Main Trends in Style Study. Functional Stylistics and Functional Styles.
1. Social, economic and political development of Halytsko-Volynsk Principality.
2. Prince Danylo Halytskyi.
3. The Ukrainian lands making part of the Great Lithuanian Principality and of other States
The flow and timing of events worked to Ukraine's disadvantage in the 14th century. Precisely at the time when it was sinking to a political, economic, and cultural low point, Ukraine's neighbors - Lithuania, Poland, and Muscovy were on rise.
In 1340, the last prince of Halicia-Volyn died without leaving a successor. There began a struggle for mastery over the principality, which involved Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, and the local nobles, called boyars. After changing hands several times, Halicia was finally placed under the rule of Polish kings in 1387, while Volyn entered the sphere of influence of Lithuania. Under Poland, Halicia retained a separate administrative identity, its own laws (not replaced by Polish law until 1434), and its own Orthodox religion, although Catholicism enjoyed the support of the state. Volyn and the principalities in the east – Kyiv, Pereyaslav, Chernihiv, and Novhorod-Siverskyi – were gradually forced to recognize the authority of the Grand Prince of Lithuania, a major power that arose in the northeastern portion of old Rus. The Lithuanians, who were descended from the Balts, gradually established very close family and military links with the princes of Rus, and were also increasingly assimilated to the Orthodox religion and the Rus, that is Slavonic, language.
One ought not to imagine the Lithuanian takeover of Ukrainian lands in terms of a violent invasion by hordes of fierce foreigners. Actually penetration, co-option, and annexation are more appropriate descriptions of the manner in which the goal-oriented Lithuanian dynasty extended its hold over the Slavic principalities. Frequently, Lithuanian forces were welcomed as they advanced into Ukraine. When fighting did occur, it was usually directed against the Golden Horde. Nonetheless, there is general agreement on the major reasons for the rapid and easy successes.
First and foremost, for the Ukrainians, especially those in the Dnieper region, the overlordship of the Lithuanians was preferable to the pitiless, exploitive rule of the Golden Horde. Secondly, because they were too few to control their vast acquisitions – most of the Grand Principality of Lithuania consisted of Ukrainian lands - the Lithuanians co-opted local Ukrainian nobles and allowed them to rise to the highest levels of government. This policy greatly encouraged the Ukrainian elite to join the Lithuanian “bandwagon”. Finally, unlike the Tatars of the Golden Horde, the Lithuanians were not perceived ‘as being completely alien. Still pagan and culturally underdeveloped when they expanded into Byelorussia and Ukraine, their elite quickly fell under the cultural influence of their Slavic subjects. Numerous princes of Gediminas’s dynasty adopted Orthodoxy. Ruthenian (Ukrainian/Byelorussia), the language of the great majority of the principality’s population, became the official language of government. Always careful to respect local customs, the Lithuanians often proclaimed: “We do not change the old, nor do we bring in the new”.
So thoroughly did the Lithuanian rulers adapt to the local conditions in Byelorussia and Ukraine that within a generation or two they looked, spoke, and acted much like their Riurikid predecessors. Indeed, they came to view their expansion as a mission “to gather the lands of Rus” and used this rationale long before Moscow, their emerging competitor for the Kievan heritage, also adopted it. It was for this reason that the Ukrainian historian M.Hrushevsky argued that the Kyivan traditions were more completely preserved in the Grand Principality of Lithuania than in Muscovy. Other Ukrainian historians even claimed that the Grand Principality of Lithuania was actually a reconstituted Rus state rather than a foreign entity that engulfed Ukraine.
Despite the Lithuanians’ impressive gains in Ukraine, it was Polish expansion that would exert the more lasting and extensive impact on the Ukrainians. The man who initiated it was Kasimir the Great (1310-1370), the restorer of the medieval Polish monarchy. In expanding eastward, the king had support from three sources: the magnates of southeastern Poland, who expected to extend their landholdings into the neighboring Byelorussian and Ukrainian lands; the Catholic Church, which was eager to acquire new converts; and the rich burghers of Krakow who hoped to gain control of the important Galician trade routes. Only nine days after the death of Boleslav (the principality’s last independent ruler) in April 1340, the Polish king moved into Halicia. He did so under the pretext of protecting the Catholics of the land, who were mostly German burghers. But it was obvious that Kasimir had been planning the move for some time, for in 1339 he signed a treaty with Louis of Hungary, which stipulated that the two kings would cooperate in the conquest of Ukraine.
