Pozice „stylu mluveneho ” a „stylu psaneho ” v klasifikaci stylu

Ana Hoffmannova




Abstract

ClassificationThis contribution deals with the topie of the spoken and the written from the perspective of stylistics; in this context, attention is devoted to some stylistic concepts which currently appear to be controversial or reąuire some revision. It reacts, among others, to the recently published Polish publication by Kordian Bakuła Mówione ~ pisane: komunikacja, język, tekst (2008) [Spoken ~ Written: Communication, Language, Text] and leans toward the understanding of the spoken and the written as two different styles. The analysis of the written and spoken versions of the same story, told by the same person, is oriented above all toward syntactic differences; it serves as an argument for the claim that spoken and written Czech cannot be understood as two different languages, with a differing repertoire of syntactic structures or grammatical means. Though both versions of the narration dififer in many ways, they do so through their overall coloring, atmosphere - it means through their style. The idea of spoken and written style is likely in harmony with that of the conceptual written and spoken (as opposed to the medium-specific, cf. Raible 1994).The spoken and the written are further placed in a relationship to concepts from the area of typology of style. K. Hausenblas (1973) considered the style of spoken and written expression to be simplex styles. Perhaps the term macrostyle would be appropriate for them, though it is oriented to the functional styles in the dictionary by Kozina et al (2003). Of the functional styles, the broadly understood “spoken style” is closest to the Czech terms styl hovorovy (proste sdelovaci, beźne mluveny, kolokvialni) [colloquial style, simple informative style, everyday spoken style], in Polish potoczny, in Russian razgovornyj. However, it is not possible to unambiguously connect style with a particular realized variety; also, the concept of register most likely refers to a point somewhere in between style and variety. The delimitation of the concepts of idiolect (which is close to individual style) and sociolect (which is close to language variety) is also complicated from this perspective; sometimes, for example, a distinction is madę between idiolect and idiostyle.

Keywords:

the spoken, the written, linguistic means, functional, complex, simplex styles, variety, register, idiolect, sociolect

This contribution deals with the topie of the spoken and the written from the perspective of stylistics; in this context, attention is devoted to some stylistic concepts which currently appear to be controversial or reąuire some revision. It reacts, among others, to the recently published Polish publication by Kordian Bakuła Mówione ~ pisane: komunikacja, język, tekst (2008) [Spoken ~ Written: Communication, Language, Text] and leans toward the understanding of the spoken and the written as two different styles. The analysis of the written and spoken versions of the same story, told by the same person, is oriented above all toward syntactic differences; it serves as an argument for the claim that spoken and written Czech cannot be understood as two different languages, with a differing repertoire of syntactic structures or grammatical means. Though both versions of the narration dififer in many ways, they do so through their overall coloring, atmosphere - it means through their style. The idea of spoken and written style is likely in harmony with that of the conceptual written and spoken (as opposed to the medium-specific, cf. Raible 1994).The spoken and the written are further placed in a relationship to concepts from the area of typology of style. K. Hausenblas (1973) considered the style of spoken and written expression to be simplex styles. Perhaps the term macrostyle would be appropriate for them, though it is oriented to the functional styles in the dictionary by Kozina et al (2003). Of the functional styles, the broadly understood “spoken style” is closest to the Czech terms styl hovorovy (proste sdelovaci, beźne mluveny, kolokvialni) [colloquial style, simple informative style, everyday spoken style], in Polish potoczny, in Russian razgovornyj. However, it is not possible to unambiguously connect style with a particular realized variety; also, the concept of register most likely refers to a point somewhere in between style and variety. The delimitation of the concepts of idiolect (which is close to individual style) and sociolect (which is close to language variety) is also complicated from this perspective; sometimes, for example, a distinction is madę between idiolect and idiostyle.

Published
2021-01-21

Cited by

Hoffmannova, A. (2021). Pozice „stylu mluveneho ” a „stylu psaneho ” v klasifikaci stylu. Stylistyka, 20, 67–79. Retrieved from https://czasopisma.uni.opole.pl/index.php/s/article/view/3442

Authors

Ana Hoffmannova 

Statistics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.


License

Copyright (c) 2011 Stylistyka

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

1. Copyrights to published works are held by the University of Opole (to the collective work) and the Authors (to individual parts of the collective work that have an independent meaning).

2. Only previously undistributed works can be published in the scientific journal "Stylistics".

3. The University of Opole does not restrict the possibility of the author's further dissemination of his work on condition that the scientific journal "Stylistics" is indicated as the original place of publication and the consent of the University Publishing House.

4. Consent to the publication of the work in the scientific journal "Stylistics" is tantamount to granting the author a non-exclusive license to the University of Opole, including the right to use the work without territorial restrictions and time limits in the following fields of exploitation:

a) within the scope of recording and multiplication of the work - production of any number of copies of the work in whole or in part using a specified technique, including printing, reprography, magnetic recording and digital technique, introduction of the work into computer memory and computer networks,

b) within the scope of circulation of the original or copies on which the work has been recorded - circulation, lending or hiring of the original or copies,

c) within the scope of dissemination of the work in a manner other than specified in item 2 - making the work or its abstract available on the Internet by enabling the recipients to access the work on-line or enabling them to download the work to their own device that makes it possible to read it, placing the work in electronic databases that disseminate scientific works, including in particular the CEEOL database (Central and Eastern Online Libray) and the abstract in English in the CEJSH database (The Central Europaen Journal of Social Scienes and Humanites).

d) within the scope of creating and distributing dependent works created using the work - using them in the fields of exploitation specified in points 1-3.

5. The author is not entitled to compensation for granting the license to the work.

6. The author agrees that the University may grant further permission to use the work (sublicense) in the fields of exploitation specified in par. 2 paragraph 4.

7. The author agrees that, in connection with the distribution of the work, his or her personal information, that is, name, affiliation, and e-mail address, may be made public.