So a style is a manner of expressing thoughts and ideas

(2) It’s well-known that there are different styles in different situations (e.g. comic vs. turgid); also that the same activity can produce stylistic variation (no two people will have the same style in playing squash or writing an essay). So style can be seen as variation in language use, whether literary or nonliterary.

Style may vary not only from situation to situation but according to medium and degree of formality: what is sometimes termed style-shifting. On a larger scale it may vary, in literary language, from one genre to another, or from one period to another (e.g. we may talk of the style of Augustan poetry, etc.)

(3) In each case, style is seen as distinctive: in essence, the set or sum of linguistic features that seem to be characteristic: whether of register, genre or period,etc.

Style is very commonly defined in this way, especially at the level of text: e.g. thestyle of Jane Austen’s Emma. Stylistic features are basically features of language, so style is in one sensesynonymous with language. What is implied, however, is that the language is in some waydistinctive, significant for the design of a theme, for example. When applied to thedomain of an author, style is the set of features peculiar to, or characteristic of anauthor: his or her language habits or idiolect. So we speak of Miltonic style, orJohnsonese.

(4) Clearly each author draws upon the general stock of the language in any given period; what makes style distinctive is the choice of items, and their distribution and patterning. A definition of style in terms of choice is very popular, the selection of features partly determined by the demands of genre, form, theme, etc.

All utterances have a style, even when they might seem relatively plain or unmarked: a plain style is itself a style.

(5) Another differential approach to style is to compare one set of features with another in terms of a deviation from a norm, a common approach in the 1960’s. It would be wrong to imply that style itself is deviant in the sense of abnormal, even though there are marked poetic idiolects. Rather, we match any text or piece of language against the linguistic norms of its genre, or its period, and the common core of the language as a whole. Different texts will reveal different patterns of dominant or foregrounded features.

(6) The term style also signifies a literary genre. Thus we speak of classical style or the style of classicism; realistic style; the style of romanticism and so on. On the other hand, the term is widely used in literature, being applied to the various kinds of literary work, the fable, novel, ballad, story etc. Thus we speak of a story being written in the style of a fable or we speak of the characteristic features of the epistolary style or the essay and so on.

Style is our knowledge how language is used to create and interpret texts and conversational interactions. It involves being aware of the range of situations in which a language can be used in a distinctive and predictable way and of the possibilities available to us when we want to produce or respond to creative uses of the language.

Style is first and foremost the result of our choice of content of our message and the appropriate range of language means to deliver the message effectively.

TO SUM IT ALL UP - A style of Language is a system of interrelated language means which serves a definite aim in communication. The peculiar choice of language means is primarily dependent on the aim of communication.

As you see Katie Wales’ theory involves consideration of such notions as norm and function in their relation to style.

1.2. Correlation of style, norm and function in the language (НА СЛАЙДЕ)

Any national language uses the notion of 'correct language' which involves conformity to the grammatical, lexical and phonetic standards accepted as normative in this society. The favoured variety is usually a version of the standard written language, especially when met in literature or in the formal spoken language that most closely reflects literary style. It is presented in dictionaries, grammars and other official manuals. Those who speak and write in this way are said to be using language 'correctly', those who do not are said to be using it 'incorrectly'. Correct usage is associated with the notion of the linguistic norm. The norm is closely related to the system of the language as an abstract ideal system. (СЛАЙД)

Individual use of the language implies a personal selection of linguistic means on all levels. When this use conforms to the general laws of the language this use will coincide with what is called the literary norm of the national language.

However the literary norm is not a homogeneous entity. It varies due to a number of factors, such as regional, social, situational, personal, etc.

( СЛАЙД) The norm will be dictated by the social roles of the participants of communication, their age and family or other relations. An important role in the selection of this or that variety of the norm belongs to the purpose of the utterance, or its function. Informal language on a formal occasion is as inappropriate as formal language on an informal occasion. We shall use different 'norms' speaking with elderly people and teachers and students, giving an interview or testimony in court. This brings us to the notion of the norm variation.

The system provides and determines the general rules of usage of its elements, the norm is the actual use of language elements by individual speakers under specific conditions of communication. (SLIDE)

The norm of the language implies various realizations of the language structure that are sometimes called its subsystems, registers or varieties.

(СЛАЙД) Functional styles are subsystems of the language and represent varieties of the norm of the national language. Their evolution and development has been determined by the specific factors of communication in various spheres of human activity. Each of them is characterized by its own parameters in vocabulary usage, syntactical expression, phraseology, etc.

The term 'functional style' reflects peculiar functions of the language in this or that type of communicative interaction. Prof. I. V. Arnold suggested a description of functional styles based on the combination of the linguistic functions they fulfill. (раздаточный материал)

Function Style	intellectual communicative	pragmatic	emotive	phatic	aesthetic
oratorical	+	+	+	+	+
colloquial	+	+	+	+	-
poetic	+	-	+	-	+
publicist and newspaper	+	+	+	-	-
official	+	+	-	-	-
scientific	+	-	-	-	-

The table presents functional styles as a kind of hierarchy according to the number of functions fulfilled by each style, oratorical and scientific being almost complete opposites.

ALL in All NORM IS…. is the actual use of language elements by individual speakers under specific conditions of communication.

The FSs are subsystems of the language and represent varieties of the norm of the national language.

