Have Resolved to Combine Our Efforts to Accomplish These Aims.

 

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the City of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."

 

As is seen, all the reasons which led to the decision of setting up an international organization are expressed in one sentence with parallel infinitive object clauses. Each infinitive object clause is framed as a separate paragraph thus enabling the reader to attach equal importance to each of the items mentioned. The separate sentences shaped as clauses are naturally divided not by full stops but either by commas or by semicolons.

It is also an established custom to divide separate utterances by numbers, maintaining, however, the principle of dependence of all the statements on the main part of the utterance. Thus, in chapter I of the U. N. Charter the purposes and principles of the charter are given in a number of predicatives, all expressed in infinitive constructions and numbered:

 

"CHAPTER I

 

PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES

 

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. TO MAINTAIN international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to. Bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

 

2. TO DEVELOP friendly relations' among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.

3. TO ACHIEVE international cooperation on solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. TO BE A CENTRE for harmonizing the actions of nations; in the attainment of these common ends."

Here is another sample of an official document maintaining the same principles:

United Nations Economic Distr. Limited

and Social Council R/TAC/L. 89/Rev. 2

29 Nov. 1955.

Original: English

 

Technical Assistance Committee.

Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance

Review of the Programme for 1956

Australia and Egypt: revised draft resolution.

 

The Technical Assistance Committee,

RECALLING THAT according to Economic and Social Council resolution 542 (XVIII) the preparation and review of the Expanded Programme and all other necessary steps should be carried out in a way that TAC ought to be in a position to approve the over-all programme and authorize allocation to participating organizations by 30 November at the latest,

CONSIDERING THAT a realistic programme such as the Expanded Programme cannot be planned and formulated without prior knowledge of the financial resources available for its implementation,

CONSIDERING THAT TAC, with the assistance of such ad hoc subcommittees as it may find necessary to establish, will normally need about one week to carry out the task referred to in the resolution mentioned above, bearing in mind the necessary consultations with the representatives of the participating organizations,

1. ASKS the Secretary-General to seek to arrange each year that the Pledging Conference should be convened as early as possible taking due account of all factors involved;

2. DECIDES that the Secretary-General should in future work on the assumption that in carrying out the functions of approving the programme and authorizing allocations as required by Economic and Social Council resolution 542 (XVIII), the TAC will usually need to meet for oneweek;

3. REQUESTS further the Secretary-General to transmit this resolution to all States Members and non-members of the United Nations which participate in the Expanded Programme."

In no other style of language will such an arrangement of utterance be found. In fact, the whole document is one sentence from the point ofview of its formal syntactical structure. The subject of the sentence 'The Technical Assistance Committee' is followed by a number of participial constructions—'Recalling'—, 'Considering'—, 'Considering'—, is cut off by a comma from them and from the homogeneous predicates— 'Asks', 'Decides', 'Requests'. Every predicate structure is numbered and begins with a capital letter just as the participial constructions.

This structurally illogical way of combining different ideas has its sense. In the text just quoted the reason for such a structural pattern probably lies in the intention to show the equality of the items and similar dependence of the participial constructions on the predicate constructions.

"In legal English," writes H. Whitehall, "...a significant judgement may depend on the exact relations between words....The language of the law is written not so much to be understood as not to be misunderstood." ¹

As is seen from the different samples above, the over-all code of the official style falls into a system of subcodes, each characterized by its own terminological nomenclature, its own compositional form, its own variety of syntactical arrangements. But the integrating features of all these subcodes, emanating from the general aim of agreement between parties, remain the following:

1) conventionality of expression;

2) absence of any emotiveness;

3) the encoded character of language symbols (including abbreviations) and

4) a general syntactical mode of combining several pronouncements into one sentence.

__________

 

¹ Whitehall, H. Structural Essentials of English. N. Y., 1956, p. 64.

 

FINAL REMARKS

 

This brief outline of the most characteristic features of the five language styles and their variants will show that out of the number of features which are easily discernible in each of the styles, some should be considered primary and others secondary; some obligatory, others optional; some constant, others transitory. The necessary data can be obtained by means of an objective statistical count based on a large number of texts, but this task cannot be satisfactorily completed without the use of computers.

Another problem facing the stylicist is whether or not there are separate styles within the spoken variety of the language, and the analysis of these styles if it can be proved that there are any. So far we are of the opinion that styles of language can only be singled out in the written variety. This can be explained by the fact that any style is the result of a deliberate, careful selection of language means which in their correlation constitute this style. This can scarcely be attained in the oral variety of language which by its very nature will not lend itself to careful selection.

