GRAMMAR AND STYLE

With the expansion of linguistic interest into style problems grammatical studies in our day have taken on new vitality.

Analysing the language from the viewpoint of the information it carries we cannot restrict the notion of information to the cognitive aspect of language. Connotative aspects and emotional overtones are also important semantic components of linguistic units at different levels.

Grammatical forms play a vital role in our ability to lend variety to speech, to give "colour" to the subject or evaluate it, to convey the information more emotionally, to give it affective overtones.

Style in language is a system of organically related linguistic means which serve a definite purpose of communication.

In highly developed languages one and the same idea may be differently expressed in different consituations. On various occasions a speaker makes an intentional use of some linguistic forms to give emphasis to what is emphatic, to make what is striking and important strike the eye and mind of the reader. This purpose may be attained in many different ways.

The stylistic range of Russian and Ukrainian is wide and ultimately the gradations are infinite. And so it is with English. When we are putting words together, we have to see that they are congruous with the expectations at some point on this scale and that they are arranged according to the conventions of collocation with reference to the same point on the scale.

Intensity and emphasis may be obtained in different ways.

There are expressive means in any language established by right of long use at different levels: phonetic, morphological, lexical, phraseological and syntactic.

Expressive nuances may be obtained, for instance, by prosody alone, by interjections and particles of emphatic precision or, say, by word-making, etc.

The selection of such linguistic devices is a factor of great significance in the act of communication. Phonetic means are most effective. By prosody we express subtle nuances of meaning that perhaps no other means can attain. Pitch, melody and stress, pausation, drawling out certain syllables, whispering and many other ways of using the voice are much stronger than any other means of intensifying the utterance, to convey emotions or to kindle emotions in others.

On the morphological level expressivity is often attained by effective transpositions of grammatical forms the stylistic value of which can hardly be overestimated.

The problems of style in grammar are still in a rudimentary stage of investigation. Recent linguistic studies have contributed significantly to the exploration of grammatical aspects of style but much still remains to be done to give the inventory of grammatical forms with relevance to their connotation and expressive value.

In any speech event the structure of the utterance naturally depends on the prevalent denotative function, but the participation of the other factors must be taken into consideration as well.

The components of grammatical meaning that do not belong to the denotation of the grammatical form can reasonably be covered by the general term of connotation. As a matter of fact, stylistic differentiation in the whole variety of any language belongs in its lexical and grammatical results to the category connotation. ¹ The variety of expressive features that may be incorporated in language, whether written or spoken, is manifestly enormous.

On the connotative level, we may distinguish, at least to a workable degree, the components of the grammatical meaning that add some contrastive value to the primary denotative value of the word-form. We mean intensity of meaning, expressivity, subjective modal force or emotional colouring.

The validity of the connotative analysis makes itself quite evident. And this is based not only on theoretical considerations, but also on practical ones.

It would be therefore a mistake to deny the constitutive value of "stylistic" grammar as part of functional stylistics, whose important goal is to deeply inquire into the grammatical aspects of style and describe those characteristic stylistic traits of language that lie in the field of grammar. These are most skillfully mastered by creative writers but often disregarded, if not absolutely ignored, by grammarians.

Examining the organisation of the text along the syntagmatic axis we cannot avoid consideration of the selection in the distribution of its linguistic elements.

Great writers possess an intuitive mastery of the rules that are obligatory within the tradition of language but they have always selective way and can manipulate these rules in accordance with their own artistic intentions and surpass the limits prescribed by tradition. J. Galsworthy, for instance, uses grammatical imagery in his "Forsyte Saga" so masterly that some of its pages are, indeed, difficult to place in "prose — poetry" dichotomy.

In terms of grammatical aspects of style, we find it reasonable to distinguish between inherent and adherent expressivity of grammatical forms.

Grammatical forms with inherent expressive value are stylistically marked units of grammar. In English morphology they are few in number.

The first to be mentioned here are the emphatic forms of the Present

¹ See: Л. Е л ь м с л е в. Пролегомены к теории языка. В сб.: "Новое в лингвистике". Вып. 1, М., 1960.

and Past Indefinite with do and did and the emphatic forms of the Imperative Mood with the auxiliary do.

