Colloquial functional style

By colloquial we mean what is only slightly lower than neutral — such forms of speech in fact as are used by people when they do not mean to be rude, sarcastic or witty, when they do not think of how they should express themselves, only of what they intend to say.

It must be borne in mind that the term 'colloquial speech' is applied by researchers to careless, unconventional, free-and-easy everyday speech of only those who are well educated and can speak 'correct' literary English perfectly well, whenever it is necessary. Just as in this country, uneducated or semi-educated speakers understand the literary language, but cannot actively use it themselves, making inadmissible mistakes.

The two tendencies, opposite but dialectically interwoven, are what is called below Explication' and 'Implication'.

Phonetics. The implicative tendency in colloquial phonetics makes itself felt first and foremost in the general carelessness and indistinctness of articulation.

Thus, primarily colloquial, although widely used nowadays in writing, are contractions like can't, mustn't, I've, she'll, etc.

To show the slur, writers use 'graphons' Ah-de-do ('How do you do'); Whatja know? ('What do you know?'), Wasser-matter? ('What is the matter?') and the like.

Explication manifests itself in affective speech.

Morphology. Purely morphemic specifics are scarce in English

It is hard to say definitely if such examples of implication as I been there; You seen him? are colloquial in the USA by now, or 'ungrammatical' ('low colloquial') as yet.

Explication is observed in analytical morphology — the use of emphasizing forms in the continuous aspect:

• double subject:

• multiple negation

• double connectors

• double attributes

• double demonstratives

Vocabulary. The bulk of words and word meanings that are marked as colloquial in comprehensive English dictionaries. Taking into account the fact that colloquial forms of any level are known to and used by practically all native speakers, the sheer numbers of this linguistic object testify to its outstanding importance.

The implicative tendency of the lexical aspect of colloquial speech manifests itself most clearly in the use of inexact, approximate denomi­nations of objects (processes, qualities). E.g. : thing, stuff, matter, affair, business, people, man, place, way. As distinct from the sublanguage of science or, especially, that of law, in which ambiguity is inadmissible the colloquial sublanguage has nouns like place at its disposal — nouns that can stand for anything located

Classes of colloquialisms as described in Lexicology are

• Colloquial words

• Jargon (professional and social) including cant (secret lingo)

• Slang – commonly used humorous or derogatory intentional substitutes for neutral or elevated expressions.

• Nonce-words (occasionalisms)

• Vulgar words

The trend towards explication is observed when the use of a colloquialism strengthens the content of the utterance. The speaker gives the units exaggerating properties of the object preference over restrained denominations.

It is only in colloquial speech that virtually the whole set of interjections begins to function.

Syntax. The description of syntactical peculiar features of the colloquial sublanguages is given more space here than any other level, since syntax is what actually dominates in forming the specifics of the colloquial. The text follows the rules of colloquial syntax, that is, if it abounds in elliptical and unfinished sentences, and, on the other hand, contains unnecessary repetitions of the same idea (characteristic of emotional overstrain), it will hardly be possible to doubt its colloquial authenticity.

1. One manifestation of implication is the use of sentences that maybe regarded to contain two members, which, however, are not the grammatical subject and predicate — just the 'theme' and the 'rheme' ('topic' and 'comment'):

"Too many people here."

"Not that again!"

"All right so far." (Galsworthy)

3. Another variety formed by non-interrogative sentences performing the function of interrogative ones can be divided into two classes: a) the word-order and general pattern are not interrogative; b) they are potential fragments of sentences — one or several parts of a sentence:

a) "You are going, Dinny?" (Galsworthy ) "Fleur -— knows?" (idem) "Saw too much of advertising with us, eh?" (idem)

b) "Your night out?" (Galsworthy ) "Sugar, Dr. Trench?" (Shaw ) Another curious peculiarity of certain pseudo-interrogations is the complexity of their implication: the sentence cannot be turned into a declarative by an elementary transformation of the negative predicate into the affirmative or vice versa. The rather widely used, practically stereotyped pseudo-question "Where do you think you are?" implies a stern reproach "This is not a place to make noise" or a slightly tempered version

of "Behave yourself!".

4. A very peculiar and extremely complicated class of sentences are those which are interrogative as regards their form, but their communicative aim is not a request to supply some information the inquirer is in need of, but to make an affirmative or negative statement.

"Did I say a word about the money?" (Shaw) implying the opposite (negative) statement ("I did not say...") The actual communicative function becomes unambiguous only after the reactive utterance of the interlocutor is known.

• clauses of unreal comparison without a principal clause to precede or to follow ("As if I ever stop thinking about her!"; «Как будто я этого хотел!» ).

• Universal ways of expressing negation (or disapproval of the very idea of something) are: ironical juxtaposition of words or phrases denoting objects and/or characteristics thought incompatible:

"George — a collector!" (Galsworthy) "I jealous!"; "That fellow repent!" (Jespersen)

• Deprecative repetition of the interlocutor's utterance (or of a part), to imply that the very idea is rejected as im­possible, improbable, wrong, etc.: "I've explained why I did that." "Explained! Explained!" (Dreiser)