However, there is folklore, which originated as an oral form of communication, and which may perhaps be classed as a style of language with its own structural and semantic laws.

* * *

The survey of different functional styles will not be complete without at least a cursary look into what constitutes the very notion of text as a production of man's creative activity in the realm of language.

The word 'text', which has imperceptibly crept into common use, has never been linguistically ascertained. It is so broad in its application that it can refer to a span of utterance consisting of two lines, on the one hand, and to a whole novel, on the other. Therefore the word needs specification in order to make clear what particular kind of language product has the right to be termed text. The student of functional styles will undoubtedly benefit by looking at the text from an angle different from what he has hitherto been used to. When analysing the linguistic nature of a text it is first of all necessary to keep in mind the concept of permanence as set against ephemerality. Text, being the result of language activity, enjoys permanence inasmuch as it belongs to the written variety of language.

Text can be what it claims to be only if it possesses the quality of integrity, i.e. wholeness characterized by its gestalt (see p. 30). In other words, text must enjoy a kind of independent existence; it must be an entity in itself.

The integrity of the text presupposes the subordination of certain parts to one particular part which reveals the main idea and the purport of the writer. It has already been stated that a text consists of units which we called supra-phrasal (see p. 194). These units are not equal in their significance: some of them bear reference to the main idea, others only back up the purport of the author. It follows then that supra-phrasal units can be classified as predicative and relative. The interrelation between these will show what kind of importance the author attaches to one or other part of the utterance.

The theory of communication has brought about new concepts regarding the information imparted by different texts. It will be of use to distinguish between the following terms: meaning, signification and content. We shall reserve the term 'meaning' for the semantics of a morpheme, a word or of a word-combination. The term 'signification' is here suggested to refer only to the sentence and supraphrasal units. The term 'content' should be reserved for the information imparted by the whole of the text.

It follows then that the information contained in a text is its content. However, the content is not a mechanical summing up of the significations of the sentences and the supra-phrasal units. Likewise, the signification of a sentence or of a supra-phrasal unit is not a mechanical summary of meanings of the constituents, i.e. of the words or word-combinations. The integrating power of the text greatly influences the signification of the sentences, depriving them of the independence they would enjoy in isolation. The same can be observed in the sentence, where the words to a greater or lesser degree lose their independence and are subjected to sometimes almost imperceptible semantic modifications. To phrase the issue differently, the content of a text modifies the significations of the sentences and the meanings of the words and phrases. The integrating power of the text is considerable and requires careful observation.

The information conveyed by a text may be of different kinds; in particular, two kinds of information might be singled out, viz. content-conceptual and content-factual.

Content-conceptual information is that which reveals the formation of notions, ideas or concepts. This kind of information is not confined to merely imparting intelligence, facts (real or imaginary), descriptions, events, proceedings, etc. It is much more complicated. Content-conceptual information is not always easily discernible. It is something that may not lie on the surface of its verbal exposition. It can only be grasped after a minute examination of the constituents of the text provided that the reader has acquired the skill of supralinear analysis. Moreover, it may have various interpretations and not infrequently reveals divergent views as to its purport.

It follows then that content-conceptual information is mainly found in the belles-lettres language style. Here it reigns supreme although it may also be encountered in some other functional styles and particularly in diplomatic texts.

Content-factual information is that contained in what we have al-

 

ready named matter-of-fact styles, i.e. in newspaper style, in the texts of official documents and in some others.

The classification of information into content-conceptual and content-factual should not lead to the conclusion that texts of a scientific nature, for example, are deprived of concepts. The word 'conceptual' has multi-dimensional parametres, i.e. it can be applied to different phenomena. Scientific treatises and monographs are undoubtedly characterized by original concepts, i. e. theories, hypotheses, propositions. But these concepts are explicitly formulated and need no special stylistic inventory to decode them. Whereas the concepts contained in works of art (to which the functional style of belles-lettres belongs) are to be derived from the gestalt of the work. Taken by itself, such a division of information may appear unconvincing, inasmuch as too many interpretations of the word 'conceptual' can be suggested. But its aim, be it repeated, is to emphasize the crucial difference between what is more or less clearly stated in verbal chains and what is only suggested and therefore needs mental effort to get at what is said by the unsaid.

In conclusion we suggest the following procedures in stylistic analysis which will facilitate the process of disclosing the kind of information contained in the given text.

