- Email: [email protected]
Investigating English style
288
REVIEWS
-
COMPTES-RENDUS
TRUBY, H, hf., 1959. ‘Acoustico-cineradiographic analysis considerations with especial reference to certain consonantal complexes’, AG&JRadiologica, suppl., 182, Stockholm. VAN KATWI JK, A. and G. A. GOVAERT,1967. ‘Prominence as a function of the location of pitch movement’, I.P.O. Annual Progress Report 2, 115-l 18. WANG, S. S.-Y., 1959. ‘Transition and release as perceptual cues for final p!osives, J. of Speech and Hearing Research 2, 66-73.
David CRYSTAL and Derek DAVY, Investigating English style. English Language Series. Longmans, Green and Co., London and Harlow 1969. Pp. 264. 35/-. This book is a welcome addition to the range of introductory textbooks for students of English, and a. useful guide to stylistics for the general reader. There has been hitherto a ‘lack of attempts to ,,r”1u theoretical sides of the subject’ (vii), arld balance the ~~r~~t;~~l cb Ll YAQbLltic&, much recent work has used ‘analytic methods whose bases have not clearly enough to allow evaluation and comparative study” (vii). Crystai and Davy have therefore produced a textbook which, while not ignoring theoretical issues, concentrates on providing the beginning student with a method for linguistic description, and includes a substantial amount of illustrative material from many varieties of modern English. The book is in two parts. Part I contains a general introduction to stylistics, a model for linguistic description, and a chapter on stylistic analysis. In part II, samples of five varieties of English (conversation, unscripted commentary, religion, newspaper reporting and legal documents) are reproduced with extensive commentary, and there are texts from e.ight more varieties, with brief introductory notes, for the reader to tackle himself (television advertising, press advertising, public speaking, written instructions, civil service language, spoken legal language, the language of broadcast talks and news, the language of science). The term ‘stylistics’ is used by the authors for the stud varieties of a language in general, including literary language not restricted to it. ‘Style is thus placed squarely . . . within the framework of general language variation’ (General Editor’s foreword, v). In view of the common assumption that ‘stylistics’ is concerned primarily or exclusively with the language of literature, and the unfortunate tendency noted by the authors (73) for the neo-
REVIEWS
-
COMPTES-RENDUS
289
Firthian term ‘register’ to be used in the more general sense, this is a rationalisation of terminology which will hopefully become widely accepted. Crystal and Davy consider it crucial to prov de an explicit and self-sufficient methodology of analysis which ihe reader can master and make use of ‘without having to look for guidance at every turn from some teacher’ (I 3). Chapter 2, ‘Linguistic description’, is therefore central to the book. Five levels of analysis are distinguished: phoneticfgraphetic, phonological/graphological, grammatical, lexical, and semantic. The lexical level (‘the level of vocabulary’) embraces lexical selection, distribution and meaning, and ‘a certain amount of information about word structure’ (19). It is not clear why ‘collocation’ should appear in the subsection on ‘Word typology and structure’, but not in the brief account of the lexical level, especially since the authors state (58, note 1) that their lexical level ‘subsumes the purely formal information about lexis in the sense of Halliday and others’. The level of semantics is likely to cause greater confusion. Crjstal and Davy admit that their use of ‘semantics’ is ‘idiosyncratic’ (19) ; it includes ‘the linguist-ic meaning of a text over and above the meaning of the lexical items taken singly. Patterns of thematic development, the distribution of concepts in a text as a whole, the use of characteristic iigures of speech, semantic ingenuity (such as the iiquistic correlates of wit) J and so forth . . . ’ (19). It would seem reasonable to expec=tsome explanation of ‘semantic ingenuity” and perha3s a classification of the major ‘figures of speech’; but there is no atempt to place the level of semantics on a descriptive basis. Instea.d, the irrelevant issue of the ‘additive’ nature of the relationammatical units ship between lexical meaning and ‘the meaning o thermore, it is such as clause or sentence’ is raised (19-20). inconsistent to claim that ‘the stylistic description of the actual linguistic features used is identical with that made for any other (nonstylistic) purpose’ (16), and yet to use ‘semantics’ in a sense which is literary critical rather than linguistic (23), and which allows excursions beyond strictly linguistic description (such as the characterization of the ‘episodic structure’ of a text, 144). The greater part of chapter 2 is devoted to a detailed account of non-segmental phonology and grammar. The originality and
