Funkcinių stilių terminai

Kazimieras ŽUPERKA FUNCTIONAL STYLES TERMS Few of our linguistic terms are as varied as the names of functional styles. The variation is determined by the differently understood style boundaries, the attempt to express ne tą the characteristic of the style with the name (usual sphere of use, characteristic tone of speech, ar etc.), corresponding terms used in other ir languages, etc. For the first time in the literature of the Lithuanian language, the terms of functional styles 1964 appeared in J. Palionio "History of the Lithuanian Literary Language- ". Here are listed the "main styles of literary language", which are usually distinguished by scholars of other languages: fiction, 1) science, journalism, official 2) writings 3) 4) (or stationery) ir 5) everyday conversation (or domestic colloquial) (Palionis 1964:14). The classification is widely used to discuss the stylistic differentiation of Lithuanian literary language. In that booklet we find distinguished and named Lithuanian written language of the old period, XVI-XVII c., ir style: church-book, official letters (office) ir fiction (p.14-15). These terms were later slightly modified by the author: official-officer, fictional, or fictional (Palionis 1967:17—18), ecclesiastical, clerical (Palionis 1979:16). 1965 in the year appeared our linguistic stylistics creator by J. Pikéilingio “Program of Practical Lithuanian Language Stylistics”, which presents the system of functional styles of the current Lithuanian language. The following style terms are used here: business “(newspaper information, official writings, document language, etc.)”, scientific, journalistic, artistic-literary colloquial language style ir (Pikčilingis 1965:8). In later works, some of these terms were clarified by the author: official subject, artistic fiction (or simply fictional), everyday household, or colloquial language style (Pikčilingis 1971:286—331; 1974:9—10). Many Lithuanian linguists, when writing about the stylistic differentiation of language stylistic language system, ar refer to the aforementioned five functional styles. Only four styles listed A. in the stylistics program compiled by Rasimavičius; The style of fictional literature is mentioned in ‘Functional 26 the section: language styles: formal, journalistic, scientific, everyday. Specificity of the style of fiction" (Rasimavičius 1980:106). Therefore, belongs not belongs to ar the system of functional styles of general language fictional style (styles) have been discussed for decades. This approach would bring opposite opinions together. Fictional literature uses general language, so, recognizing the division of that language into functional styles, it seems consistent to recognize that the style į of fictional works, as a certain way of using language, is a stylistic ir variation of general language. On the other hand, because of its artistic specificity, special, aesthetic, function that style belongs ne only to the functional styles of language, but the ir art (artistic reality imaging) system. Since the question of how much (functional) styles in Lithuanian (see section 4.4). Župerka 1985:55—60), is not directly su concerned with the subject of this me article, he returns to the terms of the five styles. Du All Lithuanian ir linguists refer to the scientific publicistic style with the same names, the o names of the other three styles vary greatly. That diversity is particularly evident in iš these chronologically arranged excerpts (in different names of the three styles in the works of linguists, iš which contain the names of all five styles): official writings (or stationery), everyday conversation (or domestic colloquial), fictional literature (Palionis business, colloquial "language, artistic-literary 1964: 14); (Pikčilingis stationery, “conversational generally domestic language”, fictional 1965:8); ir (Ambrazas 1967:147); official business, everyday household, or colloquial language, artistic fictional (Pikčilingis 1971:286—331 ): formal, everyday, fictional (Soblinskas 1973: 1); formal, everyday, fictional (Savukynas 1977:1 8—19); formal business, everyday household, artistic (Zuperka 1977: 1 5); business, household, artistic (Sirtautas 1982:59: 1988:185); administrative, domestic, artistic (Zuperka 1983): office, household, fictional (Krinickaite 1984:33); official, household, fictional (Grumadiené 1985); office, household, fictional (Palionis 1985:21); 27 office, spoken, fictional (Šoblinskas 1987:175); formal business, or office, domestic colloquial, or everyday conversation, fictional (Palionis 1989:28—30); stationery, household, artistic, or fine art (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990:67, 192). The style terms used by linguists from other countries (and the number of styles) also vary; Among other reasons, this