Special Colloquial Vocabulary.

Lecture 1

INTRODUCTION

Stylistics, as the term implies, deals with styles. Style, for its part, can be roughly defined as the peculiarity, the set of specific features of a text. By text we mean a coherent sequence of signs (words) irrespective of whether it has been recorded on paper or has been retained in our memory. Hence, while a person pronounces (aloud or mentally) I live in this house, he or she accomplishes an act of speech, but as soon as the act is completed, there is no more speech. What remains is the sequence of signs – I + live + in + this + house - and that is what we call a text. Style is just what differentiates a group of homogeneous texts (an individual text) from all other groups (other text).

Let us compare several groups of isolated words:

water, at, go, very, how;

chap, daddy, Nick, gee;

hereof, whereupon, aforecited;

sawbones, grub, oof, corking;

morn, sylvan, ne’er;

corroborate, commencement, proverbialism;

protoplasm, introvert, cosine, phonemic.

Not all the words may be familiar to a learner of English. The first group comprises words that can be used in every type of communication. Group 2 consists of colloquial words, i.e. words, which can be used in informal speech. Group 3 is made up of words used in documents. Group 4 consists of words that are still lower than colloquial; there is a tinge of familiarity about them. Group 5 exemplifies high-flown rarely used words. Group 6 consists of words, which are generally called `bookish` or `learned`; they can be used not only in books but in cultured speech and never in everyday oral intercourse. Group 7 is made up of special scientific terms used in biology, psychology, trigonometry and phonology. It follows that we can assume the existence of variegated special languages, or rather sublanguages within the general system of a national language

Compare the following utterances referring to the same situation:

Never seen the chap, not I!

Me, I never clapped eyes on this here guy.

I deny the fact of ever having seen this person.

I have no association with the appearance of the individual I behold.

I have certainly never seen the man.

As we understand each utterance belongs to a special variety of English (except, perhaps, utterance 5, which is neutral standard English). The colloquial character of utterance 1 is seen in the choice of words (chap) and in syntax (absence of the subject I and the auxiliary verb have, as well as the appended statement not I). Utterance 2 is low colloquial: the word guy, the illiterate demonstrative this here, the emphatic construction to clap eyes on somebody, the pronoun me as the subject in extraposition. Utterance 3 represents an official bookish manner of speaking. Finally, utterance 4 demonstrates a high – flown, pompous manner of speech.

Stylistics touches upon adjacent disciplines such as theory of information, literature, grammar, lexicology, psychology, logic, and to some extent, statistics. It is a common knowledge that phonetics deals with speech sounds, their meanings and intonation. Lexicology treats separate words with their meanings and structure of the vocabulary. Grammar analyses forms of words ( morphology ) and forms of word – combinations ( syntax ). Although scholars differ in their treatment of the material, the general aims of the disciplines mentioned are more or less clear – cut.

This is not the case with stylistics. No one knows for sure what it is. The scope of problems stylistics is to solve, its very object and its tasks are open to discussion up to the present day, regardless of the fact that it goes back to ancient rhetoric and poetics.

A lot of definitions, very ambiguous, you will find in I. R. Galperin’s Stylistics. However, they all coincide in one thing, style (stylistics) is a set of characteristics by which we distinguish one author from another or members of one subclass from members of other subclasses, or one text from ( texts ) another (others ).

Y. M. Screbnev also renounces all attempts to formulate a ‘ universal ‘ definition of stylistics, providing a series of statements, each characterizing certain properties of stylistics from different points of view.

1. Stylistics viewed in its relation to language as a system is based on the theory of sub-languages (a sub-language is the set of lingual units actually used in a given sphere ).

2. Viewed in its relation to language as a set of signs ( words ) and their sequence patterns stylistics may be regarded as a linguistic discipline concentrating on connotations.

3. Viewed in search for a general evaluation of the character of its object, stylistics studies information often unaccounted for by an ordinary language user.

