3. Basic notions of stylistics (the notion of context, the concept of the norm)

Context, according to Natalia Amosova (Наталия Николаевна Амосова; 1911-1966), is a combination of an indicator and the dependent. The dependent is a word, the meaning of which is to be rendered in a given utterance.

According to I. V. Arnold, context may be lexical, syntactical and mixed.

The lexical context presupposes that the indicator is a lexeme. For example, if we take the word black, it denotes color with the key lexeme denoting some material or thing. When it is used with the key lexeme denoting feeling or thought, it means sad.

The syntactical context presupposes that the indicator is a syntactical pattern. For example, the verb make means to cause when following a complex object.

The mix context combines characteristics of both syntactical and lexical contexts. For example, the word late, when used attributively with words denoting periods of time, means towards the end of the period.

Eugene A. Nida (November 11, 1914, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma – August 25, 2011, Brussels, Belgium) distinguished linguistic and practical context. By the latter he means the circumstances of communication, i. e. the stimuli, participants and the relations between them.

Gennadi Kolshanski (Геннадий Владимирович Колшанский; 1922 – 1985) points out a broader context which includes all the factors accompanying verbal communication, i. e. concrete situation in which communication takes place. A narrower context, according to him, implies purely linguistic features.

Judging by these classifications, we may say that context is a set of circumstances and conditions accompanying word usage.

Lexical and syntactical contexts help to remove polysemy and homonymy. The function of the stylistic context is to enrich the semantic structure of the word, to add to its meaning. So, stylistic context, as a rule, has elements of low predictability. It means that the reader would rather have expected another word in a certain context.

Most scholars, giving definition of style, state that it may be defined as a deviation of lingual norm. It means that what is stylistically obvious, colored or important is a deviation from the norm of a given national language. This idea support such scientists as Roman Jakobson and Michael Hallyday (often M.A.K. Halliday; born 13 April 1925, Leeds, Yorkshire, England).

The notion of norm presupposes a recognized standard, i. e. the literary norm. In this case only a limited set of books should be considered normal. But there is a variety of sublanguages within a national language. We should also acknowledge that each of them has a norm of its own. For example, I ain’t never done nothing. This example is not the norm itself, but it conforms to the requirements of the uncultivated part of the English-speaking population who merely have their own concept of the norm. Thus, Skrebnev claims that there are so many norms as there are sublanguages within the national language.

Each language is subject to its own norm. Thus, the basic stylistic opposition is between normative and non-normative usage (according to Arnold) or between traditional and situational usage (according to Skrebnev).

It stands to reason that what we call the norm in terms of stylistics would be more appropriate to call neutrality. Units of language belonging to all sublanguages are stylistically neutral.