Apie funkcinius stilius ir registrus

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA IN LITHUANIAN KALBOTYROS QUESTIONS XLII (2000) Rasuolė Vytautas the Great University, Kaunas ABOUT FUNCTIONAL STYLE IR REGISTRUS The emergence of — functional stylistics in the branch of linguistic stylistics The thoughts of the Prague School of Linguistics on the study of language functions, jų ki su non-linguistic factors. For this theory were significant B. Havranek's reasoning that common language can be divided into functional languages, į which differ only in means of expression, but in ne structural organization (Gavranek, 1990). ir 1967: 435). ir Vidurio ir Eastern In Europe (Russian, Slovak, Czech, German, Polish, Bulgarian linguists). Functional styles have been studied in particular detail by Russian linguists. Functional stylistics defines styles based on the characteristics by which these language variants are distinguished from the general language as a whole. The most iš commonly emphasized area of communication activity when defining a functional style (sometimji es su associated with forms of social consciousness) or speech situation (associated su with a stereotypical social situation), whose goals and tasks ir determine the selection of language tools. Other linguists, when defining functional styles, consider the area of ne communication or the speech situation as the most important thing, rather than the basic functions of the language. The principle of functions followed ir Prague school linguists (Gavranek 1967: 436), iš to atsirado ir term functional style. Russian linguist I. Arnold believes that this term is very successful, because the specificity of each style is determined by the peculiarities of language functions in a certain area of communication (Arnol'd 1990: 247). O K. Župerka considers the main criteria for defining the functional styles as ir communicative (Župerka 2005: 10). 1985: 57). Lithuanian linguists, when defining functional styles, have combined these approaches, which are essentially not contradictory to du each other. iš In Lithuanian stylistics, the first definition of functional style was formulated by J. Pikčilingis: “Style is a historically formed branch of the common language, or a variant, whose characteristics and specificity are determined by the scope of use of the language and its performing function” (Pikčilingis 1971: 6). Similarly, functional style has been defined by K. Župerka, but he added the language content to the two main factors determining functional style — the scope of use of language and its functions (Župerka 1997: 78-79). A short definition, with one main feature, is given in the “Dictionary of Linguistic Terms” — “Functional style — a variation of language used in a certain field of human activity” (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990: 67). There has been a lot of heated debate about who belongs to the functional style — speech or talk (see Bitinienė 1983: 5—7). Some linguists have tried to see functional differentiation in language, based on 132 Ch. Bally, who argued that there are elements of neutral elements ir in speech that have an additional stylistic nuance, called a social nuance (Bally 1921: 9). For M. example, Kožina supported the distinction of functional styles with stylistically marked language units (Skin 1973: 194). This approach has been criticized because there are relatively few stylistically marked units in the language, be to “texts assigned to one functional style consist mainly of units that are widely iš used in other functional styles and are not specific to one style” ir (Dolinin 1987: 77). Other linguists argue that functional styles are formed in the process of speech by selecting means of expressioir n, claiming that they are attributable only to speech. In an attempt to converge these approaches, the style of speech ir has been distinguished as a scientifically meaningful system category, and the style of speech as the concrete o realization of this category in the — communication process (Gal'perin 1980: 13). The most important characteristics of functional style are extralinguistic factors, specific direction of communication, stylistic features, linguistic characteristics (for details see Bitinienė 1983: 8-13). The totality of extralinguistic factors is rather complex, and only the main extralinguistic factors are agreed upon. M. Kožina divided them into the main ones, which determine the distinctive characteristics of functional styles, and the secondary ones, on which the differentiation of functional style depends (Kožina 1983: 68). A. Vasilyeva tried to define the set of factors determining styles. According to her scheme, the linguist discussed five functional styles, each of which she characterized according to twelve extralinguistic factors: the scope of language use, types of activity, type of thinking, communication tasks, addressee status, addressee status, methods of contact, degree of preparation of speech content and form, basic form of speech expression, form of communication organization, type of communication atmosphere, content nature and importance of standard situations (Vasil'eva 1986: 4-5). Similar extralinguistic factors are mentioned by other linguists (Fleischer, Michel 1975: 238; Kožina 1983: 68). Which factors are considered the most important, determines the interpretation of the