4. Viewed as a linguistic branch stylistics appears as a description of specific lingual elements and combinations of elements – a description creating the system of concepts to be used in analysis of material.

5. Viewed with the aim of establishing its ultimate goals or prospects, stylistics maybe defined as a branch of linguistics elaborating a system of tests to ensure correct text attribution

6. Viewed pragmatically, i.e. as reflecting the interrelation between language and its user’s behavior, stylistics investigates the highest stages of linguistic competence, i.e. the ability to differentiate subsystems ( sub-languages ) in the general structure of language.

7. Viewed as regards its place among other branches of linguistics ( describing a national language in terms of phonetics, morphology, vocabulary, syntax, and semantics ), stylistics turns out to be the most reliable description of the linguistic object.

Y. Screbnev calls stylistic phenomena – regular constituents of a well arranged linguistic system of systems.

The information of one and the same fact of reality may acquire different forms, depending on, for example, whether the information is done in an official, businesslike or everyday situation; on what the emotional attitude of the speaker towards an object of speech is and on how he appreciates the situation.

Information may be represented in two types: denotative and connotative. Denotation is connected with intellectual and communicative function of the language. Connotation, i.e. additional information, is connected with all the rest functions:

1. An emotive function, i.e. with the presentation and expression of the speaker’s feelings.

2. A voluntative function ( it is also called pragmatic ), i.e. compelling the addressee to act.

3. An appealing function, i.e. compelling the listener to receive information.

4. A contact establishing function – in situations when the utterance is pronounced only for the purpose of showing attention to the presence of another person (e.g. in formulas of politeness )

5. An aesthetic function, i.e. influencing aesthetic feelings.

The task of stylistic description and stylistic analysis is the study of the interrelations between the subject-logical content of the utterance, i.e. information of the first type, with the information of the second type, i.e. the manifestations of all the five functions of the language. This demands to consider connections and interrelations between connotative meanings of words and constructions and denotative ones and their role in a literary whole.

We distinguish the two types of information only for the purpose of analysis, of better understanding of the content, because thy actually constitute one whole.

Concentrating our attention on the interaction of chosen images, words, morphological forms, syntactical structures in rendering the content, we may deeper penetrate into the essence of the literary work.

In accordance with its various possibilities of its structural employment stylistics represents a complex system of different branches. Besides the task of purely theoretical plane, it has a great significance as the basis of an interpretation of the text, literary criticism, translation theory, lexicography and so on.

In linguistics there are different means by which a writer obtains his effect. Expressive means, stylistic devices tropes, figures of speech are all used indiscriminately. For our purposes it is necessary to make a distinction between expressive means and stylistic devices.

Expressive meansof a language are those phonetic means, morphological forms, means of word-building and lexical, phraseological and syntactical forms, all of which function in the language for emotional or logical intensification of the utterance. These intensifying forms have been fixed in grammar books and dictionaries.

e.g. The use of shall in the second and third person may be regarded as an expressive means.

cf He shall do it = I shall make him do it.

Among word-building we find a great many forms which help intensify it. The diminutive suffixes such as -y ( ie ), -let dearie, streamlet.

We may also refer to what are called neologisms and nonce-words formed by means of non-productive suffixes: mistressmanship, cleanorama, tellethone.

Stylistics observes not only the nature of an expressive means but also its capacity of becoming a stylistic device.

What is then a stylistic device?It is a conscious and intentional, literary use of some of the facts of the language ( excluding expressive means ) in which the most essential features ( both structural and semantic ) of the language forms are raised to a generalized level and thereby present a generative model.

As the subject of stylistic analysis is the language in the process of its use, it is quite natural that the analysis touches upon all aspects of language i.e. its phonetics, vocabulary and grammar system. Accordingly it falls into:

Lexical stylistics with two subgroups: a) lexicological stylistics and b) semasiological stylisics.

a) Lexical stylistics studies different components of contextual meanings of words in particular the expressive, evaluative and emotive potential of words belonging to different layers of the vocabulary: dialect words, terms, colloquial words, slang, foreign words, neologisms etc. They are all studied with the view of their interaction with different tasks of the context.

