Chloupek Jan Nekvapil Jiri Editors Studies in Functional Sty PDF

STUDIES IN FUNCTIONAL STYLISTICS
LINGUISTIC & LITERARY STUDIES IN EASTERN

EUROPE (LLSEE)
The emphasis of this scholarly series is on recent

developments in Linguistic and Literary Research in Eastern
Europe; it includes analysis, translations and syntheses
of current research as well as studies in the history
of linguistic and literary scholarship.
Founding Editor: John Odmark †
General Editor:
Philip A. Luelsdorff
Institut für Anglistik
Universität Regensburg
D-8400 Regensburg
Germany
Volume 36
Jan Chloupek and Jiří Nekvapil (eds)
Studies in Functional Stylistics

STUDIES IN
FUNCTIONAL STYLISTICS
edited by
JAN CHLOUPEK and JIRI NEKVAPIL
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

AMSTERDAM / PHILADELPHIA
1993
Reviewers:
Jiří Kraus
Libuse Dusková
Co-published with Academia, Publishing House of the Czech Academy of Sciences,

Prague, Czech Republic
Sole rights world-wide with the exception of Albania, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Mongolia, North Korea, Poland, Rumania, Vietnam,
former U.S.S.R and Yugoslavia:
John Benjamins B. V., Amsteldijk 44, P. O. Box 75577, 1070 AN Amsterdam, The
Netherlands
Library of Congress Catalogmg-iibPublication Data

Studies in functional stylisties/edited by Jan Chloupek andJiříNekvapil.
p. cm. - (Linguistic & literary studies in Eastern Europe; ISSN 0165-7712; v. 36)
includes indexes.
1. Language and languages-Style. 2. Czech language-Style.
I. Chloupek, Jan IL Nekvapil,Jiří.III. Series.
P301.S86 1993
410--dc20 93-18296
ISBN 90 272 1545 6 (Eur.)/l-55619-261-4 (US) (alk. paper) CIP
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or
any other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P O. Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Nether
lands John Benjamins North America • 821 Bethlehem Pike • Philadelphia, PA 19118 •
USA
ISBN 90 272 1545 6 (Europe)

ISBN 1 55619 263 4 (USA)
© Jan Chloupek,JiříNekvapil - editors, 1993
(C) Jan (Jhioupek,JiříNekvapil, Frantisele Danes, Karel Hausenblas, Jifi Kraus, Oldfich
Leska, Alexandr Stich.'Otak?r Soltys, Jifi Zeman, 1993
Contents
Opening Remarks 7
Prologue: Ferdinand de Saussure and the Prague Linguistic Circle 9

(by Oldřich Leska, Jifi Nekvapil and Otakar Soltys)
The Position of Style in Verbal Communication 51
Karel Hausenblas
Language Varieties and Styles in Communication 68
Jan Chloupek
On the Beginnings of Modern Standard Czech 92
Alexandr Stich
Slang and Some Related Problems in Czech Linguistics 99
Jiří Nekvapil
Publicist Style 112
Jan Chloupek
Semantic Contexts in a Poetical Work 127
Karel Hausenblas
On the Stylistic Aspect of Coreferential Naming Chains 146
Frantisek Danes
The Position of Verbless Clauses in the System
of Means of Czech Functional Styles 163
Otakar Soltys
On the Asymmetry between Syntactic and Elementary
Textual Units 186
Jifi Nekvapil
CONTENTS
The Language and Style of Hasek's Novel "The Good Soldier

Svejk" from the Viewpoint of Translation 223
Frantisek Danes
Conversion of "Key Words" of English Song Lyrics
into Czech 248
Jiří Nekvapil and Jiří Zeman
On the Concept of Language Culture 257
Alexandr Stich
Rhetoric, Functional Stylistics and Theory of
Language Culture 272
Jifi Kraus
Epilogue: On the Way to a General Stylistics
of Human Activity 278
(by Jifi Nekvapil)
List of Contributors 285

Index of Names 287
Subject Index 291
Opening Remarks
These Studies in Functional Stylistics are freely linked to the Reader in

