Functional stylistics

1. 
Attempts to Categorize Functions of Language
More than half a century ago academician V.V.Vinogradov offered to define 
functional styles on the basis of a trichotomy of language functions 
– the 
communicative, the intellective and the aesthetic  ones. Today this trichotomy has 
become so much part and parcel of a philologist’s professional experience, that 
gradually the world of learning started accepting it as the indispensable foundation of 
all stylistic studies, without bothering to really understand why it is the thre e functions 
by Vinogradov and not the six functions by Jacobson or the four functions by Karl 
Bühler that are considered to be the corner-stone of all further research. Lack of 
interest to the background of Vinogradov’s theory often led to different aberra tions and 
distortions in its subsequent development by the followers of the Russian scholar. Since 
it was not quite clear why there are three functions, nothing could prevent a scholar 
from reducing the trichotomy in question to a simplistic dichotomy (int ellective vs. 
aesthetic functions) and beginning to compare various linguistic phenomena in order to 
prove the obvious fact that in scientific prose and in artistic texts they function 
differently. 
Such studies were of a very limited value and did not brin g the scholars anywhere 
near the final goal of functional stylistics 
– a description and systematization of the 
functional styles of the English or any other language. The most essential point in 

---

Vinogradov’s trichotomy is its catergorial nature, which means that this classification is 
applicable to all linguistic facts and that these three functions can be treated (in a very 
broad and general sense) as mutually exclusive catergorial forms possessing both the 
linguistic expression and extra linguistic conte nt. 
In the list of functions the communicative one is ontologically the first among the 
three. It is the unmarked member of the categorial opposition to be observed in the 
situations of the ‘non-specialized’ and ‘non-artistic’ communication and is associated 
with the notion of linguistic norm. The other two members of the opposition are marked: 
the intellective function is performed in situations of ‘specialized’ communication and is 
characterized by a more restricted use of linguistic elements, while the a esthetic 
function (the function of aesthetic impact) is connected with ‘artistic’ communication and 
with linguistic units displaying their metaphorical potential to the utmost, one way or 
another violating and playing upon the norm. The existence of this o pposition had been 
discovered long before the theory of functional styles appeared. The famous Prague 
linguist Bohuslav Havranek wrote about it as far back as 1932, describing the linguistic 
phenomena 
in 
question 
as 
‘automatization’ 
for 
the 
communicative 
function, 
‘intellectualization’ for the intellective function, and ‘foregrounding’ for the 
aesthetic function. However, neither he, nor any other scholar at that time succeeded in 
applying this excellent theoretical proposition to the study of the actual li nguistic 
material. Only much later there appeared papers proving that this categorial trichotomy 
is manifested on all levels of linguistic organization of a text and that it creates the 
proper basis for the functional-stylistic investigation of language in general. 
As a categorial phenomenon, the trichotomy in question cannot be extended by 
any other members or reduced to dualistic oppositions. Although, according to 
Vinogradov, among the main six functional styles only the ‘colloquial’ one ( обиходно-
бытовой) is related to the communicative function while the other five are connected 
with the marked members of the opposition [V.V.Vinogradov, 1968], still the 
communicative function represents the linguistic norm and is therefore fulfilled by any 
text and may be found in all functional styles. At the same time, one can easily find in 
texts belonging to the colloquial functional style the elements associated with the other 
two functions. Due to this fact the introduction of direct and straightforward correlation
between functions and functional styles is useful only to a certain extent, as a 
methodologically convenient simplification of the actual state of affairs which is much 
more complex. 
For fear of making the specimens of one and the same functional style pr actically 
indistinguishable from each other, the division of the enormous linguistic material into 

---


the language of business documents,

the language of legal documents,

the language of diplomacy,

the language of military documents.
I. R. Galperin sees the main communicative aim of this style in stating the 
conditions binding two parties in an undertaking. Considering particular substyles, for 
instance the legal language, or the language of the law, David Crystal and Derek Davy 
point out that it would be quite misleading to speak of legal language as communicating 
meaning. Of all uses of language, the language of the law is perhaps the least 
communicative, since it is designed mainly to allow one expert to register information 
for scrutiny by another. This causes much of its unusualness and oddity. In fact, the 
legal writers use specific jargon which does not reflect the needs of a general public. 
Another quality which determines the style of legal documents is the extreme linguistic 
conservativism of legal English, apparent at the level of sentence structures and lexis 
(Crystal, Davy, ibid.).
Some other peculiarities of the style of official documents can be mentioned here. 
At the level of lexis the most striking feature is a special system of clichés, terms and 
set expressions by which each substyle can easily be recognized (e.g. I beg to inform 
you, I beg to move, provisional agenda, the above -mentioned, on behalf of, private 
advisory, Dear Sir, We remain, your obedient servants, etc.) In fact, each of the 
subdivisions of this style has its own peculiar terms, phrases and expressions which 
differ from the corresponding terms, phrases and expressions of other variants of this 
style. Thus in finance we find terms like extra revenue, taxable capabilities, liability to 
profit tax, in legal language: to deal with a case, summary procedure, a body of judges . 
Likewise other varieties of official language have their special nomenclature, which is 
conspicuous in the text, and therefore easily discernible.
Besides the special nomenclature characteristic of each variety of the style, 
there are certain features common to all varieties:

the use of abbreviations, symbols, contractions,

the use of words in their logical dictionary meaning (in military 
documents sometimes metaphorical names are given to mountains, rivers, hills 
or villages), 

---


no words with emotive meaning except those which are used in 
business letters as conventional phrases of greeting or close, as Dear Sir, 
yours faithfully.
The distinctive properties appear as a system. The style is not recognizable only 
through its vocabulary. The syntactic pattern of the style is as significant as the 
vocabulary though not perhaps so immediately apparent.