Of great importance is the stylistic analysis of proverbs and phraseology.

b) Semasiological stylistics studies functions of the transferred meanings of words and word-combinations (metaphor, simile, metonymy etc.)

Grammatical stylistics falls into a) morphological stylistics and b) syntactical stylistics.

a) Morphological stylistics studies stylistic possibilities within different grammatical categories adherent to this or that part of speech.

b) Syntactical stylistics investigates expressive possibilities of word-order, types of sentences, types of syntactical constructions. The first place is given here to Figures of Speech i.e. a deliberate deviation from the syntactical norm.

Phono-stylistics studies peculiarities of the sound organization of speech: rhythm, alliteration, onomatopoeia etc if they are used in a stylistic function.

It also studies the use of non-standard pronunciation.

Functional stylesis a part of linguistics which studies functional styles, i.e. systems of means of expression depending on different spheres and situations of communication.

Lecture 2

Lexicological Stylistics

Lexicological stylistics deals with the principles of stylistic description of lexical and phraseological units in abstraction from the context in which they function. It studies possibilities of words belonging to different functional emotional groups of words (e.g. archaisms, neologisms, jargons).

All the immeasurable richness of the vocabulary of any civilized language cannot be memorized or even understood by an individual native speaker; it is only the most common words that are widely used in actual communication. Nearly half a million words have been registered in the famous New English Dictionary of 13 volumes as belonging to the English language, but not all of them fully deserve the title of English words: many of them are never heard, or uttered, or written by the average Englishman.

In accordance with the division of language into literal and colloquial we may represent the whole vocabulary of the English languagey as being divided into three main layers: the literary layer, the neutral layer and the colloquial layer.

The literary layer is marked by a bookish character; the colloquial layer by its lively, spoken character. The neutral layer has a universal character and can be used in all spheres of human activities.

The following synonyms will illustrate the relations that exist between neutral, literary and colloquial words.

Neutralcolloquialliterary

child kid infant

father daddy parent

fellow chap / guy associate

go away get out retire

continue go on proceed

boy / girl teenager youth / maiden

Special Literary Vocabulary.

Now we shall examine, in a very general manner, word-groups singled out by traditional lexicology and their stylistics functions.

Poetic words form a rather insignificant layer of literary vocabulary. Their main function is to sustain the special elevated atmosphere of poetry.

e.g. Whilomen( at some past time ) in Albion’s isle ( the oldest name of Britain ) there dwell a youth, …

Poetic tradition has kept alive such archaic words as quath ( p. t. ) to speak; eftsoon – again, soon after – which are used even by modern ballad-mongers. Poetic words in an ordinary environment may have a satirical effect.

Archaic words are rarely used highly literary words which are aimed at producing an elevated effect. Lexical archaisms ( archaisms proper ) are obsolete words replaced by new ones ( e.g. anon – at once; haply – perhaps; befall – happen etc; historical words / material archaisms – they have gone out of use with the disappearance of concepts and phenomena ( e.g. hauberk – кольчуга, yeoman – иомен, свободный крестьянин, falconet – фальконет (лёгкая пушка), knight, etc. ); morphological archaisms – thou, thee, ye etc.

The function of archaisms is to recreate the atmosphere of antiquity; if used in an inappropriate surrounding archaisms cause a humorous effect.

e.g. Prithee, do me the favour, as to inquire after my astrologer, Martinus Galioty, and send him to me hither presently.

Archaisation of the text is achieved by insertion of separate words and not by the use of the language of some past epoch.

e.g. The situation in which the archaism is not appropriate to the context. In B. Shaw’s play ‘How he Lied to her Husband’ a youth of 18, speaking of his feelings towards a female of 37, expresses himself in a language which is not in conformity with the situation.

