Kazimieras ŽUPERKA

TERMS FOR FUNCTIONAL STYLES

Few of our linguistic terms vary as much as the names of functional styles. This variation is determined by differing understandings of the boundaries between styles, attempts to express through a name not the same feature of a style (its usual sphere of use, characteristic tone of language, or the like), corresponding terms used in other languages, and so on.

The terms for functional styles appeared perhaps for the first time in Lithuanian scholarly literature in J. Palionis’s “Introduction to the History of the Lithuanian Literary Language,” published in 1964. It lists the “main styles of the literary language” usually distinguished by researchers of other languages: 1) belles-lettres, 2) scientific, 3) journalistic, 4) official documents (or clerical), and 5) everyday conversation (or colloquial domestic) (Palionis 1964:14). This widely used classification is applied in discussing the stylistic differentiation of the Lithuanian literary language. In that booklet we also find identified and named styles of the old period of the Lithuanian written language, the 16th–17th centuries: ecclesiastical-bookish, official documents (clerical), and belles-lettres (pp. 14–15). The author later modified and refined these terms somewhat: official-clerical, belles-lettres, or literary (Palionis 1967:17–18), ecclesiastical, clerical (Palionis 1979:16).

In 1965, “A Program for Practical Lithuanian Stylistics,” prepared by J. Pikčilingis, the founder of our linguistic stylistics, appeared; it presented a system of functional styles of contemporary Lithuanian. The following style terms are used here: practical “(newspaper reports, official correspondence, the language of documents, etc.),” scientific, journalistic, artistic-literary, and colloquial styles (Pikčilingis 1965:8). In later works the author revised some of these terms: official-practical, artistic-literary (or simply literary), everyday domestic, or colloquial style (Pikčilingis 1971:286–331; 1974:9–10).

Many Lithuanian linguists, writing about the stylistic differentiation of language or its stylistic system, identify the five functional styles mentioned above. Only four styles are listed in the stylistics program compiled by A. Rasimavičius; the belles-lettres style is mentioned separately: “Functional

26

language styles: official-practical, journalistic, scientific, everyday domestic. The specifics of the belles-lettres (literary) style” (Rasimavičius 1980:106).

The question of whether the belles-lettres style (or styles) belongs to the system of functional styles of the standard language has been debated for several decades. The following perspective could reconcile opposing views. Standard language is used in belles-lettres; therefore, if one recognizes the division of that language into functional styles, it seems consistent also to recognize that the style of literary works, as a particular m o d e o f l a n g u a g e u s e, is a stylistic variety of the standard language. On the other hand, because of its artistic specificity and its special aesthetic function, this style belongs not only to the system of functional language styles, but also to the system of art (artistic representation of reality).

Kadangi klausimas, kiek (funkcinių) stilių esama lietuvių kalboje (žr. Župerka 1985:55—60), tiesiogiai nesusijęs su šio rašinio tema, tai grįžkime prie minėtųjų penkių stilių terminų.

All Lithuanian linguists call two styles, scientific and journalistic, by the same names, while the names of the other three styles vary considerably. This diversity is particularly evident in the following extracts, presented in chronological order (the varying names of the three styles are excerpted from linguists’ works that give names for all five styles):

official documents (or clerical), everyday conversation (or colloquial domestic), belles-lettres (Palionis 1964:14);

dalykinis, šnekamosios `kalbos, meninis-literatūrinis (Pikčilingis 1965:8);

kanceliarinis, “šnekamoji ir apskritai buitinė kalba”, beletristinis (Ambrazas 1967:147);

official-practical, everyday domestic, or colloquial, artistic-literary (Pikčilingis 1971:286—331);

dalykinis, buitinis, beletristinis (Šoblinskas 1973:11);

oficialusis dalykinis, kasdienis, grožinis (Savukynas 1977:18—19);

oficialusis dalykinis, kasdieninis buitinis, grožinis (Župerka 1977:15);

dalykinis, buitinis, meninis (Sirtautas 1982:59; 1988:185);

administrative, domestic, artistic (Župerka 1983);

kanceliarinis, buitinis, grožinis (Krinickaitė 1984:33);

official, domestic, literary (Grumadienė 1985);

kanceliarinis, buitinis, beletristinis (Palionis 1985:21);

27

kanceliarinis, šnekamasis, beletristinis (Šoblinskas 1987:175); oficialusis dalykinis, arba kanceliarinis, buitinis šnekamasis, arba kasdieninio pašnekesio, beletristinis (Palionis 1989:28–30); kanceliarinis, buitinis, meninis, arba grožinis (Gaivenis, Keinys 1990:67, 192).