value of this book lies largely in its treatment of the non-segmental features of spoken text. Crystal and Davy have developed a transcription which is relatively easy to read, leaves the text comparatively uncluttered, and yet incorporates a substantial amount of prosodic and paralinguistic information?) The mod4 is lucidly presented in chapter 2, and there are about 30 pages of transcribed text in the second part of the book. The section on grammar is less satisfactorv. Since the authors regarcl grammar as ‘the central part of a linguistic statement’ (l8), it is unfortunate that they have not provided a more extensive account of English grammar. As it is, some parts of the grammar are very sparsely treated; for example, only three positions are &stin~,&hzJ A:*.- of the nmiiiid group (predegjbl1311cu;, 111+I+” +-H-*.----l:c:-., ~~CII~UU~~~~~LLICIII terminer, determiner, adjectival), and the treatment of the verbal group is limited to the distinction between auxiliary and lexical verbs. Tense, aspect and voice are not explained, although the authors themselves point to their potential stylistic significance LIIC
(55) Crystal and Davy choose to adopt a ‘slightly conservative position’ on grammar (40), yet they introduce certain deviations from usual, conservative practice which are likely to be in conflict with other grammatical descriptions available to students at this level. The second of two co-or-din&d clauses, for example, is classed with ‘dependent’ rather than ‘main’ clauses (47-48; and 59, note 9, for an unenlightening explanat con), and the ‘premodifying genitive’ (JoMs) is an adjectival, whereas the possessive pronoun is a determiner (54). Both of these clescriptions might be justifiable in a more specialist work; but since this section must be supplemented from other sources if a student is to be capable of competent stylistic analyses they are inappropriate in this book. There are two other features of this section which are bound to cause confusion. The first is the relationship bctlzeen sentence and clause: since TJze fairies danced is a ‘simple sentence’ when in isolation, l
1) The mo&.l for the tran-xiption of non-segmental phonology is adapted f~~?l the mcjdei developed at the Survey of English Usage, University College, kw.don. See Crystal, D., and Quirk, R., 1964. Systews of prosodic and pavalinguistic featwe. in English. Janua Lingiarum, Series Minor 39. The Hague, l+fouton & Co., and Crystal, D., 1969. Prosodic systems and intonation ; n .EAaglish. C.U.P.
REVIEWS
-
COMPTES-KtiSDUS
291
but a ‘clause’ in the ‘complex sentence’ The fairies danced when the +noon came out, the ‘elements of clause structure’ (subject, predicator, complement, adverbial, vocative) are introduced twice, once for the simple sentence and once for the clause; the redundancy of the neo-Firthian rank-scale (wherein a simple sentence is a sentence consisting of one clause) would surely be clearer. The second confusing feature is the treatment of complement (52). Complements are partially sub-classified into direct object, indirect object and, strangely, passive agent. There is no explicit mention of intensive complements, although ‘the intensive-extensive relationship’ is described as an ‘expansion’ of complement ; this relationship is illustrated (They called the boy a food: They called the boy a taxi) but it is not shown how the intensive and extensive ‘expansions’ are to be distinguished in terms of grammatical labelling. The reader may well conclude that the boy a fool and the boy a taxi are both single elements of structure. In chapter 3, Crystal and Davy distinguish eight ‘dimensions of situational constraint’ (64)’ which fall into three groups: A. individuality, dialect, time; B. discourse, incorporating medium (simple/complex) and participation (simple/complex) ; C. province, status, modality, singularity (66). Any definitive statement about the range of varieties within a language is considered to depend upon an examin ation of these dimensions and their associated linguistic variables in a considerable corpus of texts. permanent The dimensions of group A ccver the relatively features of an individual’s linguistic makeup - idiosyncratic (e.g. ally determined. Iri voice quality), geographically and tern c distinction betwt !e-;l group B, ‘medium’ is concerned with with the distinction betwchen speech and writing, ‘participation’ monologue and dialogue. ‘Complex medium’ allows for language written to be spoken, or spoken to be written; ‘complex participation’ for the introduction of dialogue into monologue, or monologue into dialogue. The central dimensions from a stylistic point of view are in group C. ‘Province’ concerns ‘those variables in an extra-linguistic context which are defined with reference to the kind of occupational or professional activity being engaged in’ (7 l), such as public worship, advertising, science or law. ‘Status’ involves ‘variations in the relative social standing of the participants in any act of com-
292
REVIEWS - COMPTES-KENDUS
