Apie funkcinius stilius ir registrus

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XLII (2000) Rasუolė VLADARSKIENĖ Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Kaunas ON FUNCTIONAL STYLES AND REGISTERS The emergence of functional stylistics, a branch of linguistic stylistics, was prompted by the ideas of representatives of the Prague Linguistic School concerning the study of language functions and their relationship with non-linguistic factors. B. Havránek’s arguments were significant for this theory: that the standard language can be divided into functional languages, which differ not only in their means of expression but also in their structural organization (Gavranek 1967: 435). These ideas and functional stylistics were developed in Central and Eastern Europe (by Russian, Slovak, Czech, German, Polish, and Bulgarian linguists). Functional styles were studied particularly thoroughly by Russian linguists. Functional stylistics defines styles according to the features by which these language varieties are distinguished from the standard language as a whole. Definitions of functional style most often emphasize the sphere of communicative activity (sometimes associated with forms of social consciousness) or the speech situation (associated with a stereotypical social situation), whose aims and tasks determine the selection of linguistic means. Other linguists, when defining functional styles, consider the principal language functions—not the sphere of communication or the speech situation—to be paramount. The linguists of the Prague School also adhered to the principle of function (Gavranek 1967: 436), which gave rise to the term functional style. The Russian linguist I. Arnold considers this term highly apt, since the specific character of each style is determined by the characteristics of language functions in a particular sphere of communication (Arnold 1990: 247). K. Župerka, meanwhile, regards the main criteria for defining and classifying functional styles as communicative ones (Župerka 1985: 57). In defining functional styles, Lithuanian linguists combined these two perspectives, which are essentially not in conflict with one another. In Lithuanian stylistics, J. Pikčilingis was the first to formulate a definition of functional style: “Style is a historically formed branch, or variety, of the national language, whose characteristics and specific nature are determined by the sphere in which the language is used and the function it performs” (Pikčilingis 1971: 6). K. Župerka has defined functional style similarly, but in addition to the two main factors determining functional style—the sphere of language use and its functions—he also included the content of language (Župerka 1997: 78–79). A concise definition highlighting one principal feature is given in the “Dictionary of Linguistic Terms”: “Functional style is a variety of language used in a particular sphere of human activity” (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 67). There has been much heated discussion about whether functional style belongs to language or speech (for a fuller discussion, see Bitinienė 1983: 5–7). Some linguists have attempted to discern functional- 132 stylistic differentiation, drawing on Ch. Bally, who argued that language contains neutral elements and elements with an additional stylistic coloring, referred to as social coloring (Bally 1921: 9). For example, M. Kožina based the distinction between functional styles on stylistically marked language units (Kožina 1973: 194). This approach has been criticized because language contains relatively few stylistically marked units; moreover, “texts assigned to a particular functional style consist mainly of units that are widely used in other functional styles and are not a specific feature of any one style” (Dolinin 1987: 77). Other linguists maintain that functional styles emerge in the process of speech through the selection of expressive means, and argue that they belong only to speech. Attempts have been made to reconcile these approaches by distinguishing language style as a theoretically defined category of the system, and speech style as the concrete realization of this category in the communication process (Gal'perin 1980: 13). The most important features characterizing functional styles are extralinguistic factors, the specific direction of communication, stylistic features, and linguistic features (for a fuller discussion, see Bitinienė 1983: 8–13). The set of extralinguistic factors is quite complex, and there is agreement only about the principal extralinguistic factors. M. Kožina divided them into primary factors, which determine the distinctive features of functional styles, and secondary factors, on which the differentiation of functional styles depends (Kožina 1983: 68). A. Vasiljeva attempted to define the set of factors that determine style. Using her own scheme, the linguist discussed five functional styles, characterizing each according to twelve extralinguistic factors: the domain of language use, types of activity, type of thinking, communicative tasks, the status of the sender, the status of the recipient, modes of contact, the degree to which the content and form of speech are prepared, the primary mode of speech expression, the form of communication organization, the type of communicative atmosphere, and the nature and importance of the content of standard situations (Vasil'eva 1986: 4–5). Other linguists also list similar extralinguistic factors (Fleischer, Michel 1975: 238; Kožina 1983: 68). Which factors are considered most important depends on how the phenomenon of functional style is interpreted. The same matters are most often discussed, and the same factors listed, but from a slightly different perspective. Two