Investigating English Style

David Crystal, Derek Davy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781134963157
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

A series to meet the need for books on modern English that are both up-to-date and authoritative.For the scholar, the teacher, the student and the general reader, but especially for English-speaking students of language and linguistics in institutions where English is the language of instruction, or advanced specialist students of English in universities where English is taught as a foreign language.<br/>

Part One Theoretical Preliminaries

Chapter 1
Introduction

The Need for Stylistics

When we talk about 'a language' - in our case, 'the English language' - we must not be misled into thinking that the label should in some way refer to a readily identifiable object in reality, which we can isolate and examine in a classroom as we might a test-tube mixture, a piece of rock, or a poem. There is no such object. The label 'the English language' is in fact only a shorthand way of referring to something which is not, as the name may seem to imply, a single homogeneous phenomenon at all, but rather a complex of many different 'varieties' of language in use in all kinds of situation in many parts of the world. Naturally, all these varieties have much more in common than differentiates them — they are all clearly varieties of one language, English. But at the same time, each variety is definably distinct from all the others.

One of the clearest examples of this is the difference between spoken English on the one hand, and written English on the other. Another example would be the range of varieties which we would distinguish as regional dialects: a person speaks differently depending on where he is from. No one is likely to confuse the types of English current in New York with those current throughout the London area, for instance; and we readily apply labels of origin to people with accents different from our own — 'Cockney', 'Scouser', 'Geordie', and so on. Again, there are noticeable, though dissimilar, differences between varieties, which are due to the sort of person who is talking or writing and the kind of social situation he is in. To take some examples from spoken English, most people would have little difficulty in recognising whether a dialogue they overheard (without seeing the participants) was taking place between a mother and her baby, between two scientists 'talking shop', or between two businessmen over a telephone. We would also distinguish quite easily a BBC announcer reading the news from a lawyer defending his client in court, and both these from a clergyman giving a sermon, even if all we had to go by (and this is the important point) was evidence in a tape-recorded extract, with no clues, other than the language used, as to the status and role of the participants.

These are just a few examples of the varieties of English that are used around us: each of us can immediately add many more from his own experience. We may not be able to say precisely what a variety is, what differentiates it from another, what types exist, how many there are or whether they are all as clearly distinguishable as the examples given above; these are things a stylistic theory should tell us. But once the matter is brought to our notice, we are at least aware that there are differences. In the normal process of living, of course, we tend to take these differences completely for granted, recognising and discriminating between the varieties in a largely unconscious way. Only when the differences become so great as to interfere with our understanding, or when someone else's mode of expression is so strange that we remark about it (and, frequently, complain to the daily press in the process!) do we begin to discuss this situation in a more conscious way. But we should recognise that the issues are much larger than these. Each of us, as an educated speaker of English, is, in a sense, multilingual; for in the course of developing our command of language we have encountered a large number of varieties, and, to a certain extent, have learned how to use them. A particular social situation makes us respond with an appropriate variety of language, and, as we move through the day, so the type of language we are using changes fairly instinctively with the situation. We use one variety of English at home, another with our friends, a third at work, and so on. We usually take this ability for granted; but what are the implications of doing this, how far does the ability extend, and how can we begin to study it?

Unfortunately we do not always appreciate sufficiently the potential of language for making communication successful and establishing social togetherness - ends which language may help us to achieve if used well. But if we choose to disregard the rules of language, or fail, through ignorance, to obey them, then language can become instead a barrier to successful communication and integration. This is where the danger lies: it is necessary to replace, by a more controlled, sensitive, and responsible reaction, our hazy awareness of how language should be used in the less familiar situations in which we find ourselves. One test of a successful education is whether it has brought us to a position whereby we can communicate, on a range of subjects, with people in various walks of life, and gain their understanding as well as understand them. But to be in such a position requires a sharpened consciousness of the form and function of language, its place in society, and its power.

It is not difficult to think of examples where a failure to achieve this desirable fluency is evident. There are many varieties of English which we have not mastered fully, which we have difficulty being at home in - and this involves just as much reacting appropriately to others' use of English as being able to use English ourselves. How often do we speak or write without knowing that what we are doing is causing a bad impression on other people, because of our poor command or inadequate social awareness of our language? There are many occasions when we may unwittingly or carelessly fail to reach social standards of acceptability: obvious examples would be errors like spelling mistakes, breaking the conventions of letter-writing (such as beginning a letter with 'Dear Sir' and ending with 'Yours sincerely') or badly used punctuation; or, at a more sophisticated level, using slang on a relatively formal occasion, making improper use of technical terms in a specialist context, or using language which ' goes over the head' of an audience in making a speech or delivering a lecture. Clearly there are appropriate linguistic 'manners' for the different types of situation in which language is used, which we are expected (and usually want) to show. To remain unaware of the full extent and power of these conventions when entering into one of these situations, and insensitively to carry on using language habits which we find come most easily to us is liable to produce general confusion, and probably criticism and embarrassment as well - a state of affairs which many business firms, and advertising courses in speech-training or word-power improvement are well aware of.