munication’ (74). ‘Modality’ refers to ‘the specific purpose of an utterance which has led the user to adopt one feature or set of features rather than another’ (74). Finally, ‘singularity’ covers ‘occasional idiosyncratic linguistic features which give a specific effect within the framework of some conventional variety, e.g. when an author introduces a linguistic originality into a poem’ (76). Crystal and Davy have added yet another set of terms to the already over-subscribed vocabulary of stylistics.2) This is partially justified by their ‘modality’, which ‘has not usually been systematically distinguished in stylistic discussion’ (74). But, like their predecessors, they fail to match their terms sufficiently against ‘real language’ ; the dimensions of situation are very rarely alluded to in the commentaries of part II. The second part of the book is worth the attention of any student of English for its valuable collection of textual material, and particularly for the spoken texts. I shall comment only on chapter 4, ‘The Language of Conversation’. The authors have selected four sample texts for this chapter, three of which were surreptitiously recorded, the fourth semisurreptitiously (i.e. only one of the participants was aware of the tape-record.er). The surreptitious samples are taken from different points in the same conversation, the other sample from a telephone conversation. The status relationship in each case is between equals on friendly terms. The commentary on the texts (103-l 16, 119-121) concentrates on shared features which are regarded as evidence for regarding conversation as a single variety of English ( 12 1). This conclusion must be considered premature, given the highly restricted range of the material it is b; 3l on; moreover, there is some inconsistency in the way it is arrive\i at. Conversation is described as a province (116, 121), and the possibility of variations in status and modality is allowed for (109). But a variety is defined as ‘a unique configuration of linguistic features, each feature being referable to one or more of the . . . dimensions of description’ (82). If we assume that status and modality variations entail linguistic variations (as they 2) Far a brief review of neo-Firthian stylistic terminology, see Gregory, .M., 1967. ‘Aspects of varieties differentiation’, JoumaE of Linguist&x 3, 177198.
REVIEWS
- COMPTES-RENDUS
293
surely must), then the conclusion that conversation is a single variety is inconsistent with this definition. Ultimately, it can only be decided which texts constitute a single variety by applying statistical significance tests to a large body of descriptive results. Of this the authors are aware, although their attempt to justify using quantifiers such as ‘rarely’ and ‘often’ as an informal ‘alternative method’ (22) smacks of sleight of hand. It is therefore unfortunate that they succumb to the familiar temptation to prematurely ossify large areas of the language by attaching variety labels to them without sufficient caution. Nor it is clear how conversation can be described as a province. If advertising, science and law are also provinces (71), how would the authors describe a conversation between two scientists about their own subject? In this case one could equally well argue that conversation is a modality in that it represents a choice, as against writing a paper for example, which is determined by the ‘specific purpose of an utterance’ (to sound out a colleague on one’s ideas, say) independently of ‘the kind of occupational or professional activity being engaged in’. The dimensions of situational constraint are not defined explicitly enough to be applied with confidence. Although much of this review has been used for pointing to weaknesses in certain parts of the book, I hope that it has been made clear that Crystal and Davy have produced a work which is an invaluable source of material and information for scholars and students with an in?erest in stylistics. English
Defiarlmertt
,
N. Z. FAIRCLOUGH
University of Larncaster, Bailrigg, Lancaster,, England. Linguistica generde, filologia romanza, etimologia. Manuali di Filologia e Storia. Sansoni Editore, Florence 1970. xxiv, 308 pp. With a preface by I3. Migliorini. The story of Yakov Malkiel’s scholar:‘,y development and his influence on Romance linguistic studies requires a chronicler of as . wide interests, as insatiable curiosity and as unquenchable enthusiasm as himself. The intellectual climate in which he grew up Yakov
MALKIEL,
REVIEWS
-
COMPTES-RENDUS
TRUBY, H, hf., 1959. ‘Acoustico-cineradiographic analysis considerations with especial reference to certain consonantal complexes’, AG&JRadiologica, suppl., 182, Stockholm. VAN KATWI JK, A. and G. A. GOVAERT,1967. ‘Prominence as a function of the location of pitch movement’, I.P.O. Annual Progress Report 2, 115-l 18. WANG, S. S.-Y., 1959. ‘Transition and release as perceptual cues for final p!osives, J. of Speech and Hearing Research 2, 66-73.
