Стилистический анализ текста. Учебное пособие

If we compare the written and spoken language of a given period, we shall find that the literary language is full of superfluous words and phrases, which the spoken language nearly always gets rid of. Thus in the English spoken language the idea ‘sky’ is expressed by this word only, while in the literary language it may also be expressed by heaven, heavens, firmament, welkin. So also the form hath was still used in literary prose in the last century in such phrases as the author hath ..., and it is still used in poetry and in the liturgical language of the Bible and Prayer-book, while in the spoken language the only form used is has. Again, nothing is more difficult than to give definite grammatical rules for the use of the subjunctive mood in literary English; in the spoken language the subjunctive is not used at all except in a few perfectly definite constructions, such as if it were. So also in spoken French the two most difficult tenses of the verb, the preterite indicative and subjunctive, have been supplanted by the perfect.

The spoken language, too, is far stricter in its use of epithets: it hardly ever introduces an adjective or other qualifier except to convey some definite information. Thus in ordinary speech we do not talk of ‘the bright sun’ or ‘the silver moon’, simply because the epithets convey no information – tell us nothing that is not already implied in the words sun and moon themselves. Even such a phrase as ‘the sun shines brightly’ has an uncolloquial ring about it, although it is not exactly anti-colloquial. We could say ‘the moon is bright to-night’, because this really conveys information. The spoken language also prefers a simple paratactic arrangement of sentences. The complicated periods of literary prose would, indeed, often be unintelligible in speech.

We see, then, that the advantage as regards clearness and definiteness is on the side of the spoken language: by starting from the spoken language we have less to learn, and we learn it accurately. Everything therefore points to the conclusion that in learning foreign languages we should follow the natural order in which we learn our own language: that is, that we should begin with learning the spoken language thoroughly, and then go on to the literary language.

If, then, we first get a thorough knowledge of the spoken form of the foreign language, and then proceed to learn its literary form, we shall be in exactly the same position as regards relative strength of associations as the natives themselves: we shall think in the spoken language, because our associations are directly with it, while at the same time we are able to understand the literary lan-

121

guage, and, with a little effort at first, to write it; but we are no more able to speak the pure literary language than a native is.

As it is, we too often reverse the process, and so do foreigners who learn English. They first of all imprint firmly on their memories the obsolete phraseology of the Vicar of Wakefield, or, at the best, of Washington Irving’s Sketch-book, then add a few choice Shakespearisms, and finally season this heterogeneous mixture with such modern colloquialisms as they can gather from the pages of Punch and Dickens. The result is always unsatisfactory, and often leads to unintelligibility. Thus I remember a case in which a German, on being asked how a certain lady was, replied that she was (r pt). As he tapped his forehead at the same time, the Englishman thought he meant to say that she had had a rap or knock on the head; but after a long discussion and many vain attempts to get at his meaning, it turned out that he was thinking of Shakespeare’s phrase in Macbeth, ‘how our partner’s rapt’ (= transported, in an ecstasy), and meant to convey the idea that she was out of her mind. Another foreigner, a Spaniard, was observed to speak English with perfect grammatical correctness, but with a curious old-fashioned stateliness of diction, which was at first assumed to be the natural accompaniment of the blue blood of Spain; it turned out, however, that the sole source of his colloquial English had been the dialogues in Dr. Samuel Johnson’s Rasselas.

(From “The Practical Study of Languages” by Henry Sweet).

2. From: LINGUISTIC RELEVANCE

by W. Haas

Linguistic analysis.

To the linguist, fundamentally the most puzzling characteristic of language is its enormous productivity - that obvious ability we have, every one of us, of always adding something new to an infinite variety of utterances; of saying what has never been said before, and understanding what we have never heard before. To explain how this is possible, is the rootproblem of linguistic analysis. It is of course immediately clear that there are, and must be, certain partial similarities between the new utterances and the old - certain regularities in those operations of saying and understanding: what is novel must be assumed to arise from a new but regular combination of old parts. The first task, then, of linguistic description – somewhat analogous to the chemist`s attempt to explain the puzzling variety of material things - may be

122

said to be a reductive one: the task, namely of reducing -the practically infinite variety of utterances to a relatively few recurrent relations of a relatively few recurrent elements. So much seems to be obvious and uncontroversial. But much that is less obvious seems to follow from having located the problem and determined the task in this way.