“Perfect love casteth off fear”.

Archaisms may have other functions found in other styles. They are frequently found in the style of official documents; and in all kinds of legal documents one can find obsolescent ( obsolete ) words which would long have become obsolete if it were not for that special use.

e.g. aforesaid, hereby, therewith, hereinafternamed.

The function of archaisms in official documents is terminological in character.

Terms are mostly used in special works dealing with the notions of some branch of science. But they may as well appear in other styles; when used in fiction, they may acquire a stylistic function – either to indicate stylistic peculiarities of the subject dealt with, or to make some reference to the occupation of the character whose speech would naturally contain special words and expressions.

e.g. Andrew Manson’s speech – ‘Citadel’ by Cronin.

Martin’s speech – ‘Martin Eden’ by J. London.

Foreign wordsand Barbarisms.Barbarisms are words originally borrowed from a foreign language and usually assimilated into the native vocabulary, so as not to differ from its units in appearance or in sound. Most of them have corresponding English synonyms: chic – stylish; bon mot – a clever witty saying; en passant – in passing.

We should distinguish between barbarisms and foreign words for purely stylistic purposes. Foreign words do not belong to the English vocabulary, they are not registered in English dictionaries. Barbarisms are.

Both barbarisms and foreign words are widely used in various styles with various aims. One of these functions is to supply local colour.

e.g. ‘Vanity Fair’by Thakeray. (A German town where a boy with a good appetite is made a focus of attention.)

‘The little boy, too, we observed had a famous appetite, and consumed schinken ( окорок ), and braten ( жаркое ), and kartoffeln, and cranberry jam … with a gallantry that did honour to his nation’.

Foreign words may also have the function of conveying the idea of the foreign origin or cultural and educational status of the personage.

Literary coinages. The coining of new words is dictated by the need to indicate new concepts as a result of the development of science. It may also be the result of a search for a more economical, brief form of utterance for expressiveness.

The first type of newly coined words may be named terminological coinages. The second i.e. words coined for expressiveness, may be named stylistic coinages.

New words are usually coined according to productive models for word-building. But new words of literary bookish type may be formed with the help of non-productive affixes and they will be immediately recognized because of their unexpectedness.

e.g. –ize moisturize, pedestrianize, villigize etc.

-ee interrodatee, enrollee, amputee etc.

-ship showmanship, supermanship

-ese translatese, Johnsonese

There is still another means of word-building in English - blending of two words into one.

e.g. avigation ( aviation + navigation )

brunch ( breakfast +lunch )

Usually newly coined words are heavily stylistically loaded, their major stylistic function being the creation of the effect of laconism, terseness and implication of witty humour and satire.

Lecture 3

Special Colloquial Vocabulary.

The colloquial layer of words as qualified in most English and American dictionaries is not infrequently limited to a definite language community or confined to a special locality when it circulates. It falls into the following groups: 1. common colloquial words; 2. slang; 3. jargonisms; 4. professionalisms; 5. dialect words; 6. vulgar words; 7. colloquial coinages. They all have a tinge of informality or familiarity about them. There is nothing ethically improper in their stylistic colouring, except that they cannot be used in formal speech.

Slang. Slang is part of the vocabularyconsisting of commonlyunderstood and widely used wordsand expressions of humorous and derogatory character – intentional substitutes for neutral or elevated words and expressions. Slang never goes stale, it is replaced by a new slangism. The reason of appearance of slang is in the aspiration of the speaker to novelty and concreteness. As soon as a slangish word comes to be used because of its intrinsic merits, not because it is the wrong word and therefore a funny word, it ceases to be slang – it becomes a colloquial word, and later perhaps even an ordinary neutral word. Here are instances of words which first appeared as slang, but are quite neutral today: skyscraper, cab, taxi, movies, pub, .photo

Slang is not homogenious stylistically. There are many kinds of slang, e.g. Cockney, public-house, commercial, military, theatrical, parliamentary and others. There is also a standard slang, the slang common to all those who though using received standard English in their writing and speech, also use an informal language.