The first procedure is to ascertain the kind of text being dealt with. This procedure may be called the taxonomic stage of analysis. Taxonomy is the science of classification. It states the principles according to which objects are classified. There is an immediate need to get a clear idea as to what functional style this or that text belongs. Furthermore, the taxonomical analysis will bring to mind a definite model of a text in the given style. Sometimes it is not enough to state that the text belongs to, let us say, the style of official documents. It is necessary to specify what kind of a document is being analysed. Thus, it is very important to find out whether the text is a memorandum, or a note, or a protest, or a pact, etc. If the text is one that belongs to the belles-lettres style, it is necessary to point out what kind of a text it is, viz. a poem (what type), a story, a novel and further, within it, a description, a portrait, a conversation (dialogue), the author's narrative, his speculations, etc.

The second procedure, which may be called the content-grasping stage, aims at an approximate understanding of the content of the given text. It does not claim to be a complete and exhaustive penetration into the hidden purport of the author. The conceptual information will be disclosed at later stages in the analysis.

However, this superficial grasping of the general content is an important stage, it should stand out against a deeper understanding of the information the text contains in the broad meaning of the term.

The third procedure, which might be called semantic, has as its purpose the close observation of the meanings of separate words and word combinations as well as of the significations of the various sentences and supra-phrasal units. This stage of the analysis predetermines the lines of further analysis which will reveal the deeper information. In maintaining this procedure it is vitally important not to lose sight of the fact that, as has been pointed out before, the meanings of words and the sig-

nifications of the sentences and SPUs are liable to modifications under the integrating power of the whole of the text, its gestalt. It is advisable at this stage of analysis to consult dictionaries inasmuch as dictionaries will show the polysemy of the words, thus enabling the student to distinguish a simultaneous realization of two or more meanings of aword in the sentence.

The fourth procedure, which should be called the stylistic stage, aims at finding out what additional information might be imparted by the author's use of various stylistic devices, by the juxtaposition of sentences within a larger frame of utterance, that is, in the SPU, and also by the interdependence of predicative and relative SPUs.

The fifth procedure, which conventionally might be called the functional stage of analysis, brings us back to the second one, i.e. the content-grasping stage. This analysis sets the task of investigating the conceptual information contained in the whole of the text. In maintaining this stage of analysis the student should assemble the previously acquired data and make a kind of synthesis of all the procedures.

There is no hierarchy in maintaining analysis procedures but the 'suggested sequence has proved to be the most efficient in getting a deeper insight into what constitutes the notion text.

 

LIST OF AUTHORS REFERRED TO

Abrahams,

P. Addison, Joseph

Aldington, Richard

Aldridge, James

Ascham, Roger

Allot, Kenneth

Austin, Jane

 

Beaumont, Francis

Brown, Carter

Bunyan, John

Burns, Robert

Byron, George Gordon

 

Carlyle, Thomas

Carroll, Lewis

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor

Cronin, Archibald J.

Cummings, Edward

 

Defoe, Daniel

Dickens, Charles

Dreiser, Theodore

 

Elyot, Thomas

Empson, William

 

Fielding, Henry

Ford, Leslie

Frost, Robert

 

Galsworthy, John

Goldsmith, Oliver

Green, Graham

 

Henry, O.

Hemingway, Ernest

Heym, Stefan

Hood, Thomas

 

James, Henry

Jerome K. Jerome

Jones, James

 

Kipling, Rudyard

 

Lessing, Doris

London, Jack

Longfellow, Henry

Lyly, John

 

Marlowe, Christopher

Mark Twain

Maugham, Somerset

 

O'Hara, John

 

Рое, Edgar Allan

Pope, Alexander

Prichard, Katherine

 

Salinger, J. D.

Scott, Walter

Shakespeare, William

Shaw, Bernard

Shelley, Percy Bysshe

Southey, Robert

Sterne, Laurence

Stevenson, R. L.

Swift, Jonathan

Swinburne, Algernon Charles

 

Thackeray, William Makepeace

 

Whitman, Walt

Wilde, Oscar

Wilson, Mitchel

Wordsworth, William

INDEX OF WORDS

A

abbreviation 102, 301, 313

advertisements 296, 297, 301

affixes 73, 93, 97, 98

allegory (allegoric) 276

alliteration 125—127, 209

allusion 187—189, 290, 307

amplification 233

anadiplpsis 212

anaphora 56, 212

anti- 98

anticlimax 85, 221

antithesis 209, 222—225.