The native speaker of English of course has a great deal of intuitive knowledge about linguistic appropriateness and correctness - when to use one variety of language rather than another - which he has amassed over the years. He will probably have little difficulty in using and responding to the most 'ordinary' uses of language, such as the everyday conversation (described in Chapter 4) which occupies most of our speaking and writing lifetime. Normally, in such a context, mistakes, if they occur, pass by unnoticed or are discounted as unimportant. It is with the relatively infrequently occurring, more specialised uses of language that the average English user may find difficulty. The experience of each of us is limited, and there will always remain a range of linguistic habits, of whose nature and conventional use we will be largely or totally unaware, but which we may nonetheless from time to time meet. One such range has been approached in a very interesting way by Lewis, Horabin, and Gane,¹ who examine the increasing complexity and unintelligibility of rules and regulations in society, and who point out that when people come up against such language, in many cases the reaction is one of despair.

'To judge from innumerable press reports, many people no longer even try to understand complex rules and regulations. They enter into hire purchase agreements, and into highly dubious contracts that they patently do not understand. If they suffer personal damage or injury, they tend to miss out on their legal rights. They pay income tax and similar demands without knowing whether they are right or wrong. And they pay their gas bills without enquiring whether a different tariff might be more favourable ... To some extent, the man in the street has habituated to the difficulties posed by present-day rules and regulations. . . obscurely-worded rules and regulations and instructions are tolerated simply because they are so familiar. Although their obscurity engenders feelings of helplessness and frustration, there is an over-riding assumption that nothing of moment can be done to improve matters' (p 3).

There is thus a strong case for saying that this lack of (primarily linguistic) understanding is an important gap in a general education, and should be remedied, particularly in those cases where the gap is at all wide, and where a person has a minimal amount of linguistic adaptability. (At the extreme end of the scale, there are people who are not able to read and write, or who have difficulty in speaking and understanding anything: at this point, the lack of a relatively subtle stylistic awareness has become a more general lack of linguistic awareness in its most fundamental forms.)

The foreign learner of English is one of those most at a loss in this matter. He too needs to be made aware of the difference between common and rare types of language behaviour, and of the alternatives available in particular situations; he too needs to react appropriately to language, if he wants to be accepted - and the same applies to the native speaker of English when he learns another language. The extra difficulty for the foreigner, however, is that he has no intuitive sense of linguistic appropriateness in English at all: he has no awareness of conventions of conformity, because he has not grown up in the relevant linguistic climate. He knows only what he has been taught in language lessons. Hence it is important that the syllabus for foreign language teaching should be so ordered that it includes instruction in those varieties of English that he will be likely to meet and need most frequently. Some courses attempt to do this, for example those which aim to provide a ' tourist' English, and no more, or a ' written English for scientists'; but the process can be carried much further and done more systematically. If a foreigner hopes to come to an English-speaking culture, then, he should not be in the position of having to make use of one variety of English in all situations, as so often happens. He needs to be fluent, and fluency should here be measured by his ability to conform in the approved manner to many disparate sociolinguistic situations. He needs to develop a ' sense of style', as it is often called - a semi-instinctive knowledge of linguistic appropriateness and (more important) taboo, which corresponds as closely as possible to the fluent native speaker's. But this ability does not come easily, and in many language-teaching institutions there is insufficient training for it ever to be gained at all.

Both the foreign student of English and the native speaker, we have argued, need to develop an awareness of differing varieties of the language, if they do not have it already; and the natural process of habit-formation in this respect may be reinforced, supplemented, and speeded up by a more rational approach. We can learn to analyse our speaking and writing habits and those of others, to discover and describe the patterns which differentiate varieties of language from each other, to explain as far as possible why people speak in a certain way, and to determine what alternative forms of expression they choose to use or to ignore in particular situations.

These are some of the reasons why the study of the varieties of English ought to be put on a more systematic basis and extended. But there remains another situation which should not be overlooked in this connection: the familiar case of a dispute over linguistic interpretation - of a textbook, an official form, or a poem, for example. Whether a particular effect or meaning has been expressed in an utterance is a question which will not receive a very clear or convincing answer unless the arguments are based on something other than the personal feelings and impressions of the participants. A wholly intuitive response is perfectly satisfactory and adequate until someone else comes along with an equally intuitive but different ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Foreword
• Preface
• Contents
• PART ONE: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES
• PART TWO: PRACTICAL ANALYSIS–SPECIMEN TEXTS WITH COMMENTARY
• Index