instead of correct).
|
|
|
The norm of the language implies various realisations of the language structure that are sometimes called its subsystems, registers or varieties.
I.V.Arnold presents these relations as a system of oppositions:
Structure:: norm:: individual use
National norm:: dialect
Neutral style:: colloquial style:: bookish style
Literary correct speech:: common colloquial
Functional styles are subsystems of the language and represent varieties of the norm of the national language. Their evolution and development has been determined by the specific factors of communication in various spheres of human activity. Each of them is characterised by its own parameters in vocabulary usage, syntactical expression, phraseology, etc.
The term 'functional style' reflects peculiar functions of the language in this or that type of communicative interaction. Proceeding from the generally acknowledged language functions Prof. I. V. Arnold suggested a description of functional styles based on the combination of the linguistic functions they fulfil.
The point of departure for discerning functional styles is the so-called neutral style that is stylistically non-marked and reflects the norms of the language. It serves as a kind of universal background for the expression of stylistically marked elements in texts of any functional type. It can be rarely observed in the individual use of the language and as Skrebnev remarked, perhaps, only handbooks for foreigners and primers could be qualified as stylistically neutral.
LANGUAGE VARIETIES
The particular set of features, which identifies a language variety, does not represent the features of the language as a whole. Variety features depend on the presence of certain factors in a social situation. Classifications of these factors vary, but we may group them into two types according to most general dimensions: sociolinguistic and stylistic factors.
Sociolinguistic factors are connected with very broad situational constraints on language use. They chiefly identify the regional and social varieties of the language. They are relatively permanent features of the spoken and written language, over which we have comparatively little conscious control. We tend not to change our regional or social group way of speaking in every-day communication and usually we are not aware of using it.
|
|
|
Stylistic factors relate to restrictions on language use that are much more narrowly constrained, and identify individual preferences in usage (phraseology, special vocabulary, language of literature) or the varieties that are associated with occupational groups (lawyers, journalists, scholars). These are features, over which we are able to exercise some degree of conscious control.
Social language 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 different social groups and perform different social roles. A person may at the same time be described as 'a parent', 'a wife', 'an architect', 'a feminist', 'a senior citizen', 'a member of Parliament', 'an amateur sculptor', 'a theatre-goer'; the possibilities may be endless.
Some features of social variation lead to particular linguistic consequences. In many ways our pronunciation, choice of words and constructions, general strategy of communication are defined by the age, sex and socio-economic aspects. Choice of occupation has a less predictable influence, though in some contexts, e. g. medicine or law it can be highly distinctive.
We identify the uses to which language is put: the subject it treats, the circumstances in which it is used, the social relationships among its users and the purposes of its use. We adapt what we want to say or write to the circumstances in which we are communicating. We use different words in discussing politics, sports, theology or computer technologies. We arrange our sentences differently in talking to babies, bosses, close friends or making announcements, etc. Regional and social variations depend on who we are, register depends on who we are communicating with, where, how, and about what. Registers are functional options available to us in social and personal communication.
|
|
|
We adapt our language to the occasion for which we use it. An important dimension of variation in English is the degree of formality of a language event stretching from the coronation of a British sovereign to a relaxed get-together of alumni. The continuum of formality may be arbitrarily divided into any number of subsegments for purposes of discussion. For example, a presidential inauguration address may be labeled as ritual, a request to city officials for action as formal, a discussion among members of a civic club as collegial, a conversation between good friends as familiar, comments of husband and wife watching TV as intimate. Hardly any aspect of language -phonetic, lexical or grammatical - is the same in the five situations. Each of these situations calls for its own kind of language. The variety used in the intimate kind of talk would be ridiculous or even grotesque in a ritual speech and vice versa.
Occupational varieties of the national language are normally associated with a particular way of earning a living. They belong to the group of stylistically determined varieties and differ from both regional and social sublanguages.
Features of language that identify people's geographical or social origins, once established can hardly change over a short period of time. It would be very difficult to change your accent if you move from one part of the country to another with a different regional norm; it is equally difficult to transform the linguistic indicators of our social background (vocabulary and structural expression).
Occupational varieties are not like that. Their linguistic features may be just as distinctive as regional or social features, but they are only in temporary use. They 'go with the territory'—adopted as we begin work and given up as we finish it. People who cannot stop 'talking shop' even when they are not at work are rather an exception to the rule.
Дата добавления: 2016-01-04; просмотров: 27; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!