There are also variant forms of the Past tense with emphasis laid on negation which are also stylistically marked: he saw not = he did not see; he knew not = he did not know. Examples are:

They passed from his view into the next room, and Soames continued to regard the "Future Town", but saw it not. A little smile snarled up his tips.

... The tune died and was renewed, and died again, and still Soames sat in the shadow, waiting for he knew not what. (Galsworthy)

...and on the gleaming river every fallen leaf that drifted down carried a moonbeam; while, above, the trees stayed, quiet measured and illumined, quiet as the very sky, for the wind stirred not. (Galsworthy)

The same is true negative forms of the Imperative Mood without the auxiliary do.

No use to rave! Worse than no use — far; would only make him ill, and he would want all his strength. For what? For sitting still; for doing nothing; for waiting to see! Venus! Touch not the goddess — the hot, the jealous one with the lost dark eyes! He had touched her in the past, and she had answered with a blow. Touch her not! (Galsworthy)

Cf. Touch her not — Do not touch her! = Don't touch her!).

There are also archaic forms in the conjugation of the English verb belonging to the high style only, e. g. -th for the third person singular, Present Indicative: endeth, liveth, knoweth, saith, doth, hath, etc.

...The moon's hiding, now, behind on of the elms, and the evening star shining... It's a night far from our time, far even from our world. Not an owl hooting, but the honeysuckle still sweet. And so, my most dear, here endeth the tale! (Galsworthy)

The same is true of the forms in -st for the second person singular of both the Present and the Past Indicative, e. g,: livest, knowest, sayst, dost, livedst, knewest, saidst, didst, hadst, etc. and the forms shalt, wilt, art wert (or wast) of the verbs shall, will, be used with the personal pronoun thou.

A certain number of verbs have alternative archaic forms differing from the ordinary ones by a distinct solemn colouring of elevated style, e. g.: spake, for spoke (Past tense of the verb speak); throve for thrived (Past tense of the verb thrive).

The selection of linguistic means is a factor of great significance in the act of communication.

From the stylistic point of view, some grammatical forms are neutral, others are not. There are forms which have a noticeable stylistic colouring and will produce an inappropriate effect when used outside their sphere of stylistic usage. There are also a few nouns which have alternative archaic plural forms, e. g. brethren (differing from brother not in stylistic colouring alone) or, say, cow, with its alternative archaic plural form kine used with a poetic tinge.

A far greater interest attaches to grammatical forms with adherent expressivity i. e. forms which are endowed with expressive functions only in special contexts of their use.

This question naturally involves many others, such as, for instance, functional transpositions of grammatical forms leading to their functional re-evaluation, suspension of oppositions and contextual synonymy in grammar.

It is interesting to note, in passing, that not all grammatical forms are equally endowed with expressive functions to be performed in different contexts. Some of them are less dynamic in their use, others possess quite a peculiar mobility and are particularly suitable for use in emotional contexts with various subtle shades of expressive meaning.

Transpositions in grammar like those in the vocabulary lead the way to ever more dynamic and pictorial means of expression, they are rather regular in the structure of any language. Closely related to the oppositions in pairs of grammatical forms they have their own system and peculiarities in the grammar of different parts of speech.

It can be said with little fear of exaggeration that due to functional transpositions the stylistic range of grammar in most developed modern languages is surprisingly wide. We know well the full richness and the emotive dynamic force of Russian and Ukrainian grammatical forms concerned with the subjective emotional use of different parts of speech.

And so it is with English. It has a very definite and complex grammar with its own set of devices for handling the word-stock, with its own stylistic traits and idiosyncrasies widely current to serve different purposes in the act of communication. In transpositions on its morphological level we may find not only its own structural peculiarities but a fair number of universal features traced in other languages.

From this point of view the connotative value of grammatical forms as developed in different contexts of their subjective use is a source of constant interest.

Here are a few graphic examples to illustrate the fact that on the connotative level a grammatical form may take on special subjective shades of meaning, stylistically different from its primary denotative content:

"We Americans agree. But may be not our Senate." ' 'That Senate of yours", muttered Hubert, "seems to be a pretty hard proposition." (Galsworthy)

"That dog of yours is spoiling the garden. I shouldn't keep the dog, if I were you." (Galsworthy)

- That face of hers, whose eyes for a moment were off guard, was dark with some deep — he couldn't tell. (Galsworthy)

The context is always sufficiently explicit to reveal the emotive use of the partitive genitive which in patterns with the demonstratives this or that may develop connotative meanings denoting different emotions: scorn, contempt, indignation, admiration, delight, approval, etc.