The aggrandizement of Ukrainian lands did not proceed as smoothly for the Poles as it did for the Lithuanians, however. No sooner had Kasimir returned to Poland than the willful Galician boyars, led by Dmytro Detko, asserted their rule over the land. Unable at the time to launch another incursion, Kasimir was forced to recognize Detko as the effective ruler of Halicia. In return, the latter recognized, in a perfunctory and limited fashion, the Polish king as his overlord. An even greater threat to Polish aspirations in Halicia and Volyn were the Lithuanians. Because Lubart, the son of Gediminas, was the son-in-law of the deceased Galician ruler, Boleslav, the Volynian boyars recognized the young Lithuanian prince as their sovereign in 1340. Thus, when Detko died in 1344, the stage was set for a confrontation between the Poles and Lithuanians for control over Volyn and Halicia.
For more than two decades, the Poles, aided by the Hungarians, fought the Lithuanians, with whom most of the Ukrainians sided, for control over Halicia and Volyn. Unlike the interprincely conflicts that were familiar to the inhabitants of the old Rus lands, this one had a new and disturbing dimension. Proclaiming themselves to be “the buffer of Christianity,” the Poles, partly from conviction and partly in order to gain papal support, represented their push to the east as a crusade against the heathen Lithuanians and the schismatic Orthodox Ukrainians. This view of their non-Catholic enemies as being morally and culturally inferior boded ill for future relations between the Poles and Ukrainians.
In 1349, after a particularly successful campaign, Kasimir gained control of Halicia and part of Volyn. Finally, in 1366, the war ended with the Poles occupying all of Halicia and a small part of Volyn. The rest of Volyn remained in Lithuanian hands. But even at this point the Polish grip on their huge Ukrainian acquisitions – consisting of about 200,000 people and approximately 52,000 sq. km, an increase of close to 50% in the holdings of the Polish crown - was not secure. In the above mentioned pact with Louis of Hungary, Kasimir had agreed that if he should die without amale heir, the crown of Poland and the Ukrainian lands would revert to Louis. In 1370, Kasimir died, leaving four daughters but no son. Now the Hungarians moved into Halicia. Louis appointed Wladyslaw Opalinski, a trusted vassal, as his viceroy and installed Hungarian officials throughout Halicia. However, what the Poles lost through dynastic arrangements, they regained in the same way. In 1387, two years after she became the queen of Poland, Jadwiga, the daughter of Louis of Hungary, finally and definitely annexed Halicia to the holdings of the Polish crown.
By the mid 15th century, when Galicia was reorganized into Rus wojewodstwo or province of the Polish kingdom and Latin became the official language of the land, there were few remainders left of Halytsk principality.
The Polish acquisition of Ukrainian lands and subjects was a crucial turning point in the history of both peoples. For the Poles, it meant a commitment to an eastern rather than the previously dominant western orientation, a shift that carried with it far-reaching political, cultural, and socioeconomic ramifications. For Ukrainians, the impact went far beyond the replacement of native rulers by foreigners: it led to the subordination of Ukrainians to another people of a different religion and culture. Despite certain positive effects produced by this symbiosis, eventually it evolved into a bitter religious, social, and ethnic conflict that lasted for about 600 years and permeated all aspects of life in Ukraine.
Once the issue of Halicia was settled, the political leaders of Poland and Lithuania realized that they shared important common interests. Both countries were threatened by the aggressive designs of the Teutonic Order, which controlled the Baltic coast. Especially Lithuania, strained to the limit by its expansion to the east, was in no position to confront the Germans in the north. To make matters worse, Moscow, growing rapidly in power and prestige, posed a threat in the east. Meanwhile, the Poles, dissatisfied with their dynastic connections with Hungary and eager to gain access to the other Ukrainian lands, were looking for new options. At this point the magnates of southeastern Poland proposed a striking idea: a union of Poland and Lithuania to be concluded by means of a marriage between their Queen Jadwiga and Jagiello (Jogailo in Lithuanian), the new Grand Prince of Lithuania.