is because styles are distinguished on different grounds (see Pikchiling 1971:280--281; Rosenberg 1976:26-27; Mistrykas 1985:419-423). Lithuanian linguists have not presented any more original, newer classification of styles, they rely on basically one style division scheme, but it is not easy to find at least two linguists who use exactly the same style terms. Synonymy of terms, as we know, is not desirable: it creates confusion, prevents people of science from communicating. So let’s try to discuss the purpose of the different terms. The style of business letters, documents, laws is called fivefold: formal business, official, business, clerical, administrative. (Here we leave aside the descriptions of style expressed by a compound with the noun's genitive: the style of official writings, fiction, colloquial language, everyday conversation. They can be viewed not as actual terms denoting the type of style, but as compounds denoting the scope of use of style.) The word combination official business style is the literal translation of the Russian term OduLHAaIbHO-A6- /10BON crib. Such a long three-word term is not convenient (polyword terms would be more suitable for partial, species-specific concepts, for example, postils, cf. popularising style of science), in addition, the relationship of signic meanings raises doubts: when we say formal subjective style, it seems that there should also be official non-subjective or informal subjective style, but such styles are not mentioned. In the case of the word style, one of these two adjectives is used: only formal or only business. The first describes more the tone of texts in the spoken sphere (and perhaps somewhat in the sphere of consumption itself), the second - the objectiveness of content and expression. Both compounds are said in the plural: formal styles, business styles. In both cases, appears to be meant the three great spheres of administration — (management), scientific ir information means language — way. Perhaps the most common name for the style of texts in this field is stationery. Having 28 looked at the Czech and Slovak stylistics, I have put into circulation the term of administrative style (the term represented by the adjective “kancelářský” seemed too narrow); cf. compounds administrative language (Piročkinas 1990), administrative writings (Krinickaitė 1984:58), administrative documents (Kniūkšta 1993:3). The problem is that the scope of the concept expressed by this adjective is not understood equally. J. Palionis (1967:17--18; 1979:92) distinguishes two varieties of the clerical style: administracing and juriding (that is, the administrative style is understood more narrowly, as a species concept). P. Kniūkšta 1993:3 sees a different relationship between the concepts expressed by these words): “In a similar sense [i.e., as the office language, the language of business letters —K. The term is also used in the English language, but in this case it refers to the language used in writing, not to the written language. I myself tend to use the term administrative style as a broader concept and distinguish at least three postils of this style: the clerical (i.e. the language of business writings), the legal (laws, courts) and the diplomatic (diplomatic texts)'. The style of colloquial speech (everyday conversation) is also described in five terms: everyday, everyday, domestic, domestic colloquial, colloquial. The three-word terms everyday household style, household colloquial style are uncomfortable, that is, inaccurate in terms of meaning: it suggests be that the first notation ir seems to the author of the term insufficiently accurate, therefore it is corrected by the second. B. Savukyno proposed daily, without suffix -inis, distinguishes iš styles of terms. But the most ne important thing is this. I wonder if it is ar appropriate to call the style everyday ar everyday; the meaning of the word as if suggests an opposition to the non-existent festive style. It is the most commonly used form of homeopathy. It is impeccable, defines the most important sphere of use and the characteristic content of to style texts. The spoken style, it seems, marks a slightly broader concept, strongly opposed to the book styles (plg. the main stylistic contradiction ir stylistic notes in dictionaries (book, speech), lower, freer tone of speech and characteristic form of expression. By the way, the colloquial style is not identical with the reference language; the meanings of these two terms ' Administrative style term as the main language ir J. Palionis in a scientific presentation in Russian (seeminglir y, tradition): "AAMMHMCTPATHBHEM (MHAYe it Ha3uiBaeMHIM crunem”(Palionis 1986:13). has used to name the style, oriented by Czech stylistics BI į OĒulnKMabNO-A6.10BHIM, KaninejiapCK and usage, MM) 29 at least in the works of