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.

Не знайшли потрібну інформацію? Скористайтесь пошуком google:

Генерація сторінки за: 0.003 сек.