approaches to extralinguistic factors and their influence on functional style are usually distinguished. The first approach, based on the works of G. Vinokur and V. Vinogradov, is provisionally termed communicative-cognitive. Its proponents consider the most important factor determining functional style to be the form of social consciousness and its purpose in society (Kožina 1982: 29). A form of social consciousness is associated with a corresponding sphere of communication and type of activity. Their tasks and aims determine the specific features of functional style, since they govern the principles by which linguistic means are selected and used (Möller 1980: 14). The tasks and aims of a sphere of communication are determined not only by the form of social consciousness but also by its characteristic type of thinking, the type of content being conveyed, and the speech situation. All these extralinguistic factors are closely related and interdependent. They form the extralinguistic basis of functional style. Which units are used in a particular sphere of communi- 133 cation depends on the principle of communicative appropriateness: from the language system, those language units are selected that are best suited to convey the specific nature of communication in that sphere (Kožina 1983: 48). For example, the main task of scientific style is to convey intellectual content precisely and with sound argumentation—a consideration that guides the choice of linguistic means. Proponents of the other approach understand functional style as a socio-psychological phenomenon. Their interpretation of functional style is based on sociology and social psychology. An important concept here is social role, that is, the established ways of behaving and acting in a given situation. Since social roles are possible only in communication, they are also speech roles (Karaliūnas 1997: 89). Functional style is viewed as a set of generalized speech genres associated with generalized social roles, such as those of a scholar, politician, administrator, or journalist (Dolinin 1987: 74). Thus, functional styles are language norms that society has thoroughly internalized, and speakers themselves know what kind of linguistic behavior is expected of them. They must behave (and speak) as society or a particular social group requires if they want their speech to achieve its goal—that is, to have the desired effect on the recipient. To examine the interaction of social roles in greater detail, one must draw on information transmission theory, whose principles underpin the model of linguistic communication (for a fuller discussion, see Karaliūnas 1997: 99–107). There are various schemas of communicative acts. Their most important elements are the sender, channel, message, communication code, and recipient (Sanders 1973: 69–70). These characteristics are the principal factors that determine the expression of a message (that is, its linguistic means), and consequently are also the principal factors determining styles. The social roles of the communicants are especially important, since they encompass other external coordinates of communication (that is, extralinguistic factors): the sphere of communication, its dominant function, the mode of communication, and the relations between communicants (Dolinin 1982: 72–74). Thus, representatives of both approaches in fact distinguish the same extralinguistic factors. Traditional functional styles differ from speech genres only in their degree of generalization and should be regarded as classes of speech genres sharing common features of domain and type of activity (Dolinin 1982: 75). It is generally argued that the specific nature of functional style is determined by communicative tasks: a text is created using the linguistic means that best suit the information to be conveyed. Functional styles reflect not only the specifics of communicative activity but also the traditional conception of this type of activity that has developed in a particular society (Dolinin 1987: 75). As society’s attitude toward a particular sphere of activity changes, so do the means chosen to create texts in that sphere. For example, the beginnings of Lithuanian administrative style in Lithuania Minor reflect the need, in the society of that time, to glorify the ruler: decrees were characterized by “the enumeration of all the ruler’s titles, with various pompous epithets added to them” (Palionis 1995: 96). Texts in the same domain may differ in some stylistic features across cultures. For example, the scientific style of French is more emotional and more personal— 134 than Lithuanian or Russian. K. Dolinin explains this fact not only by tradition. He believes that tradition itself is preserved as long as it corresponds to some need in society (Dolin in 1982: 73). Another debated issue in functional stylistics is the nomenclature and classification of styles. Discussions often arise because the same phenomena are treated differently. There have been all kinds of classifications of styles (see Župerka 1985: 55–60; Fleischer, Michel 1975: 61). The term functional style would suggest that classification should be based on the functions of language. This is what B. Havránek did, distinguishing four languages (styles) according to four functions: the communicative function—colloquial language; the practical special function—language for specific purposes; the theoretical special function—scientific language; and the aesthetic function—the language of fiction. J. Mistrik regards the first three functions as aspects of a single function—that of transmitting information (Mistrik 1985: 25). V. Vinogradov’s classification of five functional styles (everyday, official, scientific, journalistic, and belletristic) according to