Stylistics10 crystal language teaching.pdf

8/14/2019 Stylistics10 crystal language teaching.pdf

1/20


2/20

in a given spoken or written) utteranany bit of speech or writing whichdiscussed - a particular word, moretc. Now the above definition of styis an extremely broad one - it subinstance - and a word of explanatiouseful at this point. It seems to metricted to the study of literary textstexts is theoretically dependent on the I am not of course suggesting this


3/20

the heading of dialectology either rethat choice, in any meaningful sense,analysis of these situations. Dialectview, unaltering and unalterable fea g inst which stylistic features can bmight decide to play down the criteriaand too speaker-orientated, and coto the analysis of an utterance s efeatures alongside other features ofan integrated model, all contributing


4/20

coursework on registers before the worperceptive linguists who transcend theWe have to be sure that it is linguisticat the moment I don t see how we careal experimentation have taken place.Of the three criteria of scientificcurrent stylistic practice would get goprobably fail in objectivity and explicis to be found in Crystal, 1971a). Letreference to objectivity. Emphasis on t


5/20

cally, or being considered as a routiI t is perhaps not so obviouwhere criteria are often quite e

Society Authors but consider thethe basis of a sample for such hyppolitical speaking, or sermons. Howabout, the success of an ad? Oneas his primary data a set of advertpoor, or which the public had failfollow, then, that for any research


6/20

to do) he will rely on the impressions ofof Thomas s poetry that exist, namelyspecialist studies of Thomas. It would bon Thomas using a text which was gensub-standard. (He may of course decideWhy is it a bad poem?, but this is a differ

The scientific course in such queat our analyses as if the problem did noto assume that its solution is someone


7/20

a stylistic psychosis.To clarify the argument at ththose cases of stylistic uncertaintyapparently very clear instances of siwhich now has to be asked is, Howof these features? Before we commhow do we know what to count? Dthat our allocation of it to a particucians? This is scientific arrogance. Iexperience of stylistic analysis may


8/20


9/20

vant for most practical purposes. This How much of this complete analysquestion which a field which mightprofitably begin to investigate. Meanhas to do is consider precisely whating for has. I am often confused ina piece of illustration represents thethe lay native speaker, or perhapsconcept of stereotype is accepted,analysis of this kind. It provides a


10/20

who recognise a more flexible kind ofdoes e.g. Lyons, 1971) - that at somcompetence, in some sense. That is, wea lawyer s say) reaction to a feature was to how typical this feature is, eithewhole which he professionally uses. Ifa noun, for instance, then what shouldnone of us would want to say In thisthat four adjectives may be used beforedo not in fact say this kind of thing v


11/20

analyses ever approach comprehens1970). Using Halliday s terminologytwo texts are almost identical atdifferent at group rank, identical grsemantically, and so on. A singleis meaningless in such cases, for obable to say little about the underlyingto it. And this situation is typical.to decide on the degree of abstractionusefully made at what level of de


12/20

register , tenor , field or situation tries to piece them together to makerecognises the inherent weaknesses inregister , because of its breadth ofconfusion. Any situationally-distinctiveit seems, regardless of what the mostNewspaper headlines, church serviceadvertising, and football, inter alia arMcIntosh Strevens, 1964 (pp. 88-9new to this field will think that they wto these uses of language using the te


13/20

relationship of stylistics to foreignrequirements of the language teambitious projects such as large-scf. Gorosch, 1970: 6) are avoidedof our own job. What exactlystylistic needs? Can they be categto the theoretical constructs alreadnot know. There seems to have beea given set of stylistic categories toassumption that they will be relevan


14/20

other situation. But there is of coursedegree of restrictedness of usage of thein the likelihood and seriousness of stylidiscussing formality, some errors are msituations are less permissive than othample, if foreigners make mistakes, thenrelatively unimportant, as conversationflexible than other varieties of English.about. On formal occasions, however,good impression , stylistic mistakes are


15/20

satisfactory though somewhat erraparable to the cultured native speakind of approach to testing; but Iit poses for the stylistician. I shahere, e.g. whether there is an overlratings and those on any of the othe highest point on the scale, whiin foreign language teaching. Whato me that there are two difficultiecomparability , the other the quescultured native speaker . This l


16/20

really spontaneous conversational EnglisA related point concerns the ansometimes raises, and which the teacherwith a wide range of speaking or writinavailable grammatical models simplywhich emerge. A particularly clear caseis an extremely difficult problem infollowing extracts taken from Crystalprosodic transcription apart from an ind


17/20

variety, a more formal spoken vaperhaps a professional style as welto productively use legal, scientificnot, in a word, affect their fluencythan these three or four basic variwould indeed have difficulty arguhis subject to language teaching. Bas one can see if the notion of flucussion, is broadened to take accountfluency. By this I mean native-speake


18/20

Each of these examples could appearabove, real or stereotyped , hence tclassification. For example, apart frcommentary, one has to note its steraccents a distinction that seems to bthe BBC and Long John Silver, amohas got to allow for the stereotyped ftakers speak monotonously. A furtherhas to be seen in different contexts oactual constraints on receptive fluency


19/20

and terminological gap between hisof language teaching. Throughout tof much more data analysis than hadevelopment of validation techniqurather unfashionable ways, it seemtool of the language teacher that it i


20/20

Thakur D. 1968. A stylistic descriptioScience. Ph.D. thesis Univ. of ReTrim L. M. 1959. Major and m112 26-9.Wilkins D. 1971. The feasibility ofteaching .

Documents

Stylistics10 crystal language teaching.pdf