antonomasia 164—166

antonyms 222

aphorism 294

aposiopesis See break-in-the-narrative

archaic words 83—87

argumentative sentence patterns 309

articles 287, 297

aspect 72

assimilation 94

asyndeton 226

В

balance 208

ballad 159, 259

barbarisms 72, 87—92

bathos 136-138

belles-lettres style 15, 250

blends 100

borrowings 93

breaking-up of set expressions 304, 307

break-in-the-narrative 233—235

brief news items 297—301

business letters 314—315

С

caesura 211

cant 104-105, 108—109

catch-phrases 182

catch-words 122

centrifugal 162

centripetal 163

chain-repetition 213

chiasmus 206, 209, 211

lexical chiasmus 210

circumlocution 169

cliché 177—180, 298

climax 210, 219, 221

cockney 116

colloquial

coinages 72, 93, 119—122

layer 72

words 119—122

colloquialism 108—109

commercial correspondence 315

common colloquial words 73, 113

common literary words 73, 108

communiqué 34

concept 59, 60, 63, 104

connotation 68

contraction 102

contrast 223

conversion 96

coordination 225

D

decomposition 189—190

denotation 68

detached constructions 205

de-terminization 308

dialectal words 72, 116—118

dialogue 271, 281—285

dichotomy 24

diplomatic document 13

direct speech 211, 236

-dom 98

drama 117, 250, 281, 287

dramatic poetry 282

E

editorial 305—307

-ее 98

ellipsis 231-233

elliptical sentences 231

embellishment 21

emotional 161

colouring 267

constructions 153

emotive prose 115, 117, 250, 270

emphatic constructions 205

enjambment 256, 282

stanza enjambment 257

entropy 163

enumeration 133, 216

heterogeneous enumeration 217

epigram 210, 294

epiphora 212

epithet 154, 157

associated 158

compound 159

fixed 159

language 159

phrase 159

reversed 160

simple 159

speech 159

string of 161

transferred 161

unassociated 158

-ese 98

essay 13, 287, 293—295

euphemism 173—176

political 175

euphuism 272

euphuistic style 272

exact sciences 34, 310

exclamatory words 153, 154—157

expressive means (EM) 9, 10, 17, 25—35, 211, 213

F

five-w-and-h 300

folk songs 159

foreign words 72, 87—92

formulative sentence patterns 309

framing 212

G

gap-sentence link 227—229

graphical means 226—237

H

heroic couplet 185, 258

historical words 84

humanitarian sciences 34, 310

hyperbole 176—177

hypermetric line 256

hypometric line 256

I

image 142 — 144, 265

abstract 264

concrete 264

imagery 64, 264

implication 234

indirect speech 236—237

individual manner 9, 13

individual style 13, 14—16

intensifier 27, 101

interjection 67, 119, 154—157, 209

derivative 155

primary 155

intonation 154, 159, 235—237, 239

invariant 182—183

inversion 203, 210

irony 139, 146—148

-iz e 97

J

jargon 72, 104—105, 108—110

jargonism 109—113

juncture 257

L

language-in-action 24

jlanguage-as-a-system 24

lead 300

learned words 72

legal documents" 34

linking 212, 225

literary coinages 72, 92—104, 120

literary genre 15, 23

literary language 41—57

literary layer 72, 121

litotes 246—248

local colour 88

M

macro-unit 260

-manship 16

meaning 25, 57—69

contextual 58, 66, 122, 138, 144

derivative 142, 148

emotive 64, 66, 153

lexical 25, 58, 59

logical 59, 64, 153, 164

nominal 64, 68—69, 164

primary 64, 148

referential.25, 59, 64

secondary 65

transferred 139

measure 253

metaphor 139—144

contributory 142, 143

genuine 141—143

principal 142

sustained 142—143

trite 141—143

memoir 294

metonymy 139—146

metre 130, 131, 252, 282

monometer 254

dimeter 254

trimeter 254

tetrameter 254

pentameter 254

hexameter 254

octameter 254

monologue 285

multiplicity of style 280

N

neologism 299

terminological 92

stylistic 93

neutral words 71, 72, 308

newspaper

articles 143, 295, 297

headlines 298, 302—304

language 295—298

style 295—298

nomenclature 78—79, 312

nonce-words 72, 120—122

non-literary English 116, 117

non-neutral 15—16

norm 18—19, 35—48, 275, 278, 281, 286

neutral layer 70—71

О

obsolescent 83, 162

obsolete 83

octave 259