three language functions (communication, reporting, and influence) has also been criticized, since it distinguishes more functional styles than there are language functions. Linguists drew on speech-act functions when applying the theories of K. Bühler and R. Jakobson (see Bitinienė 1983: 13–14). The functional principle of classification has been criticized on the grounds that a style may have more than one function (Kožina 1982: 28; Solganik 1982: 43). Another approach to classification is based on the factors that determine styles. Two groups of classifications based on extralinguistic factors can be distinguished. The first group comprises classifications of functional styles according to forms of social consciousness. M. Kožina, who developed this classification, argued that it is logical to distinguish functional styles in view of forms of social consciousness (science, politics, law, art), which correspond to particular types of activity and areas of communication (Kožina 1983: 67–68). Unfortunately, the everyday style has no corresponding form of social consciousness. Some classifications are based on types of activity or areas of communication without emphasizing their connection with forms of social consciousness (Vasil'eva 1986: 4). The second group comprises the differentiation of language varieties according to speakers’ social roles and the sociocultural context (Dolin in 1987: 74). In K. Dolinin’s view, functional styles are generalized speech genres reflecting social roles, whose number is not precisely established: there may be five or seven (as in traditional classifications), or more. Followers of the Prague Linguistic School believe that functional styles can be classified according to the objective and subjective factors that influence them. Scientific and administrative styles are influenced by objective factors; everyday and artistic styles, by subjective factors; and journalistic, rhetorical, and essay styles, by both objective and subjective factors (Mistrik 1985: 423). Lithuanian stylistics has no indigenous classification of styles. Researchers of Lithuanian stylistics have drawn on the experience of linguists in other countries. J. Pikčilingis classified functional styles according to areas of social activity, as did Russian linguists (Pikčilingis 1971: 276–277). K. Župerka classified functional styles according to the principle of dichotomy, based on the Slova- 135 kų stilistika ir atsižvelgdamas į visuomeninės veiklos rūšis (Župerka 1983: 99; 1997: 79). It is interesting that, despite being distinguished according to different criteria, one can say that the same functional styles are identified. They are identified intuitively, and then each scholar explains their extralinguistic basis in their own way (Vasiljeva 1986: 4). J. Skrebnev criticized all classifications of functional styles, arguing that there are, in fact, no “traditional styles”: there are only individual classifications of styles—the styles distinguished by V. Vinogradov, those postulated by I. R. Galperin, E. S. Riesel, J. S. Stepanov, and so on (Skrebnev 1975: 48–49). K. Župerka, a researcher of Lithuanian stylistics, does not consider the situation that has arisen to be flawed: “a classification based on a single principle does not allow a comprehensive discussion of the complex phenomenon of style; various classifications of styles are needed” (Župerka 1987: 195). The theory of registers, which emerged in English text linguistics, is related to functional stylistics and has much in common with the sociopsychological interpretation of functional styles. In K. Župerka’s view, a finer division of these styles is necessary to characterize the diversity of language use stylistically, taking into account the many factors involved in a speech act (Župerka 1995: 8). The term register is often used to denote any language variety, and is therefore sometimes criticized. D. Crystal proposes using this term only for language (speech) varieties distinguished according to social situations (e.g., the registers of science and religion) (Crystal 1990: 260). Thus, English linguists use the term register when referring to speech in various areas of communication, reserving the term style for fiction alone, which is not considered a separate register. Different speech is used in different situations. The choice of speech is determined not by the fact being discussed or the desire to describe it, but by the fact that a particular kind of speech is used in a particular situation—that is, a language variety defined as a register (Halliday et al. 1964: 87). In a speech situation, people behave as social roles require; these roles also influence the choice of the appropriate register (often unconsciously). If the chosen register does not fit the speech situation, stylistic errors occur, especially often when speaking a non-native language (Sanders 1977: 139). Registers differ from one another through various expressive means—syntactic, lexical, and phonological (for example, English church language differs from other registers only in its characteristic voice quality). Membership in a register is indicated not by an individual linguistic unit but by a combination of several units; language also contains units that, being universal, are used in various registers (Halliday et al. 1964: 88). Linguists in Eastern and Central Europe make similar claims about functional styles: the same linguistic units can be used in various functional styles, but their combinations are characteristic of particular styles. The classification of functional styles differs from that of registers; the latter are subdivided much more finely. There are two main classifications of registers, which differ in the number of factors they consider but are essentially compatible—the second classification expands on the first. 