linguists, are more or less stationary. The style of fictional literature is named as follows: artistic-literary, artistic fictional, artistic, fictional, fictional. For two pazyminiy samplaiky here fit the previously said remarks. ir It is the most widely used term in the literature. Jo the fact that fiction in our neighbouring languages is simple! ir only called prose*, in this case the way o of using language in fiction in general (and therefore also in poetry!). ‘ at first glance perhaps the most appropriate seems the term dancing style Iš (plg. fiction, fictional work). Šį the compound we find used ir J. The term is (1971:283, 284), commonly used in the context of a fictional (or simply fictional) style. The adjective fictional most obviously indicates the connection with the most important sphere of style. su to Some such doubts arise because adjectives denoting the type of style form usual compounds in noun language su (administrative language, domestic language, office language, etc.; because style is primarily a way of using language), and the combination fictional language is not common. | Meanwhile, I do not find any objection to the not very popular term of artistic style (see artistic language). Conclusions. The most acceptable would be a set of style terms whose adjectives (significant) chosen on the same basis, say, according to the typical sphere of consumption. The functional styles of Lithuanian language have been relatively little studied; detailed study of texts of different styles would allow to define more precisely ir the boundaries of styles, at the same time refining the style terms. Styles change faster than language components (or rather, even the vocabulary), už for example, in the last few years, with the development of independent press, the language of newspapers is simply moving away from administrative language in our eyes. This development also requires constant refinement of the classification and terminology of styles. Abbreviations Ambrazas 1967 — Ambrazas V. Issues of Syntax Development in Contemporary Lithuanian Language // Lithuanian language in Soviet years. V., Gaivenis, 1967. Keinys 1990 —Gaivenis K., Keinys S. The vocabulary of terms "See. Dictionary of Modern English. V., 1972. P. 76; Dictionary of International Words. V., 1985. P.66;darplg. Timofejevas L., Vengrovas N. Dictionary of literary science terms. K., 1961. P.29:Sierotwinski S. Dictionary of literary terms. Wroclaw [..], 1986. S. 39; Latvian language guide Riga, Ipp. 1987. 126; CoseTckuit sHUMKIAONEAHIECKHA Ci0Baps. M., 1987. C. 123, 30 dictionary. K., 1990. Grumadienė 1985 —Grumadienė L. Why do wasps sting townspeople? //Literature and Art. 1985. March 8. Kniūkšta 1993 —Kanceliarinės kalbos patarimai/Ats. editor P. Kniūkšta. V., 1993. Krinickaitė 1984 —Krinickaitė S. Specificity of language expression. V., 1984. Mistrykas 1985 —Mistrik J. Theory of Language. Bratislava, 1985. Palionis 1964 —Palionis J. Introduction to the History of Lithuanian Literary Language. V., Palionis 1964. 1967 —Palionis J. Literary language of Lithuania in the 16th-17th centuries V., Palionis 1979 1967. —Palionis J. History of literary language of Lithuania. V., 1979. Palionis 1985 —Palionis J. Principles of Linguistics. V., 1985. Palionis 1986 —Ilanenuc A. O6 akryanbnocru npoGjiemu "oGue.mureparypias RopMa M OyKKuKOKAJIbHBIE CTHJIH" //OGmenurepaTypHui A3HK H OyHKUMHOKAJIbHBIE crunn. Bumsmoc, 1986. Palionis 1989 —Palionis J. Introduction to the History of the Lithuanian Written Language. V., 1989. Pikčilingis 1965 —Practical Lithuanian Language Stylistics Program/- Prepared by J. Pikčilingis. V., 1965. | Pikčilingis 1971 —Pikčilingis J. Lithuanian language stylistics. V., 1971. T. 1. Pikčilingis 1974 —Contemporary Lithuanian Language Culture and Stylistics Programs- /Prepared by J. Pikčilingis, A. Pupkis. V., 1974. Piročkinas 1990 —Piročkinas A. Culture of administrative language. V., Rasimavičius 1980 —Stilistika/- Sudarė A. Rasimavic- ¢ius//Lituanistiniy kalbos discipliny programos. V., 1980. Rozenbergas 1976 —Rozenbergs J. Practical stylistics of the 1990. Latvian language. Riga, 1976. Savukynas 1977 —Savukynas B. The purpose and language of the publication//People and language. V., 1977. Sirtautas 1982 — Sirtautas V. Text Syntax ir Solid Sentence Analysis // Semantics of a single-line sentence. V., 1982. Sirtautas 1988 — Sirtautas V., Grenda Č. Syntax of the Lithuanian language. V., from 1988. Šoblinskas 1973 — Šoblinskas A. Lessons in stylistics (Class IX). V., from 1973. Soblinskas 1987 — Šoblinskas A. Didactics of Lithuanian Language. V., 1987. Zuperka 1977 — Župerka K. Practical Stylistics. V., 1977. Župerka 1983 — Župerka K. Lithuanian language stylistics. V., 1983. Župerka 1985 — Župerka K. How many styles in Lithuanian? // Educatioir nal issues of education. V., 1985. T. 17. 31