4. O. Morokhovsky's classification of the fs of the English language.

The linguist O. Morokhovsky defines such functional styles:

1. Official business style.

2. Scientific-professional style.

3. Publicist style.

4. Literary colloquial style (literary speech style).

5. Familiar colloquial style (everyday speech style).

Official business style is based on non-fiction written type of the language, the personal element is excluded. It is used in formal situations.

Scientific-professional style is based on non-fiction written type of the language, the personal aspect is minimal.

Publicistic style is based on non-fiction written type of the language, but it can widely include structures of written and oral types of speech.

Literary speech style is based on non-fiction written type of the language, but it can widely include structures of written and oral fiction types of speech. It is used in formal situations. The presence of the personal is possible.

Everyday speech style is based on non-fiction oral type of language. It is used in informal situations. The personal aspect dominates.

According to this classification, language functions and types of speech define the usage of styles. V. Vinogradov distinguishes such language functions as communicative, referential and conative. They are realized in everyday speech style (communicative function), scientific professional and official business styles (referential), literary speech and publicistic styles (conative) [9: 6].

The spheres of speech are those social speech situations in which there is communication. We may define two types of communication: oral and written [9: 69-92].

5. Main peculiarities of the fs of the English language.

There were many attempts to define functional styles of the English language. The Russian linguist Yu. Screbnev has made an attempt to investigate and compare classifications of some linguists in his "Basics of English Stylistics". He has made a discourse of main peculiarities of these classifications.

Russian linguist I. Galperin distinguished five styles:

1. The Belles-Lettres Style:

1. the language of poetry;

2. emotive prose;

3. the language of the drama.

2. The Publicistic Style;

1. the oratorial substyle (spoken variety);

2. the substyle of radio and TV commentary (spoken variaty);

3. the essay (moral, philosophical, literary);

4. journalistic articles (political, social, economic).

3. The Newspapers:

1. Brief News Items;

2. Headlines;

3. Advertisements and Announcements;

4. The Editorial.

4. The Scientific Prose Style.

5. The Style of Official Documents:

1. the language of business documents;

2. the language of legal documents;

3. the language of diplomacy;

4. the language of military documents.

Prof. Yu. Screbnev points out that the linguist I. Galperin excluded colloquial style as that having nothing in common with what he understood by stylistics. The validity of postulating belles-lettres style also calls for discussion because I. Galperin mentions not imaginative prose in general, but emotive prose [15: 168].

The linguist M. Kuznets distinguishes such functional styles:

1. Literary, or Bookish Style:

1. Publicistic Style;

2. Scientific (Technological)Style;

3. Official Documents:

2. Free (Colloquial) Style:

1. Literary Colloquial Style;

2. Familiar Colloquial Style.

In this classification both poetry and imaginative prose have been rejected.

I. Arnold singles out four styles:

1. Poetic Style.

2. Scientific Style.

3. Newspaper Style.

4. Colloquial Style.

The positive peculiarity of this classification is the presence of colloquial style. Singling out poetic and scientific styles seems valid too. The only problem is newspaper style, because the diversity of genres in newspapers is undoubtful. However, the linguist does not pay enough attention to this diversity [15: 169].

O. Morokhovsky defines five functional styles:

1. Official business style.

2. Scientific-professional style.

3. Publicist style.

4. Literary colloquial style (literary speech style).

5. Familiar colloquial style (everyday speech style).

In opinion of the linguist Yu. Screbnev this classification is quite successful. Each item is discussed, each style has a combination of distinctive features. Besides, O. Morokhovsky's classification is one of the few that attempt to differentiate and arrange hierarchically the system of cardinal linguistic notions.

V. Kukharenko singles out such functional styles:

1. Official Style.

2. Scientific Style.

3. Publicistic Style.

4. Newspaper Style.

5. Belles-Lettres Style.

This classification is rather positive in the opinion of Yu. Screbnev.

Yu. Stepanov's classification is based on the principle that the difference between language and speech is inessential. One of the functional styles is said to be the neutral style (the norm), others are stylistically coloured. Thus, the classification is the following:

I. Correct Speech:

1. Poetic Language;

2. Language of Imaginative Literature;

3. The Bookish Style:

1. administrative;

2. juridical;

3. scientific.

4. The Colloquial Style.

II. Popular Speech:

1. Argot;

2. Jargon.

However, this classification is based on the popular classification of J. Vinay and J. Darbelnet (1958). The national language is subdivided by them into bon usage (correct speech) and langue vulgaire (ungrammatical speech).

M. Brandes defines five functional styles:

1. Official;

2. Scientific-technical;

3. Publicistic;

4. Colloquial;

5. Artistic.

K. Dolinin solves the problem of classification by paying attention to three basic distinctive features, positively or negatively characterizing every type of speech: emotional, spontaneous, and normative. Each may be either present or absent. Thus, his classification is the following:

1. Emotional normative conversation: literary colloquial speech.

2. Emotional non-normative conversation: familiar colloquial speech.

3. Emotional non-spontaneous literary speech: publicistic style, oratorial style, style of literary narrative.

4. Emotional non-spontaneous non-normative style.

5. Non-emotional normative talk.

6. Non-emotional non-normative talk.

7. Non-emotional, non-spontaneous, normative (literary) speech: official business style, scientific style.

8. Non-emotional, non-spontaneous, non-normative speech: an official business letter of a semi-literate man.

In this classification logical infallibility is combined with insufficient informative force. Only a few concrete speech types and styles are mentioned [15: 176].

M. Kozhina lists type-forming and socially significant spheres of communication as follows:

1. Official.

2. Scientific.

3. Artistic.

4. Publicistic.

5. Colloquial.

In this classification as in the above mentioned one can doubt the validity of treating separately (and thus opposing) the artistic (belles-lettres) and the publicistic spheres [15: 177]. However, all the mentioned above classifications of functional styles are very important for the development of stylistics as a science and are undoubtfully worth of investigation.