In 1385, in a small Byelorussian town, the two sides concluded the Union of Krevo. In return for the hand of Jadwiga and, perhaps more appealing, the title of king of Poland, Jagiello agreed, among other conditions, to the acceptance of Catholicism for himself and the Lithuanians and to attach “for all eternity” his Lithuanian and Ukrainian lands to the crown of Poland.
It seemed, from the formal point of view at least, that in return for the Polish crown, Jagiello had agreed to liquidate the Grand Principality. But no matter what the Polish magnates and Jagiello agreed upon, the Grand Principality was too big and vibrant, its elite too self-confident to allow itself to be absorbed by Poland. Lithuanian and Ukrainian opposition to Polish influence galvanized around Jagiello’s talented and ambitious cousin, Vytautas (Vitovt), who, in 1392, forced the king to recognize his de facto control of the Grand Principality. Although Poland and Lithuania remained linked by the person of Jagiello, under Vytautas the Grand Principality retained its separate and independent identity. In fact, on several occasions, Vytautas attempted to sever all links with Poland and to obtain a royal title for himself. Although these attempts failed, they demonstrated very forcefully that the Ukrainian and Lithuanian elite of the Grand Principality was still very much its own master.
For the Ukrainian nobles – the masses hardly mattered politically – the preservation of the autonomy of the Grand Principality was a matter of great importance because unlike the Poles, the Lithuanians treated them as equals.
In the mid 15th century, relations between the Lithuanian and Ukrainian elites took a turn for the worse, especially after the new Grand Prince, Kasimir instituted another series of centralizing reforms. In 1452 Volyn, occupied by a Lithuanian army, was transformed, in accordance with Polish models, into a common province, which was governed by an official of the Grand Prince. In 1471, Kyiv and its surrounding territories experienced a similar fate. Despite the fruitless protest of Ukrainians to the effect that prestigious Kyiv should rule itself or, at least, be governed by a prince father than an untitled official, it was evident that the last institutional remainders of Kyivan Rus and of Ukrainian self-rule were quickly disappearing.
1. Union of Krevo and its consequences.
2. Development of agriculture in Ukraine (XIV-XV century).
A Primitive Society and State like Formations on Ukraine’s Territory
Mark the right answer.
1. The first social division of labor on the territory of Ukraine took place in:
a. IV millennium B.C.
b. III millennium B.C.
c. II millennium B.C.
2. The lifetime of the Trypillian archeological culture on the territory of Ukraine:
a. V – IV millennium B.C.
b. IV - II millennium B.C.
c. II – I millennium B.C.
3. The most ancient people on the territory of Ukraine were:
4. Cimmerians lived on the territory of Ukraine during:
a. End of II – beginning of I millennium B.C.
b. Middle and end of I millennium B.C.
c. End of I millennium B.C – beginning of I millennium A.D.
5. The Cimmerians occupied the steppe territory of Ukraine:
a. From the Dniester to the Dnieper
b. From the Dniester to the Don
c. From the Dnieper to the Don
6. The main occupations of the Iran-speaking tribes were:
a. Driven cattle-breeding
b. Hunting and fishing
c. Farming and cattle-breeding
7. The Scythian state occupied the territories:
a. Steppes of the Northern Black Sea Shore and the Danube basin
b. Forest-steppe and forest regions of the right-bank Ukraine
c. Steppes of the Northern Black Sea Shore and forest-steppe region of the Dnieper basin
8. On the modern territory of Ukraine the Scythians dominated in:
a. XI – V centuries B.C.
b. VII – III centuries B.C.
c. V – IV centuries B.C.