official documents, style of 312—318

onomatopoeia 124—126

direct 124

indirect 125

oratorical style 287

oratory 288—292

ottava rima 259

oxymoron 162—164

P

paradox 294

paragraph 198, 212

parallel constructions 133, 208—211

complete 208

partial 208

parenthesis 207

period 218

periodical sentence 218

periphrasis 169—173

pleonasm 215

poetic words 72, 79—82

poetical style 124

poetry 15, 252

polysemy 72, 148

polysyndeton 226—227

postulatory sentence patterns. 309

predictability 86, 182

professionalisms 109, 113—115, 118

professional words 72

proverb 127, 181—183

publicistic style 287—288

pun 148, 151

punctuation 207

purism 12, 47

purport 195, 197

pyrrhic 255

Q

quatrain 259

question-in-the-narrative 235—236

quotation 13, 309

R

redundancy of information 284

reduplication 212

reference 309

referent 175

repetition 209—215

represented speech 236—243

unuttered (inner) 236

uttered 238

review 294

rhetoric 191

rhetorical question 209, 244—246

rhyme 128—129

internal 129

rhythm 17, 129—135, 209, 215

rhythmical inversion 132

root-repetition 215

run-on line 256, 282

S

scientific

prose style 307—312

language 307

semantic structure 64, 113, 119

word-building 96

semi-prefix 48

sestette 259

set phrases (expressions) 1.59, 177

-ship 98

signals of attention 284

signification 68

simile 143, 167—169

slang 104—109, 116, 122

sonnet 259

spoken language 35—41

spondee 255

stable word-combination 158

standard English vocabulary 72, 115, 118

stanza 209, 258—260

Spencerian stanza 258

style of language 32—35, 249

stylistic device (SD) 25—35

subordination 210, 225

suprasegmental 137

supralinear 62, 137, 213

supra-phrasal unit 194—198

suspense 218

synonym repetition 215

synonyms 72—73

dictionary 169

euphemistic 173

figurative 172

logical 172

periphrastic 169, 172

traditional 169

syntagm 256

T

tautology 215

technique of expression 22

tell-tale names 165

tercet 259

terms 76—79, 92, 113, 114

theory of information 9

-thon 99

token names 165

topic sentence 200

transferred meaning 139

treatise 130, 294

U

utterance 195

V

variant 12

verse 131, 133, 135

accented 261

blank 282

classical 253

free 253, 261

syllabo-tonic 253

vulgarism 118, 119, 122

vulgar words 72, 118, 119, 122

W

written language 9, 35—41

Z

zeugma 148—151

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Адмони В. Г. Типология предложения.— В об.: Исследования по общей теории грамматики. М., 1968.

Азнаурова Э. С. "Очерки по стилистике слова. Ташкент, 1973. Арнольд И. В. Стилистика современного английского языка. Л., 1973. Арутюнова Н. Д. О синтаксических типах художественной прозы.— В сб.: Общее и романское языкознание. М., Изд. МГУ, 1972.

Арутюнова Н. Д. Некоторые типы диалогических реакций и «почему» - реплики в русском языке. «Филологические науки», 1970, № 3.

Арутюнова Н. Д. Предложение и его смысл. М., 1976.

Ахманова О. С. О стилистической дифференциации слов. «Сборник статей по языкознанию». М., Изд. МГУ, 1958.

Ахманова О. С. Словарь лингвистических терминов. М., 1966. Ашурова Д. У. Лингвистическая природа художественного сравнения. АКД. М., 1970.

Билли- Ш. Французская стилистика. М., 1961.

Будагов Р. А. В защиту понятия «стиль художественной литературы». «Вестник МГУ», 1962, № 4.

Будагов Р. Л. В. И. Ленин о научном стиле языка. «Филологические науки», 1970, № 1.

Будагов Р. А. Литературные языки и языковые стили. М., «Высшая школа», 1967.

Виноградов В. В. О теории художественной речи. М., 1971. Виноградов В. В. О языке художественной литературы. М., Госполитиздат, 1959. Виноградов В. В. Стиль Пушкина. М., Госполитиздат, 1941. Виноградов В. В. Стилистика, теория поэтической речи, поэтика. М., 1963. Виноградов В. В. Язык художественных произведений. «Вопросы языкознания» 1954, № 5.

Винокур Г. О. Маяковский — новатор языка. М., 1943.

Винокур Г. О. О задачах истории языка. «Ученые записки МГПИ», кафедра русского языка, вып. 1, т. 5, 1941.