Here are more examples of slang. Due to its striving to novelty slang is rich in synonyms.

FOOD: chuck, chow, grub, hash;

MONEY: jack, tin, brass, oof, slippery stuff.

Various figures of speech participate in slang formation.

UPPER STOREY for ‘head’ – metonymy

KILLING for ‘astonishing’ – hyperbole

SOME for ‘excellent’ or ‘bad’ – understatement

CLEAR AS MUD – irony

Certain slang words are mere distortions of standard words: cripes ( instead of ‘Christ! Abbriviation is also a widely used means of word-building in slang: math, exam, prof, ( originally jargon words current among students and schoolchildren ). Sometimes new words are just invented: shenanigans ( ‘tricks’, ‘pranks’).

The contrast between what is standard English and what is broken, non-literary has been achieved by means of setting common vocabulary ( also syntactical design) against jargons, slang and all kinds of distortion of forms ( phonetic, morphological, lexical and syntactical ) and this resulted in a tendency in some contemporary dictionaries to replace the label ‘sl.’ by ‘inf.’ or ‘coll’. And this is again due to the ambiguity of the term.

Jargonisms. Jargon words appear in professional or social groups as informal, often humorous replacers of words already existing in neutral or superneutral vocabulary. The use of jargon implies defiance, a kind of naughtiness in lingual behaviour.

Jargon words can be roughly subdivided into two groups. One of them consists of names of objects, phenomena, and processes characteristic of the given profession – not the real denominations, but rather nicknames, as apposed to the official terms used in this professional sphere.

The other group is made up of terms of the professional objects, phenomena, and processes.

Thus we may say that jargon words are either non-terminological, unofficial substitutes for professional terms (sometimes called ‘professionalisms’), or official terms misused deliberately, to express disrespect.

Examples of the first group: in soldiers’ jargon picture show is battle; sewing machine means machine-gun; put in a bag – killed in action.

Examples of the second group are: - big gun means an important person, GI –‘Government Issue; dug-out – a retired soldier returned to active service.

Every professional group has its own jargon. We distinguish students’ jargon, musicians’ jargon, lawyers’ jargon, soldiers’ jargon and so on.

Many jargon words come to be used outside the professional sphere in which they first appeared, thus becoming ‘slang words’.

A peculiar place is occupied by cant, a secret lingo of the underworld – of thieves and robbers. The present-day function is to serve as a sign of recognition: he who talks cant gives proof of being a professional criminal.

e.g. Ain’t a lifer, not him! Got a stretch in stir for pulling a leather up in Chi means :” He was not sentenced to imprisonment for life: he only has to serve for having stolen a purse up in Chicago’.

Many jargon words have entered the standard vocabulary: kid, queer, fun, bluff, fib, humbug, they have become dejargonized.

Professionalisms . Professionalisms are words used in a definite trade, profession or calling by people connected by common interests both at work and at home. They are close to terms. Professional words name anew already existing concepts, tools or instruments, and have the typical properties of special code. The main feature of a professionalism is its technicality. They circulate within a definite community ( thus being different from terms ). The semantic structure of the term is usually clear, that of a professionalism is dimmed by the image on which the meaning of a professionalism is based. e.g. tin-fish – submarine; block-buster – a film; a piper – a specialist who decorates pastry with the use of a cream-piper; outer – a knockout blow. Professionalisms should not be mixed with jargons, they are not aimed at secrecy. They fulfill a socially useful function in communication, facilitating a quick and adequate grasp of the message.

Professionalisms are used in emotive prose to depict the natural speech of characters. The skillful use of a professional word will show not only the vocation of the character, but also his education, breeding, environment and sometimes even his psychology.

Dialectal words. Dialectal words are those which in the process of the intergration of the English language remained beyond its literary boundaries and their use is generally confined to a definite locality.