9. The tribes, which inhabited the major part of the territory of modern Ukraine in VII – III centuries B.C. were classified by the ancient Greek authors as:
10. The Scythian state-organization existed on the territory of modern Ukraine during:
a. VII – III centuries B.C.
b. V – II centuries B.C.
c. VIII – I centuries B.C.
11. Sarmatian tribes were roaming on the territory of Ukraine in:
a. III century B.C. – III century A.D.
b. III century B.C. – I century A.D.
c. VI century B.C. – II century A.D.
12. Greek city-states existed in the Northern Black Sea Shore in:
a. X century B.C. – I century A.D.
b. VII century B.C. – IV century A.D.
c. IV century B.C. – II century A.D.
Mark the right answer.
1. The Veneds were mentioned as Slavs for the first time in:
a. I century A.D.
b. II century A.D.
c. III century A.D.
2. The motherland of Slavs according to the majority of scientists is considered:
a. The Danube basin
b. The Vistula and Pripyat basins
c. Baltic region
3. The ancestors of Ukrainians are considered to be:
a. Veneds and Ants
b. Ants and Sklavins
c. Sklavins and Veneds
4. The main occupations of the Slavs were:
a. Driven cattle-breeding
b. Plough farming and cattle-breeding
c. Hunting and fishing
5. The Slav tribes include:
a. Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians
b. Kriviches, Dulibs, Dregoviches
c. Polyans, Severyans, Sarmatians
6. The tribal union of Ants existed in:
a. III – IV centuries
b. IV – VII centuries
c. V – VIII centuries
7. A sign of a crisis of the primitive patrimonial state and beginning of a state consolidation of the Eastern Slavs was:
a. Existence of a neighbors’ community
b. Arousal of a private property on the property and cattle
c. Arousal of the property inequity
d. Arousal of nobility – a group of people, pretending for the rule over the community because of their origin
8. In VII – VIII centuries the Eastern Slavs, who lived on the territory of modern Ukraine, cultivated land with:
9. The way of a land cultivation when the land is intensely used and then left for the fertility restoring is called:
a. Perelog system
b. Double-course rotation
c. Triple-course rotation
10. In a forest region of Ukraine the dominating system in XII century was:
a. Perelog cultivation system
b. Double-course rotation
c. Cuting-burning cultivation system
11. The peak of the development among the Eastern Slavs in I century reached the following crafts:
a. Blacksmithing and goldsmithing
b. Blacksmithing craft and iron-mining
c. Iron-mining and goldsmithing
12. The sacred tree for the Slavs was:
Origin of Ukrainian Statehood.
Mark the right answer.
1. Indicate a theory of origin of Kyivan Rus:
2. When the Norman theory of origin of Kyivan Rus appeared?
a. In IX century
b. In XIV century
c. In XVIII century
3. The strengthening of Rus in the middle of IX century is connected with the names of the princes:
a. Kiy, Shchek, Khoriv
b. Ascold, Dir
c. Rurih, Cyneus, Truvor
4. Princess Olga founded “uroku”, which meant:
a. Determination of the rate of obligations for the benefit of Kyivan princes
b. The obligatory visits to Kyiv of the princes from the neighboring lands were established
c. The pre-church schools, which provided the elementary education, were founded.
5. Volodymyr the Great ruled Kyivan Rus during:
6. The Christianity was brought to Kyivan Rus in:
7. What is the most important move of Yaroslav the Wise to strengthen unity of Kyivan Rus?
a. Spreading of education
b. Issuing of the “Rus Pravda”
c. The division of the lands between the sons during the lifetime.
8. The main pillar of the economy of Kyivan Rus in IX – XIII centuries was:
c. Crafts and trade
9. The great prince was:
a. Great and powerful ruler
b. The oldest prince, head of the family, ruling Rus
c. The title of the princes who ruled in Kyiv for some period of time
10. The occupation of Smerds in XI – XII was:
a. Farming and cattle-breeding on the state lands, paying certain taxes to princes with the products and later money and working the obligations
b. Farming, working for the family only and for the needs of the community, paying the part of the products and the time
c. Farming on their own or community lands and crafts, paying tribute to the prince
11. People, who had taken loans and become dependent on the loan owner, were called in Kyivan Rus:
12. The Mongol-Tatars invaded Kyiv in:
Mark the right answer.