David CRYSTAL and Derek DAVY, Investigating English style. English Language Series. Longmans, Green and Co., London and Harlow 1969. Pp. 264. 35/-. This book is a welcome addition to the range of introductory textbooks for students of English, and a. useful guide to stylistics for the general reader. There has been hitherto a ‘lack of attempts to ,,r”1u theoretical sides of the subject’ (vii), arld balance the ~~r~~t;~~l cb Ll YAQbLltic&, much recent work has used ‘analytic methods whose bases have not clearly enough to allow evaluation and comparative study” (vii). Crystai and Davy have therefore produced a textbook which, while not ignoring theoretical issues, concentrates on providing the beginning student with a method for linguistic description, and includes a substantial amount of illustrative material from many varieties of modern English. The book is in two parts. Part I contains a general introduction to stylistics, a model for linguistic description, and a chapter on stylistic analysis. In part II, samples of five varieties of English (conversation, unscripted commentary, religion, newspaper reporting and legal documents) are reproduced with extensive commentary, and there are texts from e.ight more varieties, with brief introductory notes, for the reader to tackle himself (television advertising, press advertising, public speaking, written instructions, civil service language, spoken legal language, the language of broadcast talks and news, the language of science). The term ‘stylistics’ is used by the authors for the stud varieties of a language in general, including literary language not restricted to it. ‘Style is thus placed squarely . . . within the framework of general language variation’ (General Editor’s foreword, v). In view of the common assumption that ‘stylistics’ is concerned primarily or exclusively with the language of literature, and the unfortunate tendency noted by the authors (73) for the neo-
REVIEWS
-
COMPTES-RENDUS
289
Firthian term ‘register’ to be used in the more general sense, this is a rationalisation of terminology which will hopefully become widely accepted. Crystal and Davy consider it crucial to prov de an explicit and self-sufficient methodology of analysis which ihe reader can master and make use of ‘without having to look for guidance at every turn from some teacher’ (I 3). Chapter 2, ‘Linguistic description’, is therefore central to the book. Five levels of analysis are distinguished: phoneticfgraphetic, phonological/graphological, grammatical, lexical, and semantic. The lexical level (‘the level of vocabulary’) embraces lexical selection, distribution and meaning, and ‘a certain amount of information about word structure’ (19). It is not clear why ‘collocation’ should appear in the subsection on ‘Word typology and structure’, but not in the brief account of the lexical level, especially since the authors state (58, note 1) that their lexical level ‘subsumes the purely formal information about lexis in the sense of Halliday and others’. The level of semantics is likely to cause greater confusion. Crjstal and Davy admit that their use of ‘semantics’ is ‘idiosyncratic’ (19) ; it includes ‘the linguist-ic meaning of a text over and above the meaning of the lexical items taken singly. Patterns of thematic development, the distribution of concepts in a text as a whole, the use of characteristic iigures of speech, semantic ingenuity (such as the iiquistic correlates of wit) J and so forth . . . ’ (19). It would seem reasonable to expec=tsome explanation of ‘semantic ingenuity” and perha3s a classification of the major ‘figures of speech’; but there is no atempt to place the level of semantics on a descriptive basis. Instea.d, the irrelevant issue of the ‘additive’ nature of the relationammatical units ship between lexical meaning and ‘the meaning o thermore, it is such as clause or sentence’ is raised (19-20). inconsistent to claim that ‘the stylistic description of the actual linguistic features used is identical with that made for any other (nonstylistic) purpose’ (16), and yet to use ‘semantics’ in a sense which is literary critical rather than linguistic (23), and which allows excursions beyond strictly linguistic description (such as the characterization of the ‘episodic structure’ of a text, 144). The greater part of chapter 2 is devoted to a detailed account of non-segmental phonology and grammar. The originality and