There is sometimes a difficulty in distinguishing between dialectal words and colloquial words. Some dialectal words have become so familiar in good colloquial or standard colloquial English that they are universally recognized as units of standard colloquial English. To these belong: lass – a girl or a beloved girl; a lad – a boy or a young man; daft from the Scottish and the Northern dialect – of unsound mind, silly; fash (Scottish) – trouble, cares. Still they have not lost their dialectal associations.

Of quite a different nature are dialect words which are easily recognized as corruption of Standard English words. E.g. hinny from ‘honey’; titty from ‘sister’ ( being a childish corruption of words ); cutty – a naughty girl or woman.

All above mentioned examples come from the Scottish and Northern dialects.

Among other dialects used for stylistic purposes in literature is the southern dialect. It has a phonetic peculiarity that distinguishes it from other dialects: initial [s] and [f] are voiced and are written in the direct speech of characters as ‘z’ and ‘v’; e.g. volk (folk), vound (found), vox (fox); zee (see), zinking (sinking).

Dialect words are only to be found in the style of emotive prose very rarely in other styles, and only in the function of characterization of personages through their speech.

Vulgar words or vulgarisms. This stylistically lowest group consists of words which are considered too offensive for polite usage. Objectionable words may be divided into two groups: lexical vulgarisms and stylistic vulgarisms.

To the first group belong words expressing ideas considered unmentionable in civilized society. Among lexical vulgarisms are various oaths. Quite unmentionable are the so called ‘four-letter words’ (practically every word denoting the most intimate spheres of human anatomy physiology consists of four letters).

The ousting of objectionable words by norms of ethics is inevitably followed by the creation of all sorts of substitutes. The word bloody is replaced by words beginning with the same sound combination: blooming, blasted, blessed, blamed, etc.

The second group – stylistic vulgarisms – are words and phrases the lexical meaning of which has nothing indecent about them. Their impropriety in civilized life is due to their stylistic value – to stylistic connotations expressing a derogatory attitude of the speaker towards the object of speech.

Vulgarisms are often used in conversation out of habit, without any thought of what they mean, in imitation of those who use them in order not to seem old-fashioned or prudish. Unfortunately in modern fiction they have gained legitimacy. However, they will never acquire the status of Standard English vocabulary.

Their function is that of interjections, to express strong emotions, mainly, annoyance, anger, vexation and the like.

Colloquial coinages. Colloquial coinages ( nonce-words ), unlike those of a bookish character, are spontaneous and elusive. Not all of them are fixed in dictionaries or even in writing and therefore disappear from the language, leaving no trace in it. There is nothing ethically improper in their stylistic colouring, except that they cannot be used in formal speech. Colloquilialisms include:

a) colloquial words proper ( colloquial synonyms of neutral words ): chap (‘fellow’), chunc (‘lump’), sniffy’(disdainful’), or such that have no counterpart in the neutral or literary sphere: molly-doddle (‘an effeminate man or boy’), drifter (‘a person without a steady job’). To this group belong ‘nursery’ words: mummy (‘mother’), dad (‘father’), tummy (‘stomach’), gee-gee (‘horse’).

b) phonetic variants of neutral words: gaffer (‘grandfather’), baccy (‘tobacco’), feller (‘fellow’); a special place is taken by phonetic contractions of auxiliary and modal verbs: shan’t, won’t, don’t, ‘ve, ‘d,’ll, etc. c) diminutives of neutral ( or colloquial ) words: granny, daddy, lassie, piggy; of proper names: Bobby, Polly, Becky, Johnny, etc. d) colloquial meanings of polysemantic words: spoon (‘a man of low mentality’), a hedgehog ( ‘an unmanageable person’). Pretty (‘good-looking’) is neutral; pretty ‘fairly’ (pretty good, pretty quick) is colloquial. e) most of interjections: gee! , eh! , well, why. Oh is a universal signal of emotion, used both in low and high spheres of communication.