1. Halycia and Volyn were inhabited by the descendants of the tribes:
a. Dulibs, Uliches, Tivertsians
b. Dulibs, Uliches, Drevlyans
c. Dulibs, Tivertsians, White Croats.
2. The united Halytsko-Volynsk principality was formed in:
3. Halytsk and Volynsk principalities were united by:
a. Yaroslav Osmomysl
b. Roman Mstyslavych
c. Mstyslav the Brave
4. Among the provided statements choose the statements which say about the results of the activity of prince Roman:
a. He liberated dependent peasants from obligations and debts.
b. He united Kyiv and Pereyaslav lands.
c. He provided the principality with the international authority.
d. He invaded the Lithuanian principality.
5. Prince Roman was fighting successfully with:
a. Sarmatians and Lithuanian feudal lords
b. Cumans and Lithuanian feudal lords
c. Sarmatians and Cumans
6. Danylo Halytsky was crowned in Dorohochyn as Prince in:
7. The capital of his state Danylo Halytsky chose to be:
8. Among the provided statements choose the statements which say about the results of the domestic activities of Danylo Halytsky:
a. He reached the agreement with boyars and together with them through the boyars rada solved the issues on the domestic policy.
b. He conquered the boyar opposition and strengthened the power of princes.
c. He defended the Halych peasants and citizens from the self-will and over exploitation.
d. He rebuilt old towns and founded new cities.
9. Among the provided statements choose the statements which say about the results of the foreign political activities of Danylo Halytsky:
a. He established his rights on the “homeland” (“otchyna”) – Halicia and Volyn with the Poles and Hungarians.
b. He reached the agreement with Mongol-Tatars and avoided ruining of the home lands, though he needed to ruin the fortresses of the cities.
c. He united his state with Austria and Hungary, which were weakened after the Mongol-Tatar invasion.
d. He convinced Lithuania for the union.
10. The dependency of Halytsko-Volynsk principality from Tatars in the second half of XIII – first half of XIV centuries was displayed by:
a. Getting by the Halytsko-Volyn princes from the Tatar khans “sign for rule” and payment of the yearly tribute
b. Providing their help to the Tatars and paying them substantial tribute (The tribute was collected every two years by the baskak sent by khan.)
c. Mainly in providing Tatar khans with the military support.
11. The last prince of Halytsko-Volynsk state, prince of Mazovet Boleslav sat on throne under the name:
a. Yuri I
b. Yuri II
c. Andrii II
12. According to historians Halytsko-Volynsk state has ended its existence in:
1 million years B. C. – Primitive men appeared on the present territory of Ukraine
40 000 – 10 000 years B.C. – Later Paleolithic Age
10 000 – 6 000 years B.C. – Mesolithic Age
6 000 – 4 000 years B.C. – Neolithic Age
4 000 – 3 000 years B.C. – Aeneolithic Age
4 000 – 2 000 years B.C. – Trypillyan Culture
II millennium – early I millennium B.C. – Bronze Age
I millennium B.C. – Iron Age
II millennium - early I millennium B.C. – Cimmerians on the Northern
Black Sea shore
VII – III centuries B.C. – Scythians on the Northern Black
III century B.C. – III century A.D. – Sarmatian tribes’ domination
VII century B.C.– IV century A.D. – Greek city-states on the Northern
Black Sea shore
VI – VII century A.D. – Slavs spread out in all directions
Late IX – late X century – the origin and formation of Kyivan
980 – 1015 – Kyivan prince Volodymyr the
988 – Christianing Kyivan Rus
Late X – mid XI century A.D. – Political and economic prosperity
of Kyivan Rus
1019 – 1054 – Kyivan prince Yaroslav the Wise
Second half of XI – mid XIII – Feudal fragmentation of Kyivan
1113 – 1125 – Kyivan prince Volodymyr
1153 – 1187 – Yaroslav Osmomysl - prince of
1187 – Ukraine as a toponym first used in
1199 – Volyn and Halicia united and formed Halytsko-Volynsk state
1199 – 1205 – Halytsk prince Roman
1238 – 1264 – Prince Danylo Halytsky
1240 – Massive Mongol-Tatar invasion,
fall of Kyiv
1340 – The disintegration of Halytsko-
1349 – Kasimir of Poland gained control of
Halicia and part of Volyn
1370-1387 – Halicia is under the rule of Hungary
1385 – Union of Lithuania with Poland in
1387 – Halicia was finally placed under the
rule of Polish kings
1430 – Western Podyllia is annexed by
1471 – The abolition of Kyivan principality
Main Trends in Style Study. Functional Stylistics and Functional Styles.