value of this book lies largely in its treatment of the non-segmental features of spoken text. Crystal and Davy have developed a transcription which is relatively easy to read, leaves the text comparatively uncluttered, and yet incorporates a substantial amount of prosodic and paralinguistic information?) The mod4 is lucidly presented in chapter 2, and there are about 30 pages of transcribed text in the second part of the book. The section on grammar is less satisfactorv. Since the authors regarcl grammar as ‘the central part of a linguistic statement’ (l8), it is unfortunate that they have not provided a more extensive account of English grammar. As it is, some parts of the grammar are very sparsely treated; for example, only three positions are &stin~,&hzJ A:*.- of the nmiiiid group (predegjbl1311cu;, 111+I+” +-H-*.----l:c:-., ~~CII~UU~~~~~LLICIII terminer, determiner, adjectival), and the treatment of the verbal group is limited to the distinction between auxiliary and lexical verbs. Tense, aspect and voice are not explained, although the authors themselves point to their potential stylistic significance LIIC
(55) Crystal and Davy choose to adopt a ‘slightly conservative position’ on grammar (40), yet they introduce certain deviations from usual, conservative practice which are likely to be in conflict with other grammatical descriptions available to students at this level. The second of two co-or-din&d clauses, for example, is classed with ‘dependent’ rather than ‘main’ clauses (47-48; and 59, note 9, for an unenlightening explanat con), and the ‘premodifying genitive’ (JoMs) is an adjectival, whereas the possessive pronoun is a determiner (54). Both of these clescriptions might be justifiable in a more specialist work; but since this section must be supplemented from other sources if a student is to be capable of competent stylistic analyses they are inappropriate in this book. There are two other features of this section which are bound to cause confusion. The first is the relationship bctlzeen sentence and clause: since TJze fairies danced is a ‘simple sentence’ when in isolation, l
1) The mo&.l for the tran-xiption of non-segmental phonology is adapted f~~?l the mcjdei developed at the Survey of English Usage, University College, kw.don. See Crystal, D., and Quirk, R., 1964. Systews of prosodic and pavalinguistic featwe. in English. Janua Lingiarum, Series Minor 39. The Hague, l+fouton & Co., and Crystal, D., 1969. Prosodic systems and intonation ; n .EAaglish. C.U.P.
REVIEWS
-
COMPTES-KtiSDUS
291
but a ‘clause’ in the ‘complex sentence’ The fairies danced when the +noon came out, the ‘elements of clause structure’ (subject, predicator, complement, adverbial, vocative) are introduced twice, once for the simple sentence and once for the clause; the redundancy of the neo-Firthian rank-scale (wherein a simple sentence is a sentence consisting of one clause) would surely be clearer. The second confusing feature is the treatment of complement (52). Complements are partially sub-classified into direct object, indirect object and, strangely, passive agent. There is no explicit mention of intensive complements, although ‘the intensive-extensive relationship’ is described as an ‘expansion’ of complement ; this relationship is illustrated (They called the boy a food: They called the boy a taxi) but it is not shown how the intensive and extensive ‘expansions’ are to be distinguished in terms of grammatical labelling. The reader may well conclude that the boy a fool and the boy a taxi are both single elements of structure. In chapter 3, Crystal and Davy distinguish eight ‘dimensions of situational constraint’ (64)’ which fall into three groups: A. individuality, dialect, time; B. discourse, incorporating medium (simple/complex) and participation (simple/complex) ; C. province, status, modality, singularity (66). Any definitive statement about the range of varieties within a language is considered to depend upon an examin ation of these dimensions and their associated linguistic variables in a considerable corpus of texts. permanent The dimensions of group A ccver the relatively features of an individual’s linguistic makeup - idiosyncratic (e.g. ally determined. Iri voice quality), geographically and tern c distinction betwt !e-;l group B, ‘medium’ is concerned with with the distinction betwchen speech and writing, ‘participation’ monologue and dialogue. ‘Complex medium’ allows for language written to be spoken, or spoken to be written; ‘complex participation’ for the introduction of dialogue into monologue, or monologue into dialogue. The central dimensions from a stylistic point of view are in group C. ‘Province’ concerns ‘those variables in an extra-linguistic context which are defined with reference to the kind of occupational or professional activity being engaged in’ (7 l), such as public worship, advertising, science or law. ‘Status’ involves ‘variations in the relative social standing of the participants in any act of com-
