ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THEME 1

Two groups of critics - Russian and central European Formalists whose academic careers began during the 1920s and 1930s – made a major influence on the identity and direction of contemporary English language studies. They are the most obvious inheritors of the discipline of rhetoric, in the sense that they have maintained a belief in the empirical difference between literature and other types of language and specified the difference in terms of style and effect. Different approaches to stylistics can be divided into two basic categories: textualist and
contextualist. The Formalists are mainly textualists as they regard the stylistic features of a particular literary text as productive of an empirical unity and completeness. They do not perceive literary style as entirely exclusive to literature - rhythm is an element of all spoken
language, the narrative features in ordinary conversation - but when these stylistic features are combined so as to dominate the fabric of the text, that text is regarded as literature.

Contextualism involves a far more loose and disparate collection of methods.
Its unifying characteristic is its concentration on the relation between text and context.

Some scholars have called the object of study "Style", without further qualification. "Style" is certainly a familiar term, but to say simply that stylistics studies style does not clarify matters greatly, because of the multiplicity of definitions that the word "style" has. In this connection,
at least four commonly occurring senses of the term "style" need to be distinguished.

1. Style may refer to some or to all of the language habits of one person - as when we talk of Shakespeare's style, or the style of James Joyce, or when we discuss questions of dispute authorship. More often it refers in this way to a selection of language habits, the occasional linguistic idiosyncrasies which characterizes an individual's uniqueness.

2. Style may refer to some or all of the language habits shared by a group of people at one time, or over a period of time, as when we talk about the style of Old English "heroic" poetry, the style in which civil service firms are written, or style of public-speaking.

3. Style is given a more restricted meaning when it is used in an evaluative sense, referring to the effectiveness of a mode of expression. This is implied by such popular definitions of style as "saying the right thing in the most effective way" or as "good manners". When we talk of a "clear" or "refined style", then we are making a value judgment, consciously or otherwise, on the overall effect of the language on ourselves: there is no primary reference to the formal characteristics of the language used, and hence this sense is in no way descriptive and
objective, as in the first two senses.

4. Style has long been associated primarily or exclusively with literature, as a characteristic of effective writing, for example, and the focus of the literary critic's attention alone. This sense
is partially evaluative, partially descriptive, and stylistics here would not concern itself with uses of language outside that of literature.
Here are some more definitions of style(individual style):

Style is the man himself (Buffon)

Style is depth. Style is choice (Darbyshire)

Style is a quality of language which communicates precisely emotions or thoughts, or system of emotions or thoughts, peculiar to the author (J. Middleton Murray).

There is no point in quoting other definitions of style. All of them tend to have the same in common, i.e. that style is a set of characteristics by which we distinguish one author from another, or member of one subclass from members of other subclasses.

Stylistics is one of the most ancient sciences in the world. Already in Old Greece and in Roman Empire (Italy) there we some schools dealing with oratory/rhetoric.

The Problem of the Norm. The treatment of the selected elements brings up the problem of the norm. The notion of the norm mainly refers to the literary language and always presupposes a recognized or received standard.

Academician Scherba wrote: "Very often when speaking of norms people forget about stylistic norms which are no less, if not more, important than all others."

The norm should be regarded as the invariant of the phonemic, morphological, lexical and syn­tactical patterns circulating in language-in-action at a given period of time. There is a tendency to estimate the value of individual style by the degree it violates the norms of the language.

The problem of variants of the norm, or deviations from the norm of the literary language, has received widespread attention among linguists and is central to some of the major current controver­sies.

It is the inadequacy of the concept "norm" that causes the controversy. At every period in the development of a literary language there must be a tangible norm which first of all marks the difference between literary and non-literary language.

Then there must be a clear-cut distinction between the invariant of the norm and its variants as will be seen later almost every functional style of language is marked by a specific use of language means, thus establishing its own norms which, however, are subordinated to the norm-invariant and which do not violate the general notion of the literary norm.