phenomenon of functional style. Most of the time, the same things are mentioned, the same factors are listed, only in a slightly different aspect. There are generally two approaches to extralinguistic factors and their influence on functional style. The first approach, which is based on the work of G. Vinokourov and V. Vinogradov, is conditionally called communication-cognitive. Representatives of this approach believe that the most important factor determining functional style is the form of public consciousness and its purpose in society (Kožina 1982: 29). The form of social consciousness is associated with the respective field of communication and type of activity. Their tasks and objectives determine the specificity of the functional style, because the principles of the selection and use of language means depend on them (Moller 1980: 14). The tasks and objectives of the field of communication are determined not only by the form of society’s consciousness, but also by its characteristic type of thinking, type of conveyed content and speech situation. All these extralinguistic factors are closely related and mutually dependent. They form the basis of extralinguistic functional style. What units are used in a certain area of communication depends on the principle of communicative purposefulness: the language system selects those language units that are best suited to convey the specifics of communication in that area 133 iš (Skin 1983: 48). For example, the most important task of the scientific style is to accurately convey ir intellectual content — į this is taken into account when choosing language tools. Others view the functional style as a social psychological phenomenon. Jų interpretation of functional style is based on ir sociology social psychology. An important concept here is the social role, established t. y. ways of acting in any situation. ir Since social roles are only possible in communication, they are speech roles ir (King 1997: 89). Functional style is regarded as generalized genres of speech that relate to generalized social roles, such as su scientist, politician, administrator, journalist (Dolinin 1987: 74). In other words, the subject of — the speech is aware of what language behavior is expected of him or her. o iš jo He must act (and speak) as the society requires a particular social group, ar if they want the speech to reach the goal —t. i. have the necessary jo effect on the addressee. In order to investigate the interaction of social roles in more detail, it is necessary to concentrate on the theory of information transmission, the principles of which are based on the model of linguistic communication (see further. Karaliūnas 1997: 99-107). There are various types of communications. The most jų important elements: addressee, channel, message, communication code, addressee (Sanders 1973: 69-70). These characteristics are the main factors determining the expression of the message (i.e. the means of language) and thus the main factors determining the style. The social role of communicators is particularly important, because it includes other coordinates of external communication (i.e. extralinguistic factors): the area of communication, its dominant function, the way of communication, the relationships between communicators (Dolinin 1982: 72-74). Thus, the representatives of both approaches actually distinguish the same extralinguistic factors. Traditional functional styles differ from speech genres only in the degree of generalization and should be treated as classes of speech genres with commonalities in scope and nature (Dolinin 1982: 75). It is generally assumed that the specificity of functional style is determined by communicative tasks — the text is created with such means of language that best correspond to the desired information to be conveyed. Functional styles reflect not only the specificity of communication activity, but also the traditional concept of this type of activity, which has developed in a particular society (Dolinin 1987: 75). As society’s attitude towards a particular field of activity changes, so do the means of creating texts in that field. For example, the embryos of Lithuanian administrative style in Lithuania Minor show the necessary veneration of the ruler in the society of the time: the decrees are characterized by “the minimization of all the ruler’s titles, various pompous epithets are added to the titles” (Palionis 1995: 96). Texts from different cultures in the same field may differ in some stylistic features. For example, the scientific style of French is more emotional and personal 134 than Lithuanian Russian. ar Šį fact K. Dolinin explains ne only tradition. He believes that the tradition itself is preserved as long as it meets some social need (Dolinin 1982: 73). Another discussed issue of functional stylistics is the nomenclature — and classification of styles. Often, discussions arise because the same phenomena are treated differently. There have been several classifications of styles (see. Župerka 1985: 55-60; Fleischer, Michel 1975: 61). The term functional style would suggest that classification should be based on language functions. This is what B. Havranek did, distinguishing four languages (styles) according to their four functions: practical special function — technical language; theoretical special function — scientific language; aesthetic function —the