Familiar colloquial style.

Each style, according to Morokhovsky has a combination of distinctive features. Among them we find oppositions like 'artistic - non-artistic', 'presence of personality - absence of it', 'formal - informal situation', 'equal - unequal social status' (of the participants of communication), 'written or oral form'. Morokhovsky emphasizes that these five classes of what he calls "speech activity" are abstractions rather than realities, they can seldom be observed in their pure forms: mixing styles is the common practice.

On the whole Morokhovsky's concept is one of the few that attempt to differentiate and arrange the taxonomy of cardinal linguistic notions. According to Morokhovsky's approach language as a system includes types of thinking differentiating poetic and straightforward language, oral and written speech, and ultimately, bookish and colloquial functional types of language. The next problem is stylistics of 'speech activity' connected with social stereotypes of speech behaviour. Morokhovsky defines this in the following way: "Stereotypes of speech behaviour or functional styles of speech activity are norms for wide classes of texts or utterances, in which general social roles are embodied - poet, journalist, manager, politician, scholar, teacher, father, mother, etc." (15, p. 234).

The number of stereotypes (functional styles) is not unlimited but great enough. For example, texts in official business style may be administrative, juridical, military, commercial, diplomatic, etc. Still further differentiation deals with a division of texts into genres. Thus military texts (official style) comprise 'commands, reports, regulations, manuals, instructions'; diplomatic documents include 'notes, declarations, agreements, treaties', etc. In addition to all this we may speak of 'the individual style' with regard to any kind of 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 of lingual material into "informal" and "formal" varieties and adherence to Skrebnev's system of functional styles.

Prof. Skrebnevuses the term sublanguages in the meaning that is usually attributed to functional styles. The major difference in his use of this term is that he considers innumerable situational communicative

products as sublanguages, including each speaker's idiolect. Each act of speech is a sublanguage. This makes the notion of functional style somewhat vague and difficult to define. At the same time Skrebnev recognizes the major opposition of 'formal' and 'informal' sphere of language use and suggests "a very rough and approximate gradation of subspheres and their respective sublanguages" (47, p. 200).

The formal sublanguages in Skrebnev's opinion belong exclusively to the written variety of lingual intercourse. He avoids the claim of inconsistency for including certain types of speeches into this sphere by arguing that texts of some of the types can be read aloud in public.

His rough subdivision of formal styles includes:

a) private correspondence with a stranger;

b) business correspondence between representatives of commercial or other establishments;

c) diplomatic correspondence, international treaties;

d) legal documents (civil law - testaments, settlements; criminal law - verdicts, sentences);

e) personal documents (certificates, diplomas, etc.).

The informal colloquial sphere includes ah types of colloquial language - literary, non-literary, vulgar, ungrammatical, social dialects, the vernacular of the underworld, etc. This cannot be inventoried because of its unlimited varieties.

Of course formal and informal spheres do not exist in severely separated worlds.

The user of the first speech type is fully aware of 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 of the environment or situation. Sometimes he is forced to abide by laws that are very different from those he regularly uses: speaking with children, making a speech before parliament or during an electoral campaign.

The first type of speech - 'formal' - comprises the varieties that are used in spheres of official communication, science, technology, poetry and fiction, newspaper texts, oratory, etc. It's obvious that many of these varieties can be further subdivided into smaller classes or sublanguages. For example, in the sphere of science and technology almost each science has a metalanguage of its own. The language of computer technology, e. g., is not so limited to the technological sphere as at the time of its beginnings - 'to be computer-friendly' has given rise to many other coinages like 'media-friendly', 'market-friendly', 'envhonmentally friendly', etc.

In the informal type of speech we sh n't find so many varieties as in the formal one, but it is used by a much greater number of people. The first and most important informal variety is colloquial style. This is the language used by educated people in informal 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 of dialects that would require special consideration that cannot be done within this course. Dialects are not really "ungrammatical" types of a national language, some scholars hold, but a different 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 of the aristocracy were not ashamed of 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 of cultural inferiority, e. g. the status of Соскnеу." (47, p. 198).

In his classification of functional styles of modern English that he calls language varieties the famous British linguist D. Crystal suggests the following subdivision of these styles: regional, social, occupational, restricted and individual. (33, 34)

Regional varietiesof English reflect the geographical origin of the language used by the speaker: Lancashire variety, Canadian English, Cockney, etc.

Social variationstestify to the speaker's family, education, social status background: upper class and non-upper class, a political activist, a member of the proletariat, a Times reader, etc.

Occupational stylespresent quite a big group that includes the following types:

a) religious English;

b) scientific English;

c) legal English;

d) plain (official) English;

e) political English;

f) news media English further subdivided into:

• newsreporting;

• journalistics;

• broadcasting;

• sportscommentary;

• advertising.

Restricted Englishincludes very tightly constrained uses of 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 following types:

a) knitwrite in books on knitting;

b) cookwrite in recipe books;

c) congratulatory messages;

d) newspaper announcements;

e) newspaper headlines;

f) sportscasting scores;

g) airspeak, the language of air traffic control;

h) emergencyspeak, the language for the emergency services;

i) e-mail variety, etc.

Individual variationinvolves types of speech that arise from the speaker's personal differences meaning such features as physique, interests, personality, experience and so on. A particular blend of

social and geographical backgrounds may produce a distinctive accent or dialect. Educational history, occupational experience, personal skills and tastes, hobbies or literary preferences will foster the use of habitual words and turns of phrase, or certain kinds of grammatical construction.

Also noticeable will be favourite discourse practices - -a tendency to develop points in an argument in a certain way, or an inclination for certain kinds of metaphor. Some people are 'good conversationalists', 'good story-tellers', 'good letter-writers', 'good speech-makers'. What actually makes them so is the subject of stylistic research.

There are also a number of cases where individuality in the use of English - a personal style - is considered to be a matter of particular importance and worthy of study in its own right. Such is the study of the individual style of a writer or poet: Shakespeare's style, Faulkner's style, and the like.