Вопросы стилистики. Сборник статей №8, Саратов, 1974. Гальперин И. Р. О термине «слэнг». «Вопросы языкознания», 1956, № 6. Гальперин И. Р. О понятиях «стиль» и «стилистика». «Вопросы языкознания», 1973, №3.

Гальперин И. Р. Информативность единиц языка. М., «Высшая школа», 1974. Гальперин И. Р. Очерки по стилистике английского языка. М., 1958.

________

 

АДД — автореферат докторской диссертации.

АКД — автореферат кандидатской диссертации.

Гальперин И. Р. Перевод и стилистика.— В сб.: Теория и методика учебного перевода, М., Изд-во АПН, 1960.

Гальперин И. Р. Речевые стили и стилистические средства языка. «Вопросы языкознания», 1954, № 4.

Гальперин И. Р. К проблеме дифференциации стилей речи.— В сб.: Проблемы современной филологии. М., 1965.

Гаузенблас К- К уточнению понятия «стиль» и к вопросу об объеме стилистического исследования.. «Вопросы языкознания», 1967, № 5.

Гиндин С, И. Внутренняя организация текста. АКД, М., 1972.

Долежел Л. Вероятностный подход к теории художественного стиля. «Вопросы языкознания», 1964, № 2.

Ефимов А. И. Об изучении языка художественных произведений. М., «Учпедгиз», 1952.

Ефимов А. И. Стилистика художественной речи. Изд. МГУ, изд. 2-е, 1961. Жирмунский В. М. О стихе Маяковского.— В сб.: Поэтика, т. 2. Варшава, 1966. Жирмунский В. М. Введение в метрику. Теория стиха. Л., 1925. Жирмунский В. М. О национальных формах ямбического стиха.— В сб.: Теория стиха, Л., 1968.

Жирмунский В. М. Национальный язык и социальные диалекты. Л., Госполитиздат, 1936.

Жирмунский В. М. Опыт стилистической интерпретации стихотворения Гёте.—В сб.: Вопросы германской филологии, изд. ЛГУ, 1969.

Жирмунский В. М. Стихотворение Гёте «Ты знаешь край». «Проблемы международных литературных связей». Л., 1962.

Жовтис Аю О границах свободного стиха. «Вопросы литературы», 1966, №5.

Звегинцев В. А. Семасиология. М., 1957.

Иванов В. В. Метр и ритм в «Поэме конца» М. Цветаевой.— В сб.: Теория стиха, Л., 1968.

Иванов В. В. Ритмическое строение «Баллады о цирке» Межирова.— В сб.: Поэтика, Варшава, 1966.

Кожина М. Н. К основаниям функциональной стилистики. Пермь, 1968. Кожинов В. Проблема содержательности и выразительности художественной формы. «Вопросы языкознания», 1967, №3.

Контекст. 1973. Сб. статей. М., «Наука», 1974.

Костомаров В. Г. Некоторые особенности языка печати как средства массовой коммуникации. АДД, М., 1969.

Костомаров В. Г. Русский язык на газетной полосе. Изд. МГУ, 1971. Кунип А. В. Английская фразеология. М., 1970. Кухаренко В. А. Язык Э. Хемингуэя. АДД, М., 1972. Лотман Ю..М. Структура художественного текста. М., «Искусство», 1970, Мейлах Б. С. О метафоре как элементе художественного мышления.— В сб.: Труды отдела новой русской литературы, М -Л., 1948.

Моль А. Теория информации и эстетическое восприятие. М., «Мир», 1966.

Общие проблемы стилистики. Сборник научных трудов, вып. 73, изд. МГПИИЯ, 1973.

Пиотровский Р. Г. О некоторых стилистических категориях. «Вопросы языкознания», 1954, № 1.

Пешковский А. М. Сборник статей. Методика родного языка, лингвистика, стилистика и поэтика. М.-Л., 1925.

Пешковский А. М. Принципы и приемы стилистического анализа и оценки художественной прозы. М., 1927.

Поспелов Н. С. Сложное синтаксическое целое и основные особенности его структуры.— В сб.: Доклады и сообщения Ин-та русского языка, вып. 2, М.-Л., 1948.

Потебня А. А. Из записок по теории словесности. Харьков, 1905.

Пражский лингвистический кружок. Сборник статей. М., «Прогресс», 1967.

Пропп В. Я- Морфология сказки. М., «Наука», 1969.

Прохорова В. П., Сошальская Е. Г. Хрестоматия английской лингвистической литературы по стилистике. Изд. МГПИИЯ, 1971.

Прохорова В. И. и Сошальская Е. Г. Сборник упражнений по стилистике, М., 1970.