language of fiction. J. Mistrikas considers the first three functions as aspects of one function – the transmission of information (Mistrik 1985: 25). Vinogradov’s classification of five functional styles (domestic, professional, scientific, publicistic and fictional) according to three language functions (communication, communication and influence) has also been criticized, because functional styles are more important than language functions. Linguists relied on the functions of the sneka act, applying the theories of K. Bübhler and R. Jakobson (see Bitinienė 1983: 13-14). The principle of functional classification has been criticized because one style can have more than one function (Kožina 1982: 28; Solganik 1982: 43). Another direction of classifications is based on the determining factors of styles. Two groups of classifications based on extralinguistic factors can be distinguished. The first group—the classification of functional styles according to the forms of social consciousness. Based on this classification, M. Kožina stated that it is logical to distinguish functional styles according to the forms of social consciousness (science, politics, law, art), which correspond to certain types of activities and areas of communication (Kožina 1983: 67-68). Unfortunately, domestic style does not have a corresponding form of public consciousness. There are classifications made according to types of activities or areas of communication, without emphasizing their relationship with forms of social consciousness (Vasil'eva 1986: 4). The second group is the classification of language varieties according to the social roles of speakers and the social-cultural context (Dolinin 1987: 74). In the opinion of K. Dolinin, functional styles are generalized genres of speech reflecting social roles, the number of which is not precisely determined, they can be five, seven (as in traditional classifications) and more. The Prague School of Linguistics believes that functional styles can be classified according to objective and subjective factors that influence them. Objective factors influenced —scientific and administrative, subjective —domestic and artistic, objective and subjective —publicistic, rhetorical and essay styles (Mistrik 1985: 423). There is no formal classification of the language. Lithuanian stylistics researchers relied on the experience of linguists from other countries. J. Pikčilingis distinguished functional styles according to areas of social activity, as did Russian linguists (Pikčilingis 1971,: 276—277). K. Župerka divided functional styles according to the principle of dichotomy, based on slovastilistika, taking into account the types of social activity 135 kų ir į (It is 1983: 99; 1997: 79). interesting that, based on different criteria, the same functional styles are distinguished. They are distinguished intuitively, then o each scientist interprets the extralinguistic basis in his own way (Vasiljeva jų 1986: 4). All functional style classifications have been criticized J. Skrebnev, stating that “traditional styles” really iš do not exist: there are only individual style classifications — V. Vinogradov distinguishes styles, I. R. Galperino, E. S. Riesel, J. S. Stepanov- 's postulated styles, ir etc. (Skrebnev 1975: 48-49). Župerka, a researcher of K. Lithuanian stylistics, does not consider the situation to be flawed: "classification on one basis does not allow to discuss in detail the complex phenomenon of style, different classifications of styles are necessary" (Joker 1987: 195). Functional stylistics is related to the theory of registers, which has a lot in common with the social psychological treatment su of functional styles. K. In Župerka’s opinion, a more detailed breakdown of styles is necessary to describe the stylistic diversity of į language functioning, taking into account many factors of the speech tų act. (Joker 1995: 8). The term "registry" is often used to refer to any language variant, and is therefore sometimes criticized. D. Crystal suggests that this term refers only to those languages (speech) variants, which are distinguished by social situations (e.g., science, religion registers) (Crystal 1990: 260). English linguists use the term register to refer to speech in various areas of communication, while the term style is reserved for fiction, mi which is not considered a separate register. Different speech is used in different situations. The choice of a speech is determined by the fact itself, the ne desire to describe, the fact ar that a jį certain o speech is used in a particular case, t. y. a language variant that is defined as a register (Halliday ir kt. 1964: 87). In a conversational situation, one behaves as required by social roles, which also influence the choice of the appropriate register (often done unconsciously- ). If the register chosen does not correspond to the speech situation, stylistic errors are made, which are especially common in ne native speakers (Sanders 1977: 139). The registers differ from each other in various means of expression, syntactic, — lexical, phonological (for example, the church English differs from other registers only in the quality of its voice). Membership of a register is not indicated by a single language unit, but by a combination of several units; There are also such units in language that, being universal, are used in various registers (Halliday et al. 1964: 88). Similar statements of Eastern and Central European linguists about functional styles: the same language units can be used in different functional styles, but their combinations are characteristic only of individual styles. There is a difference in the classification of functional styles and registers, the latter being much more detailed. There are two main classifications of registers, which differ in the number of factors, but are not essentially contradictory—the second classification extends the first. 