1.3. Language varieties: regional, social, occupational

The particular set of features, which identifies a language variety, does not represent the features of the language as a whole. Variety features depend on the presence of certain factors in a social situation. Classifications of these factors vary, but we may group them into two types according to most general dimensions: sociolinguistic and stylistic factors.

Sociolinguistic factors are connected with very broad situational constraints on language use. They chiefly identify the regional and social varieties of the language. They are relatively permanent features of the spoken and written language, over which we have comparatively little conscious control. We tend not to change our regional or social group way of speaking in every-day communication and usually we are not aware of using it.

Stylistic factors relate to restrictions on language use that are much more narrowly constrained, and identify individual preferences in usage (phraseology, special vocabulary, language of literature) or the varieties that are associated with occupational groups (lawyers, journalists, scholars). These are features, over which we are able to exercise some degree of conscious control.

As David Crystal, a famous British linguist puts it, regional language variation of English provides a geographical answer to the question 'Where are you from, in the English-speaking world?'

Social language variation provides an answer to a somewhat different question 'Who are you?' or 'What are you in the eyes of the English-speaking society to which you belong?' (33, p. 393). Actually social variation provides several possible answers, because people may acquire several identities as they participate in the social structure. One and the same person may belong to different social groups and perform different social roles. A person may at the same time be described as 'a parent', 'a wife', 'an architect', 'a feminist', 'a senior citizen', 'a member of Parliament', 'an amateur sculptor', 'a theatre-goer'; the possibilities may be endless.

Any of these identities can have consequences for the kind of language we use. Language more than anything else will testify to our permanent and temporary roles in social life.

Some features of social variation lead to particular linguistic consequences. In many ways our pronunciation, choice of words and constructions, general strategy of communication are defined by the age, sex and socio-economic aspects. Choice of occupation has a less predictable influence, though in some contexts, e. g. medicine or law it can be highly distinctive.

When you have a specific social role, such as making speech or conducting a panel talk, you are to choose appropriate linguistic forms.

In England one accent has traditionally dominated over all others and the notion of respectable social standing is usually associated with Received Pronunciation (RP), considered to be the 'prestige accent'.

However today with the breakdown of rigid divisions between social classes and the development of mass media RP is no longer the prerogative of social elite. Today it is best described as an 'educated' accent which actually has several varieties. Most educated people have developed an accent, which is a mixture of RP and various regional features that sometimes is called 'modified RP'.

This is one example that shows a general trend in modern English-regionally modified speech is no longer called as 'low'. A pure RP accent, by contrast can even evoke hostility, especially in those parts of Britain that have their own regional norms, e. g. Scotland and Wales.

Occupational varieties of the national language are normally associat­ed with a particular way of earning a living. They belong to the group of stylistically determined varieties and differ from both regional and social sublanguages.

Features of language that identify people's geographical or social origins, once established can hardly change over a short period of time. It would be very difficult to change your accent if you move from one part of the country to another with a different regional norm; it is equally difficult to transform the linguistic indicators of our social background (vocabulary and structural expression).

Occupational varieties are not like that. Their linguistic features may be just as distinctive as regional or social features, but they are only in temporary use. They 'go with the territory' - adopted as we begin work and given up as we finish it. People who cannot stop 'talking shop' even when they are not at work are rather an exception to the rule.

Any professional field could serve as an illustration of occupation­al linguistic identity. There are no class distinctions here. Factory workers have to master a special glossary of technical terms and administrative vocabulary (term of service, severance pay, fringe benefits, safety regulation) in order to carry out profes­sional communication. To fulfill their tasks they develop professional slang, which set them apart from outsiders. The more specialised the occupation and the more senior or professional the position the more technical the language. Also, if an occupation has a long-lasting and firmly established tradition it is likely to have its own linguistic rituals which its members accept as a criterion of proficiency. The highly distinctive languages of law, government and religion provide the clearest cases, with their unique grammar, vocabulary, and patterns of discourse. Of course, all occupations are linguistically distinctive to a certain degree. In some cases it involves only special terms; in others it may be a combination of linguistic features on different levels.

There is also a problem of dialects that would require special consideration. Dialects are not really "ungrammatical" types of a national language, some scholars hold, but a different language with its own laws. However it may have been true in the last century but not now. And what Юрий Максимович Skrebnev writes on this problem seems to be argumentative enough.

"Dialects are current in the countryside; cities are nearly untouched by them. In the 19th century England some of the aristocracy were not ashamed of using their local dialects. Nowadays owing to the sound media (radio, cinema and TV) non-standard English in Britain is nearly, as in this country, a sure sign of cultural inferiority, e. g. the status of Соскnеу." (47, p. 198).

To sum it up, one can mention that the famous British linguist D. Crystal suggests the following.

Regional varieties of English reflect the geographical origin of the language used by the speaker: Lancashire variety, Canadian English, Cockney, etc.

Social variations testify to the speaker's family, education, social status background: upper class and non-upper class, a political activist, a member of the proletariat, a Times reader, etc.

Occupational styles present quite a big group that includes the following types:

a) religious English;

b) scientific English;

c) legal English;

d) plain (official) English;

e) political English;

f) news media English further subdivided into:

And moreover he singles out practically the same FS: regional, social, occupational, restricted and individual.

We’ll speak about FS later.