Развитие функциональных стилей современного русского языка. Сборник статей. М., «Наука», 1968.

Разинкина Н. М. Стилистика английской научной речи. М., «Наука», 1972.

Ритм, пространство и время в литературе и искусстве. Л., «Наука», 1974.

Сильман Т. И. Проблемы синтаксической стилистики. Л.,.1967.

Сошальская Е. Г. Стилистическое использование конвертированных глаголов в произведениях В. Шекспира. «Ученые записки I МГПИИЯ», т. XXIII, 1960,

Станкевич Е. Взаимоотношение поэтического и непоэтического языка.— В сб.: Поэтика, Варшава, 1961.

Степанов Г. В. О стиле художественной литературы. «Вопросы языкознания», 1952, № 5.

Степанов Г. В. О художественном и научном стилях речи. «Вопросы языкознания», 1954, № 4.

Степанов Ю. С. Французская стилистика. М., «Высшая школа», 1965.

Стриженко А. А. Взаимодействие авторской речи и речи персонажей в современной драматургии. АКД, М., 1972.

ТарлинскаяМ. Г. Акцентные особенности английского силлаботонического стиха. «Вопросы языкознания», 1967, № 2.

Тарлинская М. Г. Структура и эволюция английского стиха. АДД, М., 1975.

Теория стиха. Сборник статей. Л., «Наука», 1968.

Тимофеев Л. И. Ритм стиха и ритм прозы. «На литературном посту». М., 1928, № 19.

Тимофеев Л. И. Основы теории литературы. М., 1963.

Томашевский Б. В. Стилистика и стихосложение. Л., 1959.

Томашевский Б. В: Стих и язык. М.-Л., 1959.

Томашевский Б. В. Язык и стиль. Л., 1952.

Тураева 3. Я- Время грамматическое и время художественное. АДД, Л., 1974.

Турмачева Н. А. О типах формальных и логических связей в сверхфразовом единстве. АКД, М., 1973.

Турсунова Л. А. Структурные типы и стилистические функции эпитета в языке английской художественной литературы XX века. АКД, М., 1974.

Тынянов Ю. и Якобсон Р. Проблемы изучения литературы и языка. «Новый Леф», 1928, № 12.

Тынянов Ю. Проблема стихотворного языка. М., 1965.

Уфимцева А. А. Слово в лексико-семантической системе языка. М., 1968.

Фаворин В. К- О взаимодействии авторской речи и речи персонажей в языке трилогии Гончарова. «Известия АН СССР, ОЛЯ», т. IX, вып. 5, 1950.

Федоров А.В. Язык и стиль художественного произведения. ГИХЛ, М.-Л., 1963.

Холщевников В. Е. Основы стиховедения. Изд. ЛГУ, 1972.

Чернышева И. И. Фразеология современного немецкого языка. М., 1970.

Чичерин А. В. Идеи и стиль. М., «Советский писатель», 1968.

Шведова П. Ю. К вопросу об общенародном и индивидуальном в языке писателя. «Вопросы языкознания», 1952, № 2.

Шведова Н. Ю. К изучению русской диалогической речи. Реплики-повторы. «Вопросы языкознания», 1962, № 3.

Шендельс Е. Я. Многозначность и синонимия в грамматике. М., 1970.

Шендельс Е. И. О грамматической полисемии. «Вопросы языкознания», 1962, № 3.

Шкловский В. Художественная проза. М., «Советский писатель», 1961.

Шкловский В. О теории прозы. М.-Л., 1925.

Щерба Л. В. Избранные работы по русскому языку. М., «Учпедгиз», 1957.

Щерба Л. В. Опыты лингвистического толкования стихотворений.— В сб.: Советское языкознание, Л., т. 2, 1936.

Щерба Л. В. Современный русский литературный язык. «Русский язык в школе», т. 4, 1939.

Якобсон Р. О. Грамматика поэзии и поэзия грамматики.— В сб.: Поэтика, Варшава, 1961.

Якубинский Л. П. О звуках стихотворного языка. «Сборники по теории поэтического языка», М., 1916, № 1.

Якубинский Л. П. О диалогической речи.— В сб.: Русская речь, Пг., 1923.

Ярцева В. П. Шекспир и историческая стилистика. «Филологические науки», 1964, № 1.

Ярцева В. Н. О грамматических синонимах.— В сб.: Романо-германская филология, М., 1957.

Ярцева В. Н. Развитие национального литературного английского языка. М., 1957.

