 |
E. Particular use of colloquial constructions
|
|
|
|
We have already pointed out some of the constructions which bear an imprint of emotion in the very arrangement of the words, whether they are neutral or stylistically coloured (see" p. 39). Such constructions are almost exclusively used in lively colloquial intercourse. The emotional element can be strongly enforced by emphatic intonation, which is an indispensable component of emotional utterance. But what is important to observe is that the structure itself, independent of the actual lexical presentation, is intended to carry some emotional charge.
Emotional syntactical, structures typical of the spoken variety of language are sometimes very effectively used by men-of-letters to depict the emotional state of mind of tha characters; they.may even be used, in particular-cases, in the narrative of the author. But even when used in the dialogue of novels and stories these emotional constructions, being deprived of their accompaniment—intonation—assume a greater significance and become stylistically marked. Here the emotional structures stand out more conspicuously, because they are thrown into prominence not by the intonation pattern but by the syntactical pattern.
Consequently, it will be found necessary to classify some of the most typical structures of these kinds, in spite of the lurking danger of confusing idiomatic phrases (set expressions, phraseological units) with abstract patterns.
a) One of the most typical patterns is a simple statement followed by the pronoun that+noun (pronoun)+verb to be (in the appropriate form), for example:
"June had answered in her imperious brisk way, like the little embodiment of will that she was." (Galsworthy)
"And Felix thought: 'She just wants to talk to me about Derek, Dog in the manger that I am.'"
b) Another pattern is a-question form with an exclamatory meaning expressing amazement, indignation, excitement, enjoyment, etc., for example:
"Old ladies, Do I ever hate them?"
"He said in an awestruck voice: 'Boy, is that a piece of boat!'"
"And boy, could that *guy spend money Г
"And was Edward pleased!"
"'Look', she said. 'Isn't that your boss there, just coming in?' 'My God! Yes,' said Lute, 'Oh, and has he a nice package?' Til say. That's his wife with him, isn't it?'" (O'Hara) "A witch she is. I know her back in the old country. Sure, and didn't she come over on the same boat as myself?" (Betty Smith)
Note that this pattern is generally preceded by an exclamatory word, or an interjection, or the conjunction and in the same function.
c) The third pattern is a morphological one (generally use of continuous forms), but mentioned here because it is closely connected with syntactical structures, inversions, repetitions and others, for example:
"You are not being silly, are you?" (Leslie Ford) "Now we're not going to have any more of that, Mrs Euston."
(O'Hara)
d) The fourth pattern, also very common in colloquial English, is a construction where a noun or pronoun subject followed by the verbs to have (noun+object) or to be (noun+predicative) ends with the two components in inverted order, for example:
|
|
|
"She had a high colour, had Sally"
"He has a rather curious smile, has my friend"
"She is a great comfort to me, is that lass" (Cronin)
Sometimes though, the noun or pronoun subject is predicated by notional verbs. In this case fodoisused in this trailing emphatic phrase, as in:
"He fair beats me, does James Brodie'1 (Cronin)
Negative forms are frequently used to indicate an emotional out-burst of the speaker, for instance:
"You don't say!"
"I do say. I tell you I'm a student of this." (J. Steinbeck) "Don't be surprised if he doesn't visit you one of these days." (=if he visits you)
The emphasis is weaker in the second example.
The basic patterns of emotional colloquial constructions enumerated above have a particularly strong stylistic effect when they are used in the author's speech. The explanation of this must be sought in the well-known dichotomy of the oral vs the written variety of language.
As has been previpusly pointed out, the oral variety has, as one of its distinctive features, an emotional character revealed mostly in the use of special emotive words, intensifiers and additional semanticizing factors caused by intonation and voice qualities. The. written variety is more intellectual; it is reasoned and, ideally, is non-emotional. So when such constructions have travelled from their homeland—dialogue — into the author's domain — monologue—, they assume the quality of an SD. Some of the examples given above illustrate this with sufficient clarity.