Something about the objects to be described and analyzed must be taken for granted; and the question how much. One may ask, for instance, whether it would be profitable to apply linguistic methods to arbitrary stretches of speech, i.e. to nothing more than certain events of acoustic disturbance. We seem to require more, as a basis for linguistic operations: nothing less, in fact, than that succession of different significant utterances which is our problem. They are the objects of our analysis. Precisely as the chemist is not concerned to verify the perceived variety of material things (including the instruments of his laboratory), so the linguist simply observes the various meaningful utterances and knows of their distinct existence, without feeling obliged to explain how he knows it. Neither the chemist's nor the linguist's presupposition is beyond question. But the question is asked by other disciplines - by psychologists, anthropologists, philosophers. The linguist (and, mutatis mutandis, the chemist) asks about the internal structure of his 'facts', always taking for granted that he can observe and roughly distinguish them.

J.R. Firth refers here to a 'basic postulate', which he calls 'the implication" of utterance'. 'Language text,' he says, 'must be attributed to participants in some context of situation,' before it can be analyzed. The various global forms and meanings of the pieces of text, which are subjected to linguistic analysis, are regarded as 'given' by the linguist, though they are capable of being 'established' and 'explained' by anthropological inquiries - that is, by a study of speakers and listeners in contexts of situation'. This tells us something about the relation between the linguistic and the social studies of human speech. 'Context of situation,' says Firth, 'makes sure of the sociological component' of linguistic descriptions. It is a convenient abstraction at the social level of analysis, and forms the basis of the hierarchy of techniques', which are employed by linguistic analysis proper.

123

L. Bloomfield was equally explicit on what he called 'the fundamental assumption of linguistics'. 'We must assume,' he said, 'that in every speech-community some utterances are alike (or partly alike) in form and meaning.' This is the basis of linguistic analysis. Bloomfield, however, made it unnecessarily difficult for himself, and his followers, to feel at ease with this fundamental assumption. In Bloomfieldian linguistics, likeness of meaning becomes a source of trouble. It is formulated in such a way as allow mysterious 'elements' of meaning (“sememes”) to attach themselves to the clear-cut formal elements of any given utterance. As a result, an unmanageable crowd of elusive extra-lingual entities intrudes, in haphazard fashion, into the very fabric of linguistic analysis; whereas for Firth, situational context, lying itself safely outside the utterance, provides all we need to presuppose in order to describe the significant functions and elements within.

It is on account of that 'semantic' function of any described utterance - a function in 'contexts of situation'- that Firth regarded the whole of linguistic description, from syntax I to phonic, as a statement of various 'modes of meaning'. The unfortunate idiosyncrasy of this special terminology - which confined the term 'semantic' to an anthropological study, while ascribing 'meaning' to everything that is linguistically relevant, whether it be a sentence or a word or a mere sound – seems to have been seriously misleading. It suggested a highly eccentric and esoteric theory, precisely at the point at which Firth in fact affirmed chat is generally acknowledged to be the fundamental presupposition of linguistic studies. Indeed, he succeeded, where others had failed - namely, in admitting extra-lingual presuppositions, without allowing them to disrupt the proper autonomy of linguistic studies. Extra-lingual 'context of situation', which replaces all those sporadically intrusive 'semantic entities', was simply thought of as infusing every linguistic element with relevance, or, as Firth put it, with some 'mode of meaning'.