The term "stylistics" originated from the Greek "stylos", which means, "a pen".-In the course of time it developed several meanings, each one applied to a specific study of language elements and their use in speech.
It is no news that any propositional content - any "idea" - can be verbalized in several different ways. So, "May I offer you a chair?", "Take a seat, please", "Sit down" - have the same proposition (subject matter) but differ in the manner of expression, which, in its turn, depends upon the situational conditions of the communication act.
70 per cent of our lifetime is spent in various forms of communication activities - oral (speaking, listening) or written (reading, writing), so it is self-evident how important it is for a philologist to know the mechanics of relations between the non-verbal, extralinguistic, cognitive essence of the communicative act and its verbal, linguistic presentation. It is no surprise, then, that many linguists follow their famous French colleague Charles Bally, claiming that Stylistics is primarily the study of synonymic language resources.
Representatives of the not less well-known Prague school -V.Mathesius, T.Vachek, J.Havranek and others focused their attention on the priority of the situational appropriateness in the choice of language varieties for their adequate functioning. Thus, functional stylistics, which became and remains an international, very important trend in style study, deals with sets, "paradigms" of language units of all levels of language hierarchy serving to accommodate the needs of certain typified communicative situations. These paradigms are known as functional styles of the language. We shall follow the understanding of a functional style formulated by I. R. Galperin as "a system of coordinated, interrelated and interconditioned language means intended to fulfil a specific function of communication and aiming at a definite effect."
All scholars agree that a well developed language, such as English, is streamed into several functional styles. Their classifications, though, coincide only partially: most style theoreticians do not argue about the number of functional styles being five, but disagree about their nomenclature. This manual offers one of the rather widely accepted classifications which singles out the following functional styles:
1. official style, represented in all kinds of official documents and papers;
2. scientific style, found in articles, brochures, monographs and other scientific and academic publications;
3. publicist style, covering such genres as essay, feature article, most writings of "new journalism", public speeches, etc.;
4. newspaper style, observed in the majority of information materials printed in newspapers;
5. belles-lettres style, embracing numerous and versatile genres of imaginative writing.
It is only the first three that are invariably recognized in all stylistic treatises. As to the newspaper style, it is often regarded as part of the publicist domain and is not always treated individually. But the biggest controversy is flaming around the belles-lettres style. The unlimited possibilities of creative writing, which covers the whole of the universe and makes use of all language resources, led some scholars to the conviction that because of the liability of its contours, it can be hardly qualified as a functional style. Still others claim that, regardless of its versatility, the belles-lettres style, in each of its concrete representations, fulfils the aesthetic function, which fact singles this style out of others and gives grounds to recognize its systematic uniqueness, i.e. charges it with the status if an autonomous functional style.
Each of the enumerated styles is exercized in two forms - written and oral: an article and a lecture are examples of the two forms of the scientific style; news broadcast on the radio and TV or newspaper information materials - of the newspaper style; an essay and a public speech - of the publicist style, etc.
The number of functional styles and the principles of their differentiation change with time and reflect the state of the functioning language at a given period. So, only recently, most style classifications had also included the so-called poetic style which dealt with verbal forms specific for poetry. But poetry, within the last decades, lost its isolated linguistic position; it makes use of all the vocabulary and grammar offered by the language at large and there is hardly sense in singling out a special poetic style for the contemporary linguistic situation, though its relevance for the language of the seventeenth, eighteenth and even the biggest part of the nineteenth centuries cannot be argued.