136 Vienna iš jų there is a classification according to three factors that influence the choice of the register: the sphere of 1) speech the sphere of — activity of society in which speech is used; by factor, registers of politics, šį technical sciences, personal relations are allocated; the mode of speech activity, in 2) particular the — difference between spoken and written language; for example, there may be spoken-written ir registers of policies; the relationship of the participants in the act of speech, ir usually defined by the 3) contradiction of — familiarity and formality; personal relationships register by the factor can be divided ir into friendly, respectful familiars šį į ar (Halliday ir kt. 1964: 87; Crystal 1990: 187, 196, 260-261). The second classification was made by R. Hasan, based on the studies of M. A. K. Halliday and other linguists (J. Ellis, J. Ure). She identified five factors according to which registers are classified: 1) the object of speech, the type of speech situation, the roles of the speakers, 4) the nature of speech, 5) the form of speech (Hasan 1975: 215—221). The object of the 2) conversation is described as the thing 3) that is being talked about. This is the content of the speech. The subject of the conversation partly determines the choice of vocabulary — for example, when talking about volcanoes, the typical part of the vocabulary will be different than when talking about a musical composition. The type of conversational situation is characterized by the purpose of the interaction of the participants in the conversation. Possible types of situations related to the subject of the speech. Here are two examples where the subject matter is the same — jewelry — but the types of situations are different — expert assessment (1) and sale (2). Accordingly, different registers are used: 1. Ring made of 585° gold, gold weight 2 g, stone -III class gemstone. The ring is worth 300 Lt. 2. Here's a great piece of jewelry. Very nicely made ring. The stone glows wonderfully in the day, and even more in the electric light. Perfectly matches the evening dress. Measure yourself. You see, just right for your hand. The roles of the participants in the conversation are the social roles of the people who communicate and use the language — father, son, teacher, salesman, etc. In each specific case, the speaker will act according to the role he plays and will choose such means of language as are appropriate to that role. The roles of the participants in the conversation act also depend on the type of situation. For example, in a pedagogical situation, social roles are the teacher and the pupil. If a teacher interacts with a student who is also her daughter, their roles will be as teacher and student, not as mother and daughter. The distance between the participants in the conversation, which is expressed by the atmosphere of communication, is also important. It is evaluated by the relation of formality to familiarity. 137 ma ir Ši characteristic is particularly pronounced in personal relationship registers. The roles of the participants in the conversation ir jų influence the choice of lexical-syntactic registers. The nature of the conversation can be related to the ir three factors already discussed. For example, in a sales situation where the topic of the conversation is a purchase, the su roles of the participants seller buyer, will be persuasive nature of the conversation, commands impossible. The seller flatters, but does not order. In the situation of interpretation of o the hypothesis, the nature of the speech will be — explanatory, ir pleading. It is possible to predict the structural characteristics o of texts of — different types of speech, for example, in the presumptive text there are clear causal relationships. ne The form of conversation is related to the su communication channel can be written or ir spoken. However, it ji does not directly depend on the material form of communication. For example, individual publications are allowed The transcripts of the Seimas meetings, ir although presented in written form, are not an example. O spoken form does not include news that is read on television radio. ar It is more important to ne know how the message is conveyed, but the features of jo the language means are a distinctive feature of — the registers. For example, when we ask a foreigner who speaks beautiful Lithuanian on the street to speak, we feel that he speaks so correctly, but uses the features of written ne language, — because he does not yet know the language enough to feel the differences in registers. The form of the conversation has an influence on the choice of syntactic means in the spoken language many ellipses, incomplete sentences, because the information — is transmitted only in verbal form, next to the form of nonverbal communication used gestures, mimicry, the ne meaning of