The terminology for styles used by linguists in other countries (as well as the number of styles distinguished) also varies; among other reasons, this is because styles are distinguished on different grounds (see Pikčilingis 1971:280–281; Rozenbergas 1976:26–27; Mistrykas 1985:419–423). Lithuanian linguists have not proposed any particularly original or recent classification of styles; they rely essentially on a single scheme for classifying styles, yet it is difficult to find even two linguists who use exactly the same style terms.

As is well known, terminological synonymy is undesirable: it creates confusion and hinders communication among scholars. So let us try to discuss the precision of the varying terms.

The style of business correspondence, documents, and laws is designated by five terms: official-business, official, business, chancery, administrative. (Here and below, descriptions of style expressed by a noun in the genitive are set aside: the style of official documents, belles-lettres, spoken language, everyday conversation. They may be regarded not as true terms denoting a type of style, but merely as phrases specifying the domain in which a style is used.)

The phrase official-business style is a literal calque of the Russian term официально-деловой стиль. Such a rather long, three-word term is inconvenient (multiword terms are better suited to partial, subclass concepts, say, to designate substyles; cf. popular-science style). Moreover, the relationship between the meanings of its modifiers is questionable: when we say official-business style, it seems there should also be an official non-business or unofficial business style, but such styles are not discussed.

With the word style, either one of those two modifiers is also used on its own: only official or only business. The first chiefly characterizes the tone of texts in the sphere under discussion (and perhaps, to some extent, the sphere of use itself), while the second characterizes the practical nature of the content and expression. Both phrases also occur in the plural: official styles, business styles. In both cases, what seems to be meant is the linguistic mode of three large spheres—administration (governance), science, and the media.

Perhaps the most widespread name for the style of texts in this domain is

28

chancery. Taking Czech and Slovak stylistics as a model, I introduced the term administrative style into use (the concept expressed by the adjective chancery seemed too narrow); cf. the phrases administrative language (Piročkinas 1990), administrative documents (Kniūkšta 1993:3). The whole problem is that the scope of the concept expressed by that adjective is understood differently. J. Palionis (1967:17–18; 1979:92) distinguishes subtypes of chancery style: administrative and juridical (that is, administrative style is understood more narrowly, as a subclass concept). P. Kniūkšta 1993:3) sees a different relationship between the concepts expressed by those words: “The phrase administrative language is also used with a similar meaning [i.e. as chancery language, the language of business correspondence – K. Ž.], but in addition to the language of chancery documents, it also encompasses spoken language in that sphere and, in part, the written and spoken language of law.” I myself tend to use the term administrative style as a broader concept and distinguish at least three substyles: chancery (i.e. the language of business correspondence), juridical (the language of laws and courts), and diplomatic (the language of diplomatic texts)¹

The style of spoken language (everyday conversation) is likewise designated by five terms: everyday-domestic, everyday, domestic, domestic-spoken, spoken. The three-word terms everyday-domestic style and domestic-spoken style are cumbersome and also imprecise in meaning: they suggest that the first modifier seemed insufficiently precise to the person who coined the term and was therefore qualified by a second.

B. Savukynas’s proposed term everyday, which lacks the suffix -inis, stands out from the set of style terms. But that is not the main point. It is questionable whether it is appropriate to call a style everyday or everyday; the word’s meaning seems to imply a contrast with a nonexistent holiday style.

Perhaps the most commonly used phrase is domestic style. It is impeccable, identifying the main sphere of use and the characteristic content of texts in this style. Spoken style seems to denote a somewhat broader concept, more sharply contrasted with written styles (cf. the principal stylistic opposition and stylistic labels in dictionaries, bookish, colloquial), a lower, more informal tone of speech, and a characteristic mode of expression. Incidentally, spoken style should not be equated with spoken language; the meanings of these two terms

¹ The term administrative style as the principal term for naming the style under discussion was also used by J. Palionis in a scholarly presentation in Russian (apparently, also with an eye to the Czech tradition of stylistics): “Административным (иначе еще называемым официально-деловым, канцелярским) стилем” (Palionis 1986:13).

29

and usage, at least in linguists’ work, are more or less established. The style of imaginative literature is designated as follows: artistic-literary, artistic-fictional, artistic, fictional, imaginative. The earlier remarks about combinations of two modifiers are applicable here as well. The most widely used term is probably fictional style. Its suitability is questionable because fiction in our languages and those of our neighbors usually refers only to prose, whereas what is meant here is a mode of language use in imaginative literature in general (including poetry!).