Yet, whatever the difference between Firth and Bloomfield, were agreed on one important point – namely, that the objects of linguistic analysis are not just physical objects, not arbitrarily selected `stretches of speech'. Such, they were sure, would not offer them enough information for their reductive task. 'As long as we pay no attention to mean-

124

ings,' says Bloomfield, 'we cannot decide whether two uttered forms are "the same" or "different".' To be able to decide so mu ch as t h i s , we n e ed t o as s u me t h a t s o me o f t h o s e p h ys i c al `stretches' make sense, and that they make different kinds of sense (though full information as to what specific sense any utterance makes will not need to be presupposed as given). Meaningful utterances, then, many and various, are the objects of linguistic inquiry. The linguist`s concern is with their internal constitution, the question being how to reduce them to recurrent elements in recurrent relations.

(From: In Memory of J.R.Firth, pp.116-119)

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS STYLE

August 3, 2007

1. Dear Professor Bogdanov:

Our laboratory intends to embark on research into x-ray structural analysis of different biological substances. We wish to investigate the influence of particle additions on the polypeptide crystal structure. Meanwhile, we have started collecting literature along these lines. With this purpose in view we are writing to inquire whether you are able to supply us with a list of references or with any information you have on hand.

Perhaps you can also mention some other prominent researchers engaged in the same experiment to whom I may turn with the same inquiry.

I would very much appreciate it if you would give consideration to my request. In general, we would like to maintain scientific co-operation with you laboratory and establish an exchange of data and information in our field of work.

We trust you will likewise be interested in such contacts. Please accept my apologies for the inconveniences I have occasioned you.

Looking forward to hearing from you and with best regards,

Sincerely yours, Alfred P. Parker, Chief of the Sander’s Laboratories

August 10, 2007

125

Universities INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION of UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS 27, PLACE DE L’UNIVERSITE *13625 AIX-PROVINCE (FRANCE)

*TEL 4223182 The V111 Triennial Conference of

The International Association of University Presidents, June 21 – 27, 2007

Dear Colleague,

You may receive other notices of this Meeting which will attract over 600 university presidents from all over the world. Our last meeting, in 2006, in Bangkok attracted over 900 participants.

Our meeting topics will be:

I. University Crises: War, Terrorism, Recession & Unemployment.

II. University Responses: Improved Understanding, Reduction of Barriers, Study for Peace, Justice & Development.

III. University Interaction: Joint Projects, International Agencies. IV. Improving the Role of Presidents in University Governance.

As a paid up member, after you arrive you will be guests of the Mexican Government and the University of Guadalajara. In addition to seminars and workshops there will be enjoyable programs for cultural appreciation of Mexico. Those of you who attended at Bangkok and Costa Rica will remember how rewarding and enjoyable our welcomes have been.

In case you have not yet paid your due of $ 150 US, you may send your remittance to me to be forwarded or you may send them directly to Mexico to ensure your status of a guest. With all best wishes,

Yours sincerely, signature

European Chairman

126

3.

MODERN

PLASTICS LTD Melox House Manufactures of Plasticware

PORTSMOUTH

Messrs. L. Thoms & Son

150 Beachview Avenue

Bournenouth H77 60P

Dear Sirs

We are very pleased to have your enquiry, and are enclosing the price-list you requested, together with our terms of sale.

As you have evidently realized, plastic kitchenware is here to stay – it has already ousted heavy and expendable metal, glass and china from the modern kitchen. Dealers who have displayed our brightly colored range have reported good sales even in the present season, when hardware sales are usually at their lowest.

After studying our prices and our liberal terms to the trade, you will understand why we are working to capacity to meet the demand. We would advise you, therefore, to let us have your order by the end of the month, as this will enable you to have stocks of our attractive lines by Easter.

We look forward to the opportunity of being of service to you.

Yours faithfully

p.p. MODERN PLASTICS LTD. (signature)

R. B. Gordon

Sales Manager

127

2.4. PHRASES FOR TRANSLATING IDEAS INTO WORDS

which may come helpful for you while making the analysis of the text

A. Character Traits Word Bank