136 One of them is a classification based on three factors that influence the choice of register: 1) field of discourse – the sphere of social activity in which discourse is used; according to this factor, political, technical-scientific, and personal-relations registers are distinguished; 2) mode of discourse – the manner in which discourse is conducted, especially the distinction between spoken and written language; for example, there may be spoken and written registers of political discourse; 3) tenor of discourse – the relationship between the participants in a speech act, usually defined in terms of the opposition between familiarity and formality; according to this factor, the personal-relations register can be divided into friendly, respectful, or familiar (Halliday et al. 1964: 87; Crystal 1990: 187, 196, 260–261). The second classification was devised by R. Hasan, drawing on the research of M. A. K. Halliday and other linguists (J. Ellis, J. Ure). She identified five factors by which registers are classified: 1) the subject of discourse, 2) the type of discourse situation, 3) the roles of the discourse participants, 4) the tenor of discourse, 5) the mode of discourse (Hasan 1975: 215–221). The subject of discourse is described as the matter being discussed. It constitutes the content of the discourse. The subject of discourse partly determines lexical choice—for example, the characteristic vocabulary used when talking about volcanoes will differ from that used when talking about musical composition. The type of discourse situation is characterized by the purpose of the interaction between participants for which discourse is used. Possible situation types are related to the subject of discourse. Here are two examples in which the subject of discourse is the same—jewelry—but the situation types differ: an expert appraisal (1) and a sale (2). Accordingly, different registers are used: 1. The ring is made of 585⁰ gold; the gold weighs 2 g, and the stone is a Class III gemstone. The ring is valued at 300 Lt. 2. Here’s a wonderful piece of jewelry. A very beautifully made ring. The stone shines wonderfully in daylight, and even more so under electric light. It will go perfectly with an evening dress. Try it on. See, it’s just right for your hand. The roles of discourse participants are the social roles of people who communicate and use language—father, son, teacher, salesperson, and so on. In each specific case, the speaker will act according to the role they perform and choose linguistic means appropriate to that role. The roles of participants in a speech act also depend considerably on the type of situation. For example, in an educational situation, the social roles are teacher and student. If a teacher interacts in class with a student who is also her daughter, their roles will be those of teacher and student, not mother and daughter. The distance between the discourse participants is also important; it is expressed through the atmosphere of communication. It evaluates 137 according to the degree of formality and familiarity. This feature is particularly pronounced in personal-relationship registers. The roles of the participants in a speech event and the distance in their relationship influence the choice of lexical and syntactic register resources. The nature of speech may be related to the three factors already discussed. For example, in a sales situation, where the topic of conversation is a purchase and the participants’ roles are those of seller and buyer, the nature of speech will be persuasive, while an imperative nature is impossible. The seller flatters but does not give orders. In a situation involving the explanation of a hypothesis, the nature of speech will be explanatory, not pleading. It is possible to predict the characteristic structural features of texts representing various natures of speech; for example, in a persuasive text, causal relationships are clear. The mode of speech is related to the communication channel and may be written or spoken. However, it does not directly depend on the material form in which the message is transmitted. For example, verbatim records of Seimas sessions published as separate publications, although presented in written form, are not an example of it. Nor does the spoken mode include news read on television or radio. Thus, what matters more is not how the message is transmitted, but the particular features of its linguistic resources—they are the distinguishing characteristics of registers. For example, when we start a conversation in the street with a foreigner who speaks Lithuanian beautifully, we sense that something is not quite right: the speech is correct, but the speaker uses features of written language because they have not yet mastered the language well enough to sense differences between registers. The mode of speech influences the choice of syntactic resources: spoken language contains many ellipses and incomplete sentences, since information is conveyed not only verbally; alongside it, nonverbal forms of communication are used—gestures and facial expressions—and the circumstances of speaking also matter. Each of the five factors listed influences the selection of linguistic resources during the speech process (the appropriate register is selected accordingly); therefore, if any one of them changes, the register changes as well. The number of registers has not been established, since the variants of each individual factor have not been precisely counted, with the exception of modes of speech, of which there are two. Incidentally, although theoretically there could be various combinations of factors, it cannot be claimed that they are unrelated to one