Among other cases of the particular use of colloquial constructions are 1) ellipsis, 2) break-in-the-narrative, 3) question-in-the-narrative, and 4) represented speech.
Ellipsis
Ellipsis is a typical phenomenon in conversation, arising out of the situation. We mentioned this.peculiar feature of the spoken language when we characterized its essential qualities and properties.
But this typical feature of the spoken language assumes a new quality when used in the written language. It becomes a stylistic device
inasmuch as it supplies suprasegmental information. An elliptical sentence in direct intercourse is not a stylistic device. It is simply a norm of the spoken language.
Let ug take a few examples.
"So Justice Oberwaltzer — solemnly and didactically from his high seat to the jury." (Dreiser)
One feels very acutely the absence of the predicate in this sentence. Why was it omitted? Did the author pursue any special purpose in leaving out a prirrtary member of the sentence? Or is it just due to carelessness? The answer is obvious: it is a deliberate device. This particular model of sentence suggests the author's personal state of mind, viz. his indignation at the shameless speech of the Justice. It is a common fact that any excited state of mind will manifest itself in some kind of violation of the recognized literary sentence structure.
Ellipsis, when used as a stylistic device, always imitates the common features of colloquial language, where the situation predetermines not thje..QmissipЈ...of^ but their absence. It would perhaps be adequate io call sentences lacfang certain members4 "incomplete-sentences", leaving the term ellipsis to specify structures where we recognize a digression from the traditional literary sentence structure.
|
|
|
Thus the sentences 'See you to-morrow/, 'Had a good time?', 'Won't
are typical'^oF jhe jcollo^^ ^^ structures in the spoken
language and to call them elliptical, means to judge every sentence structure according to the structural models of the written language. Likewise, such sentences as the following can hardly be called elliptical.
"There's somebody wants to speak to you." "There was no -breeze came through the open window." *• * '..; K (Hemingway) "There's many a man in this Borough would be glad to have the blood that runs in my veins." (Cronin)
The relative pronouns who, which, who after 'somebody', 'breeze', 'a man in this Borough' could not be regarded as "omitted" — this is the norm of colloquial language, though now not in frequent use except, perhaps, with the there (s (яге) constructions as above. This is due, perhaps, to the standardizing power of the literary language. O. Jespersen, in his analysis of such structurea, writes:
"If we speak here of 'omission' or 'subaudition' or 'ellipsis'* the reader is apt to get the false impression that the fuller expression is the better one as being complete, and that the shorter expression is to some extent faulty or defective, or something that has come into existence in recent times out of slovenliness. This is wrong: the constructions are very old in the language and have not come into existence through the dropping of a. previously necessary relative pronoun."
, Here are some examples quoted by Jespetsen:
'7 bring him news will raise his drooping spirits."
"...or like the snow falls in the river."
"...when at her door arose a clatter might awake the dead."
However, when the reader encounters such structures in literary texts, even though they aim at representing the lively norms of the spoken, language, he is apt to regard them as bearing some definite stylistic function. This is due to a psychological effect produced by the relative rarity of the construction, on the one hand, and the non-expectancy of any strikingly colloquial expression in literary narrative.
It must be repeated here that the most characteristic feature of the written variety of language is amplification, which by. its very nature is opposite to ellipsis. Amplification generally demands expansion of the ideas with as full and as exact relations between the parts of the utterance as possible. Ellipsis, on the contrary, being the property of colloquial language, does not express what can easily be supplied by the situation. This is perhaps the reason that elliptical sentences are rarely used as stylistic devices. Sometimes the omission of a link-verb adds emotional colouring and makes the sentence sound more emphatic, as in these lines from Byron:
"Thrice happy he who, after survey
of the good company, can win a corner."
"Nothing so difficult as a beginning."
"Denotes how soft the chin which bears his touch."
It is wrong to suppose that the omission of the link-verbs in these sentences is due to the requirements of the rhythm.
|
|
|