At first glance, the most suitable term seems to be imaginative style (cf. imaginative literature, imaginative work). This phrase is also used by J. Pikčilingis (1971:283, 284), who otherwise generally used the term artistic-fictional (or simply fictional) style. The adjective imaginative most clearly indicates the connection with the principal sphere of this style. Some reservations arise because adjectives denoting a type of style form conventional combinations with the noun language (administrative language, everyday language, office language, etc.; for style is primarily a mode of language use), whereas the phrase imaginative language is not conventional.

For now, I find no grounds for objection to the not very popular term artistic style (cf. artistic language).

Conclusions. The most acceptable solution would be a set of style terms whose adjectives (modifiers) are chosen on the same basis, for example, according to the characteristic sphere of use.

The functional styles of the Lithuanian language have so far been studied relatively little; a comprehensive study of texts representing different styles would make it possible to define the boundaries of styles more precisely and, at the same time, refine the style terminology.

Styles change faster than language levels (even faster than the lexicon); for example, over the past few years, with the emergence of an independent press, the language of newspapers has been moving away from administrative language right before our eyes. This development also makes it necessary to continually refine the classification of styles and their terminology.

Abbreviations

Ambrazas 1967 – Ambrazas V. Questions concerning the development of the syntax of contemporary Lithuanian // The Lithuanian Language during the Soviet Years. V., 1967.

Gaivenis, Keinys 1990 – Gaivenis K., Keinys S. Terms of linguistics

² Žr. Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. V., 1972. P. 76; Tarptautinių žodžių žodynas. V., 1985. P. 66; dar plg. Timofejevas L., Vengrovas N. Literatūros mokslo terminų žodynėlis. K., 1961. P. 29; Sierotwiński S. Słownik terminów literackich. Wrocław [...], 1986. S. 39; Latviešu valodas vārdnīca. Rīga, 1987. 1pp. 126; Советский энциклопедический словарь. М., 1987. С. 123.

30

žodynas. K., 1990.

Grumadienė 1985 – Grumadienė L. Why do wasps sting city dwellers? // Literature and Art. 1985. March 8.

Kniūkšta 1993 – Advice on Office Language/ Ed. P. Kniūkšta. V., 1993.

Krinickaitė 1984 – Krinickaitė S. The Distinctive Features of Language Expression. V., 1984.

Mistrik 1985 – Mistrik J. Štylistika. Bratislava, 1985.

Palionis 1964 – Palionis J. Introduction to the History of the Lithuanian Literary Language. V., 1964.

Palionis 1967 – Palionis J. The Lithuanian Literary Language in the 16th–17th Centuries. V., 1967.

Palionis 1979 – Palionis J. History of the Lithuanian Literary Language. V., 1979.

Palionis 1985 – Palionis J. Fundamentals of Linguistics. V., 1985.

Palionis 1986 – Палёнис И. On the Relevance of the Problem “The General Literary Norm and Functional Styles” // General Literary Language and Functional Styles. Vilnius, 1986.

Palionis 1989 – Palionis J. Introduction to the History of the Lithuanian Written (Literary) Language. V., 1989.

Pikčilingis 1965 – Syllabus for Practical Lithuanian Stylistics/ Prepared by J. Pikčilingis. V., 1965.

Pikčilingis 1971 – Pikčilingis J. Lithuanian Stylistics. V., 1971. Vol. I.

Pikčilingis 1974 – Syllabi for Contemporary Lithuanian Language Culture and Stylistics/ Prepared by J. Pikčilingis, A. Pupkis. V., 1974.

Piročkinas 1990 – Piročkinas A. The Culture of Administrative Language. V., 1990.

Rasimavičius 1980 – Stylistics/ Compiled by A. Rasimavičius// Syllabi for Lithuanian Language Disciplines. V., 1980.

Rozenbergas 1976 – Rozenbergs J. Latviešu valodas praktiskā stilistika. Riga, 1976.

Savukynas 1977 – Savukynas B. Leidinio paskirtis ir kalba// Žmonės ir kalba. V., 1977.

Sirtautas 1982 – Sirtautas V. Teksto sintaksė ir vientisinio sakinio analizė // Vientisinio sakinio semantika. V., 1982.

Sirtautas 1988 – Sirtautas V., Grenda Č. Lietuvių kalbos sintaksė. V., 1988.

Šoblinskas 1973 – Šoblinskas A. Stilistikos pamokos (IX klasė). V., 1973.

Šoblinskas 1987 – Šoblinskas A. Lietuvių kalbos didaktika. V., 1987.

Župerka 1977 – Župerka K. Praktinė stilistika. V., 1977.

Župerka 1983 – Župerka K. Lietuvių kalbos stilistika. V., 1983.

Župerka 1985 – Župerka K. Kiek stilių lietuvių kalboje? // Mokymo ir auklėjimo klausimai. V., 1985. T. 17.

31