292
REVIEWS - COMPTES-KENDUS
munication’ (74). ‘Modality’ refers to ‘the specific purpose of an utterance which has led the user to adopt one feature or set of features rather than another’ (74). Finally, ‘singularity’ covers ‘occasional idiosyncratic linguistic features which give a specific effect within the framework of some conventional variety, e.g. when an author introduces a linguistic originality into a poem’ (76). Crystal and Davy have added yet another set of terms to the already over-subscribed vocabulary of stylistics.2) This is partially justified by their ‘modality’, which ‘has not usually been systematically distinguished in stylistic discussion’ (74). But, like their predecessors, they fail to match their terms sufficiently against ‘real language’ ; the dimensions of situation are very rarely alluded to in the commentaries of part II. The second part of the book is worth the attention of any student of English for its valuable collection of textual material, and particularly for the spoken texts. I shall comment only on chapter 4, ‘The Language of Conversation’. The authors have selected four sample texts for this chapter, three of which were surreptitiously recorded, the fourth semisurreptitiously (i.e. only one of the participants was aware of the tape-record.er). The surreptitious samples are taken from different points in the same conversation, the other sample from a telephone conversation. The status relationship in each case is between equals on friendly terms. The commentary on the texts (103-l 16, 119-121) concentrates on shared features which are regarded as evidence for regarding conversation as a single variety of English ( 12 1). This conclusion must be considered premature, given the highly restricted range of the material it is b; 3l on; moreover, there is some inconsistency in the way it is arrive\i at. Conversation is described as a province (116, 121), and the possibility of variations in status and modality is allowed for (109). But a variety is defined as ‘a unique configuration of linguistic features, each feature being referable to one or more of the . . . dimensions of description’ (82). If we assume that status and modality variations entail linguistic variations (as they 2) Far a brief review of neo-Firthian stylistic terminology, see Gregory, .M., 1967. ‘Aspects of varieties differentiation’, JoumaE of Linguist&x 3, 177198.
REVIEWS
- COMPTES-RENDUS
293
surely must), then the conclusion that conversation is a single variety is inconsistent with this definition. Ultimately, it can only be decided which texts constitute a single variety by applying statistical significance tests to a large body of descriptive results. Of this the authors are aware, although their attempt to justify using quantifiers such as ‘rarely’ and ‘often’ as an informal ‘alternative method’ (22) smacks of sleight of hand. It is therefore unfortunate that they succumb to the familiar temptation to prematurely ossify large areas of the language by attaching variety labels to them without sufficient caution. Nor it is clear how conversation can be described as a province. If advertising, science and law are also provinces (71), how would the authors describe a conversation between two scientists about their own subject? In this case one could equally well argue that conversation is a modality in that it represents a choice, as against writing a paper for example, which is determined by the ‘specific purpose of an utterance’ (to sound out a colleague on one’s ideas, say) independently of ‘the kind of occupational or professional activity being engaged in’. The dimensions of situational constraint are not defined explicitly enough to be applied with confidence. Although much of this review has been used for pointing to weaknesses in certain parts of the book, I hope that it has been made clear that Crystal and Davy have produced a work which is an invaluable source of material and information for scholars and students with an in?erest in stylistics. English
Defiarlmertt
,
N. Z. FAIRCLOUGH
University of Larncaster, Bailrigg, Lancaster,, England. Linguistica generde, filologia romanza, etimologia. Manuali di Filologia e Storia. Sansoni Editore, Florence 1970. xxiv, 308 pp. With a preface by I3. Migliorini. The story of Yakov Malkiel’s scholar:‘,y development and his influence on Romance linguistic studies requires a chronicler of as . wide interests, as insatiable curiosity and as unquenchable enthusiasm as himself. The intellectual climate in which he grew up Yakov
MALKIEL,