Vivid examples of connotative meanings defined by the context or situation will also be found in the expressive use of demonstrative pronouns:

...he perfectly remembered how Aunt Ann, born in 1799, used to talk about "that dreadful Bonaparte — we used to call him Boney, my dear." (Galsworthy)

"I had a brain wave — went to that Mr. Mont who gave us the clothes, and he's advanced it." (Galsworthy)

"Anything unpleasant, ducky?" Soames looked up as if startled.

"Unpleasant? Why should it be unpleasant?";

"I only thought from your face.";

Soames grunted. "This Ruhr!" he said. (Galsworthy)

It was that sister Doris — She got hold of him. (Mansfield)

The common function of the demonstrative pronouns this — these; thai — those is to point out exactly one or more persons or things and to distinguish them from others of the same class.

Language varies as its function varies; it differs in different situations. The name now often given to a variety of language distinguished according to its use is "register".

The category of "register" is needed when we observe language activity in the various contexts in which it takes place and find differences in the type of language selected as appropriate to different types of official letters and documents or, say, sports commentaries, popular journalism or scientific English will always be linguistically quite distinct. Reading a fragment from any of these and many more situation types will always help to identify "the register" correctly.

The choice of items from the wrong register, and the mixing of items from different registers, are among the most frequent mistakes made by non-native speakers of a language.

The criteria of any given register are to be found in its grammar and in its vocabulary. Lexical features seem to be the most obvious. The clearest signals of a partial register, say, biology, chemistry, engineering or medicine, are scientific technical terms except those that belong to more than one science, like mathematics and modern linguistics.

Purely grammatical distinctions between the different registers are less striking, yet there can be noticeable variation in grammar also.

Many of the most characteristic stylistic traits of the language are in the field of grammar.

Standard usage of English includes formal, informal and sometimes colloquial English. Each of these, in turn, offers its own set of criteria.

Thus, formal scientific English, where precision and clarity are vital, is generally identified by special patterns of grammatical structure, by its use of complex sentences and by its affinity for precision. Most of its grammatical elements are "denotative", not "connotative".

Scientific technical literature, for instance, abounds in the use of lengthy participial, gerundial and infinitival phrases. Another noticeable feature of scientific English, for example, is the preferable use of the impersonal one, the generalising you, so called pluralis modestial we, or, say, the use of would for all persons in Singular and Plural to denote habitual repeated actions with reference to present, past and future. Not less characteristic is the frequency value of passive verbal forms, generally due to the fact that the agent is unknown or the writer prefers not to speak of him. Thus the author may also avoid showing that he himself is the agent. In its written form, formal English allows no repetition, no rephrasing to explain an abstruse point. The choice of patterns in scientific prose is therefore likely to be most factual and referential with comparatively few subjective emotional elements in it. Formal English

is very seldom used in speaking — mainly when, for instance, reading from a prepared speech, addressing a meeting, a group or an association of scholars. It is also common in legal documents and announcements, in work-papers, in proceedings, essays, etc.

Colloquial English is generally recognised by its loose syntax, its relatively short and uncomplicated sentence structure, by its frequent use of so-called sentence fragments and readily understood grammatical idioms. It is lively, free in form, often exclamatory, abounding in ellipsis.

Many of its idiomatic patterns of grammatical structure are unacceptable as standard for informal literary usage.

Here is a short passage that illustrates the degree to which J. Galsworthy, alert of mind and quick of ear, succeeded in masterly transferring to his page the very essence and pattern of staccato speech in colloquial English:

"Hallo!... That you, Wilfrid?... Michael speaking... One of our packers has been snooping copies of "Copper Coin". He's got the bird — poor devil! I wondered if you'd mind putting in a word for him — old Dan won't listen to me... Yes, got a wife — Fleur's age; pneumonia, so he says. Won't do it again with yours anyway, insurance by common gratitude — what! Thanks, old man, awfully good of you — will you bob in, then?" (Galsworthy)

Consider also the following examples:

"Burt must be up with Michael, talking about his new book.";

" Writing at his age?" said Soames.

