Stylistic and Affective Meaning

We turn now to two aspects of communication which have to do with the situation in which an utterance takes place. Stylistic meaning is that which a piece of language conveys about the social circumstances of its use. We ‘decode’ the stylistic meaning of a text through our recognition of different dimensions and levels of usage within the same language. We recognize some words or pronunciations as being dialectal, i. e. as telling us something of the geographical or social origin of the speaker; other features of language tell us something of the social relationship between the speaker and hearer: we have a scale of status usage, for example, descending from formal and literary English at one end to colloquial, familiar, and eventually slang English at the other.

A recent account of English style (Crystal and Davy, Investigating English Style) has recognized the following main dimensions of stylistic variation (I have added the examples of the categories of usage one might distinguish on each dimension):

A (Relatively permanent features of style)

individuality (The language of Mr X, of Mrs Y, of Miss Z, etc.)

dialect (The language of a geographical region or of a social class)

time (The language of the eighteenth century, etc.)

B

discourse

a) medium (Speech, writing, etc.)

b) participation (Monologue, dialogue, etc.)

С (Relatively temporary features of style)

province (Language of law, of science, of advertising, etc.)

status (Polite, colloquial, slang, etc., language)

modality (Language of memoranda, lectures, jokes, etc.)

singularity (The style of Dickens, of Hemingway, etc.)

Although not exhaustive, this list indicates something of the range of style differentiation possible within a single language. It is not surprising, perhaps, that we rarely find words which have both the same conceptual meaning and the same stylistic meaning. This observation has frequently led people to declare that “true synonyms do not exist”. If we understand synonymy as complete equivalence of communicative effect, it is indeed hard to find an example that will disprove this statement. But there is much convenience in restricting the term synonymy to equivalence of conceptual meaning, so that we may then contrast conceptual synonyms with respect to their varying stylistic overtones:

steed (poetic) domicile (very formal, official)

horse (general) residence (formal)

nag (slang) abode (poetic)

gee-gee (baby language) hone (general)

cast (literary, biblical) diminutive (very formal)

throw (general) tiny (colloquial)

chuck (casual, slang) wee (colloquial, dialectal)

The style dimension of status is particularly important in distinguishing synonymous expressions. Here is an example in which the difference of status is maintained through a whole sentence, and is reflected in syntax as well as in vocabulary:

1) They chucked a stone at the cops, and then did a bunk with the loot.

2) After casting a stone at the police, they absconded with the money.

Sentence (1) could be said by two criminals, talking casually about the crime afterwards; sentence (2) might be said by the chief inspector in making his official report. Both could be describing the same happening, and their common ground of conceptual meaning is evident in the difficulty anyone would have to assenting to the truth of one of these sentences, and denying the truth of the other.

If we extend the idea of linguistic situation a bit more we see that language can also reflect the personal feelings of the speaker, including his attitude to the listener, or his attitude to something he is talking about. Affective meaning, as this sort of meaning can be called, is often explicite conveyed through the conceptual or connotative content of the words used. Someone who is addressed: You’re a vicious tyrant and a villainous reprobate, and I hate you for it! is left in little doubt as to the feelings of the speaker towards him. But there are less direct ways of disclosing our attitude than this: for example, by scaling our remarks according to politeness. With the object of getting people to be quiet, we might say either:

3) I’m terribly sorry to interrupt, but I wonder if you would be so kind as to lower your voices a little.

or:

4) Will you belt up?

Factors such as intonation and voice-timbre — what we often refer to as ‘tone of voice’ — are also important here. The impression of politeness in (3) can be reversed by a tone of biting sarcasm; sentence (4) can be turned into a playful remark between intimates if delivered with the intonation of a mild request.

Affective meaning is largely a parasitic category in the sense that to express our emotions we rely upon the mediation of other categories of meaning — conceptual, connotative, or stylistic. Emotional expression through style comes about, for instance, when we adopt an impolite tone to express displeasure (as in (4) above), or we adopt a casual tone to express friendliness. On the other hand, there are elements of language (chiefly interjections, like Aha! and Yippee!)whose chief function is to express emotion. When we use these, we communicate feelings and attitudes without the mediation of any other kind of semantic function.