 |
Norm in Stylistics. Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Stylistics
|
|
|
|
The essence of stylistic perception of any utterance or text consists in mental confrontation of what one hears or reads with what one knows, that is with one’s previous linguistic experience. To understand a message adequately does not only mean to decipher the senses of separate linguistic units, such as words, morphemes and their combinations, and to put these senses together. It also means to undertake an immediate evaluation of such units from the standpoint of their belonging to either the neutral sphere or stylistically marked/stylistically coloured sphere of the language. The stylistic colouring means the knowledge where, i.e. in what particular type of communication, this or that unit is current. Besides, both the stylistic colouring and neutrality of units may be viewed as a result of their distributional capacities. Under the distributional capacities of the units we mean the possibilities of the given unit to naturally enter combinations with its immediate environment. For example, the form haven’t has nearly a universal distribution while the form ain’t belongs to colloquial, uncultivated speech. This fact is proved by other breaches of well-established rules of grammar such as the use of several negations in one sentence. For example, I ain’t never done nothing.
Stylistically coloured units can be further subdivided into:
o bookish;
o solemn;
o poetic;
o official.
And, on the other hand:
o colloquial;
o rustic;
o dialectal;
o vulgar.
The colouring shows where the unit was coined, where it is being used and where it should not. Does this mean that unlike stylistically coloured units those stylistically neutral are devoid of any connotations? The answer should be no. However the connotations of the stylistically neutral units are innumerable and manifold because such units are used in practically every sphere of possible combinations. For example, the words water, land, husband and many others are stylistically neutral. As a result the connotation of such words becomes indefinite or neutral.
Neutrality and Norm in Stylistics
A number of scholars conclude that style may also be defined as a standardized deviation from the lingual norm. Anything stylistically conspicuous, relevant, coloured is, as they say, a departure from the norm. This is a viewpoint shared by Riffaterre, E. Supporta, M. Halliday, etc. This way they equalise the notions of stylistic neutrality and linguistic norm. What is meant by the notion of the lingual norm? It, of course, implies some pre-established and conventionally accepted parameters of what is evaluated. Thus the sentence I’ve not ever done anything satisfies to the modern English literary norm. Another example I ain’t never done nothing is certainly a deviation from the literary norm named Standard English but at the same time it fully conforms to the requirements of uncultivated English because the people who use this type of the language simply have their own norms of communication. Thus the number of norms is great and stays in accord with the number of sublanguages within one national language. Otherwise we would be obliged to consider normal only ABC-books or the texts of the first lesson for foreigners. Anything else, for example, Shakespeare, Hemingway, Fowls, Joyce, scientific and technical literature, documents, advertisements, everyday colloquial speech, would be considered abnormal. That’s why the notions of neutrality and norm should not be confused together. The basic characteristic feature of norm in language is its plurality because there has never been and cannot be one universal norm for everybody.
|
|
|
Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Stylistics
A paradigm is a set of grammar forms of this or that part of speech, each of such form being naturally selected in the speech process. The notion of a syntagma is employed in both phonetics and syntax and denotes a combination of words in speech, a linear sequence of lexical units.
The term paradigmatics, mostly used by Russian linguists, denotes the totality of units the language has at its disposal. The term syntagmatics also implies to a totality but this time the sequences or chains of units. Both paradigmatics and syntagmatics are interconnected in reality supporting each other and representing necessary condition for each other’s existence. What would a paradigm of units be without a knowledge of how they are combined in syntagmata? It would be useless and meaningless. The meaning of a unit is known due to the knowledge of its distribution. The same way what would a syntagma be without its place in the paradigm? For stylistics strict delimitation of these both is of principal importance. Thus when we use the word guy instead of man or the form ain’t instead of am/is/are not the combination real good instead of really good, the sentence John here? instead of Is John here? it means one unit used instead of another which could be but isn’t employed on purpose. It’s what shows the paradigmatic branch of stylistics: the paradigmatic choice between the stylistically marked and stylistically neutral units. Another example is the utterance I ask you, I pray, I beseech. Here it is not the words or their meanings that are of stylistic interest but the number of their manifestations (3) and the relations between their meanings: pray is stronger than ask and beseech is the strongest synonym. In combinations like life and death, now or never there is also a definite play of meanings, this time based upon contrast. There are also examples of contrastive meanings within one phrase like love and hate, sweet torture, etc. Such correlations between the meanings of words in single combinations make the object of studies of syntagmatic stylistics. Thus there is stylistics of units named paradigmatic stylistics and stylistics of sequences names syntagmatic stylistics. The former studies separate words, groups, while the latter studies their combinations. That is stylistic units. Paradigmatic stylistics is concentrated upon the choice between the stylistically marked and stylistically neutral units. Syntagmatic stylistics is focused upon the correlations between the meanings of words which stand together.
Literature
1. Galperin I.R. Stylistics. – Moscow, 1991.
2. Skrebnev Yu.M. Fundamentals of English Stylistics. – Moscow, 1994.
|
|
|
3. Enkvist, N.E. Linguistic Stylistics. – The Hague, 1973.
4. Esser, J. English Linguistic Stylistics. – Tübingen, 1993.
5. Wales, K. A Dictionary of Stylistics. – London, 1990.
6. Арнольд И.В. Стилистика современного английского языка (Стилистика декодирования). – М., 1990.
7. Балли Ш. Французская стилистика. – М., 1961.
8. Стилистический энциклопедический словарь русского языка / Под ред. М.Н. Кожиной. – М., 2003.
|
|
|