Something similar can be said about the oratoric style, which in ancient Greece was instrumental in the creation of "Rhetoric", where Aristotle, its author, elaborated the basics of style study, still relevant today. The oratoric skill, though, has lost its position in social and political life. Nowadays speeches are mostly written first.
All the above-mentioned styles are singled out within the literary type of the language. Their functioning is characterized by the intentional approach of the speaker towards the choice of language means suitable for a particular communicative situation and the official, formal, preplanned nature of the latter.
The colloquial type of the language, on the contrary, is characterized by the unofficiality, spontaneity, informality of the communicative situation.
Functional stylistics, dealing in fact with all the subdivisions of the language and all its possible usages, is the most all-embracing, "global", trend in style study, and such specified stylistics as the scientific prose study, or newspaper style study, or the like, may be considered elaborations of certain fields of functional stylistics.
Functional stylistics at large and its specified directions proceed from the situationally stipulated language "paradigms" and concentrate primarily on the analysis of the latter. It is possible to say that the attention of functional stylistics is focused on the message in its correlation with the communicative situation.
In terms of information theory the author's stylistics may be named the stylistics of the encoder: the language being viewed as the code to shape the information into the message, and the supplier of the information, respectively, as the encoder. The addressee in this case plays the part of the decoder of the information contained in the message; and the problems connected with adequate reception of the message without any informational losses or deformations, i.e., with adequate decoding, are the concern of decoding stylistics.
And, finally, the stylistics, proceeding from the norms of language usage at a given period and teaching these norms to language speakers, especially the ones, dealing with the language professionally (editors, publishers, writers, journalists, teachers, etc.) is called practical stylistics.
Thus, depending on the approach and the final aim there can be observed several trends in style study. Common to all of them is the necessity to learn what the language can offer to serve the innumerable communicative tasks and purposes of language users; how various elements of the language participate in storing and transferring information; which of them carries which type of information, etc.
The best way to find answers to most of these and similar questions is to investigate informational values and possibilities of language units, following the structural hierarchy of language levels, suggested by a well-known Belgian linguist E. Benvemste about four decades ago - at the IX International Congress of Linguists in 1962, and accepted by most scholars today if not in its entirety, then at least as the basis for further elaboration and development.
E. Benveniste's scheme of analysis proceeds from the level of the phoneme - through the levels of the morpheme and the word to that of the sentence.
This book of practice is structured accordingly. The resources of each language level become evident in action, i.e. in speech, so the attention of the learners is drawn to the behaviour of each language element in functioning, to its aptitude to convey various kinds of information.
The ability of a verbal element to obtain extra significance, to say more in a definite context was called by Prague linguists foregrounding: indeed, when a word (affix, sentence), automatized by the long use in speech, through context developments, obtains some new, additional features, the act resembles a background phenomenon moving into the front line - foregrounding.
A contextually foregrounded element carries more information than when taken in isolation, so it is possible to say that in context it is loaded with basic information inherently belonging to it, plus the acquired, adherent, additional information. It is this latter that is mainly responsible for the well-known fact that a sentence always means more than the sum total of the meanings of its component-words, or a text means more than the sum of its sentences. So, stylistic analysis involves rather subtle procedures of finding the foregrounded element and indicating the chemistry of its contextual changes, brought about by the intentional, planned operations of the addresser, i.e. effected by the conscious stylistic use of the language.
For foreign language students stylistic analysis holds particular difficulties: linguistic intuition of a native speaker, which is very helpful in all philological activities, does not work in the case of foreign learners. Besides, difficulties may arise because of the inadequate language command and the ensuing gaps in grasping the basic, denotational information. Starting stylistic analysis, thus, one should bear in mind that the understanding of each separate component of the message is an indispensable condition of satisfactory work with the message as a whole, of getting down to the core and essence of its meaning.
Stylistic analysis not only broadens the theoretical horizons of a language learner but it also teaches the latter the skill of competent reading, on one hand, and language usage, on the other.