" Well, ducky, he's a year younger than you.";

"I don't write. Not such a fool. Got any more new-fangled friends?";

"Just one — Gurdon Minho, the novelist.";

"Another of the new school?";

"Oh, no, dear! Surely you've heard of Gurdon Minho; he is older than the hills... (Galsworthy)

"...You were in the war, Mr. Desert?";

"Oh, yes.";

"Air service?";

"And line. Bit of both.";

"Hard of a poet.";

"Not at all..." (Galsworthy)

Consider also the following example:

...Where to?

"Class."

"Math?"

"No, Spanish."

"In a hurry?"

"Rather."

"What for?"

"Almost ten."

"Well, so long. Call me up" ^l.

¹ A. H. Mагсkwardt. Introduction to the English Language. New York, 1950, p. 146.

The style of the language of everyday life, or colloquial language, answers the needs of everyday communion in everyday matters. It is essentially a dialogue in which all the participants exchange their thoughts freely. Situation, gesture, intonation help the unambiguous understanding, therefore there is no great need for the speech to be very exact, very clear. We often limit ourselves with mere hinting, and the full expressions of thought may seem pedantic. The vocabulary is neither very rich nor refined, we often recur to non-standard layers of language. The structure of sentence is simple, often elliptical to the utmost. The enunciation is negligent and contracted forms prevail.

Bernard Shaw has very wittily spoken on "Spoken English and Broken English":

"...no two native speakers of English speak it alike; but perhaps you are clever enough to ask me whether I myself speak it in the same way.

I must confess at once that I do not. Nobody does, I am at present speaking to an audience of many thousands of gramophonists, many of whom are trying hard to follow my words syllable by syllable. If I were to speak to you as carelessly as I speak to my wife at home, this record would be useless; and if I were to speak to my wife at home as carefully as I am speaking to you, she would think that I was going mad.

As a public speaker, I have to take care that every word I say is heard distinctly at the far and of the large halls containing thousands of people. But at home, when I have to consider only my wife within six feet of me at breakfast, I take so little pains with my speech that very often instead of giving me the expected answer, she says "Don't mumble and don't turn your head away when you speak. I can't hear a word you are saying." And she also is a little careless. Sometimes I have tosay"what" two or three times during our meal; and she suspects me of growing deafer and deafer and deafer, though she does not say so, because, as I am now over seventy, it might be true.

No doubt I ought to speak to my wife as carefully as I should speak to a queen, and she to me as carefully as she would speak to a king. We ought to; but we don't. ("Don't" by the way is short for "do not").

We all have company manners and home manners. If you were to call on a strange family and listen through the keyhole — not that I would suggest for a moment that you are capable of doing such very unladylike or ungentlemanlike thing; but still — if, in your enthusiasm for studying languages you could bring yourself to do it just for a few seconds to hear how a family speak to one another when there is nobody else listening to them, and then walk into the room and hear how very differently they speak in your presence, the change would surprise you...

Suppose I forget to wind my watch, and it stops. I have to ask somebody to tell me the time. If I ask a stranger, I say "What o'clock is it?" The stranger hears every syllable distinctly. But if I ask my wife, all she hears is "clokst". This is good enough for her; but it would not be good enough for you. So I am speaking to you now much more carefully than I speak to her; but please don't tell her!"

The aesthetic and emotional impact produced by a work of literature is largely conditioned by the alternative choices of grammatical forms. The connotative analysis must essentially involve the identification of the various dimensions along which messages may differ.

Revision Material

Review your knowledge of coordination and subordination in composite sentences in Modern English and be ready to discuss:

a) the problem of classification of these two types of sentence structure;

b) the synsemantic value of coordinated clauses; overlapping relations in different types of such patterns;

c) sub-clauses of different types; peculiarities of their grammatical organisation in Modern English; the synsemantic value of different types of sub-clauses;

d) transposition and functional re-evaluation of syntactic structures;

e) problems of implicit predication;

f) neutralisation of oppositions in patterns of subordination;

g) transformations in sentence sequences;

h) compression of sub-clauses by nominalisation.