Akhmanova О. Linguostylistics. Theory and Method. MGU, M., 1972.

Bailey, Richard W. Current Trends in the Analysis of Style. "Style", vol. 1, No. 1, 1967.

Bernett, James R. Prose Style. San Francisco, 1971.

Chapman, R. Linguistics and Literature. Edinburgh, 1973.

Chatman S., Levin S. Essays on the Language of Literature. Harcourt, N. Y., 1962.

Chatman, Seymour. Stylistics: Quantitative and Qualitative. "Style", vol. 1, No. 1, 1967.

Crystal D. and Davy D. Investigating English Style. Longmans, Ldn, 1969.

Darbyshire, A. E. A Grammar of Style. Ldn, 1971.

De Groot, A. Willem. The Description of a Poem.— In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague, 1964. -

Enkvist, N. E. Linguistic S'tylistics. Mouton, the Hague, 1973.

Enkvist N. E., Spencer J., and Gregory M. Linguistics and Style. Ldn, 1964.

Essays on the Language of Literature, ed. by Chatman S. and Levin S. R. Boston, 1967.

Essays on Style and Language, ed. by Fowler R. Ldn, 1967.

Galperin I. R. An Essay in Stylistic Analysis. M., 1968.

Glaser, Rosemarie. Euphemismen in der englischen und amerikanischen Publizistik,—"Zeitschrift fur Anglistik und Amerikanistik", 1966, Heft 3.

Gordon, Ian A. The Movement of English Prose. Ldn, 1966.

Guiraud, P. La stylistique. Paris, 1954.

Gunter, Richard. Structure and Style in Poems. "Style", vol. 1, No. 2, 1967.

Holliday M. A. K- The Linguistic Study of Literary Text.— In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague, 1964.

Hamm, V. M. Meter and Meaning.— In: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, LXIX, 1954.

Hill, Archibald A. Essays in Literary Analysis. Austin, Texas, 1966.

Hill, Archibald A. Analogies. Icons and Images in Relation to Semantic Content of Discourses. "Style", vol. 2, No. 3, 1968.

Hill, Archibald A. Poetry and Stylistics.— In: Essays on the Language of Literature, Boston, 1967.

 

Hill, Archibald A. Some Further Thoughts on Grammaticality and Poetic Language. "Style", vol. 1. No. 2, 1967.

Jakobson, R. Linguistics and Poetics.— In: Style in Language, The M. I. T. Press,

1966.

Jakobson, R. The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles.— In: Fundamentals of Language, Qravenhoge, 1956.

Kaskenniemi, Inna. Studies in the Vocabulary of English Drama 1550-1600. Turku,

1962.

Kukharenko V. A. Seminars in Style. M., 1971.

Kurylowicz, I. Accent and Quantity as Elements of Rhythm.—In: Poetics, Warsaw,

1966.

Levin, Samuel R. Poetry and Grammaticalness.— In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, The Hague, 1964.

Literary Style: A Symposium, Ldn, N. Y., 1971.

Mistrik, Josef. Slovenska Stylistika. Bratislava, 1965.

Murry, J. Middleton. The Problem of Style. Ldn, 1961.

Nosek, Juri. Metaphor in Modern Colloquial English. Philologica 5, Prague, 1967.

Nowottny, Winifred. The Language Poets Use. Ldn, 1962..

Ohmann, R. M. Prolegomena to the Analysis of Prose Style.— In: Style in Prose Fiction, N. Y. 1959.

Patterns of Literary Style. Ldn, 1971.

Quirk, Randolph. The Use of English. Ldn, 1962.

Read, Herbert. English Prose Style. Ldn, 1963.

Richards, J. A. Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgement. Ldn, 1948.

Riffaterre, M. The Stylistic Function.— In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, The Hague, 1964.

Riffaterre, M. Criteria for Style Analysis. "Word", 1959, No. 2. -

Riffaterre, M. Stylistic Context. "Word", 1960, vol. 16, No. 2.

Riesel E., Schendels E. Deutsche Stilistik. M., 1975.

Stankiewicz, Edw. Linguistics and the Study of Poetic Language.— In: Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass. & N. Y., 1966.

Style in Language. Ed. by Sebeok Th. A. N. Y.-L., 1960.

Ullmann, S. Language and Style. N. Y., 1964.

Wellek R. and Warren A. Theory of Literature. 3rd ed., N. Y., 1962.

Zirmunsky V. M. On Rhythmic Prose.— In: To Honor Roman Jakobson, The Hague, 1967.