another; for example, if the subject of speech is linguistics, it is unlikely that the nature of speech would be flattering or provocative. Thus, the most important factors are the subject of speech and the type of situation; to some extent, they determine the influence of the other factors. The descriptions of functional styles and registers presented above show that these linguistic theories assess some speech phenomena similarly, and that the factors used to distinguish functional styles and registers are also similar. Functional styles defined by K. Dolinin are particularly close to registers. It is true that register theory is based on the semantics of text, so it cannot be equated with functional stylistics; its scope of investigation is broader. However, these theories can be successfully combined in the study of non-literary styles (especially everyday styles), making it possible to reveal more fully the patterns of speech in certain areas of communication. Received 1999 02 24 138 LITERATŪRA Arnol'd I. 1990: Stilistika sovremennogo anglijskogo jazyka, Moskva: Prosveščenie. Bally Ch. 1921: Traité de stylistique française 1, Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Bitinienė A. 1983: Mokslinis stilius, Vilnius: LTSR aukšt. ir spec. vid. mokslo m-ja. Crystal D. 1990: A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell. Dolinin K. 1982: Stil’ v obščesemotičeskoj perspektive. – Osnovnye ponjatija i kategorii lingvostilistiki, Perm’, 71–79. Dolinin K. 1987: Stilistika francuzskogo jazyka, Leningrad: Prosveščenie. Fleischer W., Michel G. 1975: Stilistik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, Leipzig: Bibliogr. Inst. Gaivenis K., Keinys S. 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas: Šviesa. Gal’perin I. 1980: Problemy lingvostilistiki. – Novoe v zarubežnoj lingvistike 9: Lingvostilistika, Moskva, 5–34. Gavranek B. 1967: O funkcional’nom rassloenii literaturnogo jazyka. – Pražskij lingvističeskij kružok, Moskva, 433–443. Halliday M. A. K. ir kt. 1964: Halliday M. A. K., Mc Intosh A., Strevens D. D. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, London: Longmans. Hasan R. 1975: Code, Register und sozialer Dialekt. – Sprachliche Kode und soziale Kontrolle, Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann, 191–235. Karaliūnas S. 1997: Kalba ir visuomenė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Kožina M. 1973: O rečevoj sistemnosti funkcional’nogo stilja. – Sbornik naučnych trudov Moskovskogo pedagogičeskogo instituta inostrannych jazykov 73, Moskva, 192–196. Kožina M. 1982: Jazyk i stil’ v funkcional’nom aspekte. – Osnovnye ponjatija i kategorii lingvostilistiki, Perm’, 15–34. Kožina M. 1983: Stilistika russkogo jazyka, Moskva: Prosveščenie. Mistrik J. 1985: Štylistika, Bratislava. Möller G. 1980: Praktische Stillehre, Leipzig: Bibliogr. Inst. Palionis J. 1995: Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Pikčilingis J. 19711: Kas yra stilius, Vilnius: Vaga. Pikčilingis J. 19712: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika 1, Vilnius: Mintis. Sanders W. 1973: Linguistische Stiltheorie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Sanders W. 1977: Linguistische Stilistik, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Skrebnev J. 1975: Očerki teorii stilistiki, Gor’kij. Slovar’ 1990: Lingvističeskij ènciklopedičeskij slovar’, Moskva: Sovetskaja ènciklopedija. Solganik G. 1982: K probleme klassifikacii funkcional’nych stilej na intralingvističeskoj osnove. – Osnovnye ponjatija i kategorii lingvostilistiki, Perm’, 43–52. Vasil’jeva A. 1986: O celostnom komplekse stileopredeljajuščich faktorov na urovne makrostilej. – Funkcional’naja stilistika: teorija stilej i ich jazykovaja realizacija, Perm’, 4–11. Vinogradov V. 1963: Stilistika. Teorija poètičeskoj reči. Poètika, Moskva: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. Župerka K. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika, Vilnius: Mokslas. Župerka K. 1985: Kiek stilių lietuvių kalboje. – Mokymo ir auklėjimo klausimai 17, 55–60. Župerka K. 1987: Stilių normų atspindys metakalbiniuose komentaruose. – Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 26, 194–199. Župerka K. 1995: Kalbos priemonių konkurencija kaip lietuvių kalbos stilistikos objektas, Šiauliai: Šiaulių pedagoginis institutas. Župerka K. 1997: Stilistika, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universitetas. 139 ON FUNCTIONAL STYLES AND REGISTERS Summary The paper reviews the main theories of functional styles and registers. On the basis of the extralinguistic factors defining a functional style, a distinction is made between two of its treatments. Following the first one, the main factor deciding the type of functional style is the form of social consciousness and its role in a society; it is related to the type of activities or area of communication. Adherents of the second treatment take a functional style as a social and psychological phenomenon. There is a variety of classifications of functional styles. Some of them are motivated on the basis of the language functions, whereas the others are based on the decisive factors of the style. Therefore, different criteria lead to the distinction of the same functional styles – scientific, administrative, publicistic, colloquial (everyday), artistic (belles-lettres). The variety of styles is important for us in order to be able to exhaustively define the complicated phenomenon of style. The register theory, which evolved in English text linguistics, like the theory of functional styles, dwells on the usage of different language varieties in different social situations. The theories of functional styles and registers could be combined when studying non-artistic styles, especially everyday, or colloquial, style. 140