the speaking circumstances. Each of these five factors influences the selection of language — tools during the speech process iš (so the required register is selected), so if one of them changes, the register changes. The number of registers is not determined, because there iš are no exactly counted variants ir of each individual factor, except for speech forms, which have two. By the way, although theoretically there could be various combinations of factors, it is not possible to say that they are not related to each other, for example, if the object of the speech is linguistics, it is unlikely that the nature of the speech would be flattering provocative. su ar Thus, the most important factors are the type of ir situation object of speech, iš they partly determine the effect of other factors. Iš The descriptions of the ir functional style registers show that these linguistic theories evaluate some speech phenomena in a similar way, similar factors, according ir to which functional styles and registers are distinguished. Especially close to the registers are the functional styles defined by K. Dolinin. True, register theory is based on text semantics, so it cannot be identified with functional stylistics; su the nature of its investigations is broader. However, these theories can be successfully combined in the study of non-linear styles (especially domestic), thus it would be possible to reveal more in detail the laws of speech in certain areas of communication. Received 1999 02 24 138 Arnol'd I. 1990: Stilistika sovremennogo anglijskogo yazyka, Moscow: Prosveshchenie. Bally Ch. 1921: Traitė de stylistigue frangaise 1, Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuchhandlung. Bitinienė A. 1983: Scientific style, Vilnius: LTSR high. ir spec. vid. M.Sc. Crystal D. 1990: A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell. 1982. pp. 22. "Story of the 1980s". —Osnovnye ponjatija i kategori lingvostilistiki, Perm’, 71-79. Dolinin K. 1987: Leningrad: Prosveshcheniye. Fleischer W., Michel G. 1975: Srilistik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, Leipzig: Bibliogr. Inst. Gaivenis K., Keinys S. 1990: The Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd ed. Gal'perin I. 1980: Problemy lingvostilistiki. —Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike 9: Lingvostilistika, Moskva, 5-34. Gavranek B. 1967: O funkcional''nom rassloenii literaturnogo jazyka. —PraZskij Linguistics Circle, Moscow, 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 and Social Dialect. —Sprachliche Code and Social Control, Diisseldorf: Padagogischer Verlag Schwann, 191-235. Karaliūnas S. 1997: Language and Society, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. 1973: "The Structure of a System of Logic". —Sbornik nauchnogo trudov Moskovskogo pedagogicheskogo instituta inostrannyh jazykov 73, Moscow, 192-196. 1982: "Speech and Language in the Modern World". —Osnovnye ponjatija i kategori lingvostilistiki, Perm’, 15-34. Kozina M. 1983: Stilistika russkogo jezika, Moscow: Prosveshchenie. Mistrik J. 1985: Stylistics, Bratislava. Moller G. 1980: Practical Stillehre, Leipzig: Bibliogr. Inst. Palionis J. 1995: History of the Lithuanian written language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. 1971: What is style?, Vilnius: Vaga. 1971: The Language of the World, 1971: The Language of the World, 1971: The Language of the World, 1971. Sanders W. 1973: Linguistic style theory, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Sanders W. 1977: Linguistic Stylistics, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Skrebnev J. 1975: Ocherki teorii stylistiki, Gor'kij. 1990: LingvistiCeskij énciklopediceskij slovar', Moscow: Sovetskaja ¢nciklopedija. Solganik G. 1982: K problemu klasifikacii funkcional- 'nyh stilov na intralingvisti¢skoj osnove. —Osnovnye ponjatija i kategori lingvostilistiki, Perm’, 43-52. Vasiljeva A. 1986: On the holistic complex of style-determining factors at the macrostyle level. —Functional Stylistics: Theory of Styles and Their Linguistic Realization, Perm, Vinogradov V. 1963: Stylistics. The Theory of Poetical Expression. Poétika, Moscow: Izdatel'stvo AN 4-11. USSR. Zuperka K. 1983: Lithuanian language stylistics, Vilnius: Mokslas. Zuperka K. 1985: A few styles in Lithuanian language. —Teaching and Educational Questions 17, 55-60. Zuperka K. 1987: Reflection of Style Norms in Metalinguistic Commentaries. —Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 26, 194-199. Župerka K. 1995: Competition of language means as an object of Lithuanian language stylistics, Šiauliai: Šiaulių pedagoginis institutas. 1997. "Story of the University of North Carolina". 139 ON FUNCTIONAL STYLES AND REGISTERS Summary The paper reviews the main theories functional styles and of registers. On the basis the extralinguistic of factors defining functional style, a distinction made between a two its is treatments. Following the first one, the of main factor deciding the type functional style the form social consciousness and its role of is of in a society; it is related the to type activities area of communication. or of Adherents of the second treatment take functional a 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, colloguial (everyday), artistic (belles-letres). The variety of styles is important for us in oder 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, colloguial, style. or 140