Czech Sociolinguistics (Prague: Academia, 1986, and Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1987).
The contributions in the present collection can be divided roughly into
these three groups:
(1) Contributions directly following up the main principles of functional
stylistics and the theory of language culture, elaborated in the classical
period of the Prague Linguistic School.
(2) Contributions concerning the problems of style in a wider com
municative arena. These contributions are closely related to contempor
ary text linguistics and also deal with problems involving psycholinguis-
tics, sociolinguistics and semiotics.
(3) Contributions having, at least in some part, a pronounced his
toriographic character. These contributions reflect the fact that contem
porary Czech linguistic research is firmly anchored in the Prague lin
guistic tradition.
Although the authors' frame of reference is mainly the Czech language
and the current language situation in Czechoslovakia, the majority of
contributions were intended to have a more general linguistic character
and general linguistic validity.
The manuscript was submitted to the publishing house in September
1989.
The Editors
Prologue
Ferdinand de Saussure and the Prague Linguistic Circle
Oldřich Lšeka, Jiří Nekvapil and Otakar Soltys
This paper deals with the historical developments that created the conditions for the rise
of modern linguistic theory in Czechoslovakia. The authors' attention is focused on the
work of the founder of the Prague Linguistic Circle, Vilém Mathesius. His work forms
the background for a description of E de Saussure's ideas as given in the Cours de
linguistique générale, and for a discussion of how they were received and interpreted.
Emphasis is laid on the stimulating influence of the Saussurean concepts, and their
modification by Prague linguistics is discussed. Special attention is paid to the application
of the theory in the field of functional stylistics and language culture.
Reading V. Mathesius' memoirs of his student years at Prague
university1 we find no hint in its atmosphere of the subsequent tempes
tuous development of linguistic thought that was to be witnessed some
twenty years later, from the mid-twenties.2 An encounter with Jan
Gebauer (1838 - 1907) appears to have been disappointing for Mathe
sius; on Gebauer's lectures (old Czech literature) and seminars (inter
pretations of old Czech texts), he commented: "It was an atmosphere
in which the rigour of scientific method and the weight of scientific
authority made themselves clearly felt, but one that bred no ideas."3
The founder of Czech German studies and also an English studies
scholar by interest, Vàclav Emanuel Mourek (1846 - 1911), did not
reach Gebauer's scientific level, but he had a warmer and livelier
approach to people and things. He was not a wholehearted advocate of
the Neogrammarian doctrine and gravitated to it only in the last years
of the century; for this reason he was open to other trends of linguistic
study of that time and was suited to the role of mediator between their
representatives and his students.4 The biographical dates of Emanuel
Kovář (1861 - 1898), assistant professor of general linguistics, shows
him to be outside Mathesius' reach and the latter does not mention him.
The body of Kovář's work, however, reveals a most interesting per
sonality completely forgotten today. Josef Zubaty was difficult to place
in context of contemporary linguistic trends, and his own work resists
any such categorization. Respect for his teacher, A. Ludwig, together
with sceptical views on the Neogrammarian theses, might rank him as
10 OLDŘICH LEŠKA, JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL AND OTAKAR SOLTYS
a conservative, but his inimitable feeling for the facts of language and
his versatility, incompatible with any schematic or dogmatic approach,
connect him more with the things to come in linguistics than the past.5
Judging from his works - it is typical that not one of them is systematiz
ing; this also applies for example, to his lithographed lecture "The
Czech Verb"6 - he was an invaluable teacher only for exceptionally
purposeful students such as B. Havránek and a source of stimulation
only for equally outstanding academic colleagues.7 Frantisek Pastrnek
(1853 -1940) and Jiří Polívka (1858 - 1933) were far too much immersed
in special questions of Slavonic studies to become aware of the wider
perspectives and methodological foundations of language study; Ger
manic studies and literary scholar Arnost Kraus (1859 - 1943) and
Romance studies specialist Jan Urban Jarnik (1848 - 1923) conclude the
short list of names in Mathesius' memoirs. He makes no mention of his
English linguistics teachers at the German university.
On the whole it was not a linguistic environment to inspire new
thoughts; on the other hand it was not controlled by any particular
doctrine so that the search for new paths, conducted in an atmosphere
of academic tolerance, did not encounter any particular obstacles. And
it was because of this search that Vilém Mathesius, Protestant and
heretic, as he was characterized by Otakar Fischer8 on the occasion of
Mathesius' 50th birthday, went down in the history of Czech linguistics.
There is no need to guess at what paths Mathesius' thought took.
He described them in general outline in his retrospective article "The
Roots of My Linguistic Thought".9 The reasons why he did not suc
cumb to the opinions tradionally held at the university were above all
these: from secondary school he brought the gift and need to experience
and evaluate the facts of contemporary language personally;10 he
formed his own idea of what modern science should be like, an idea
different from the scientism advocated by Neogrammarians.11 Thence
it was a small step to the discovery of German and English synchronic
linguists.12 This goes to explain why Mathesius' dissertation Taine's
Criticism of Shakespeare13 counterbalances the attempts at determinist
interpretation of literary development with a demand for a reliable
method of scientific analysis of a literary work; why he chose word
order in present-day English as the subject of his thesis;14 why in the
academic year of 1909/10 he began his course with a lecture provoca
tively entitled "Introduction to the Scientific Study of the English
Language through an Analysis of Present-Day Speech". In 1911
Mathesius published his treatise "On the Potentiality of the Phenomena
of Language",15 which fully reveals him as an exponent of a synchronic
SAUSSURE AND THE PLC 11
and functional approach. It should be noted that in the same year

Ferdinand de Saussure finished the third and last version of his lectures
in general linguistics at the University of Geneva.
Mathesius' development did not involve an internal struggle with
the Neogrammarian system; that was simply put aside. His attention
was directed to a less conspicuous companion of historism - the Hum-
boldtian tradition. For many others, however, the road to modern
linguistics meant coming to terms with the Neogrammarian doctrine,
which was far from easy.
The Neogrammarian approach was not as simple as might appear
from the summary assessments made at the time when it already was,
or was becoming, dated. One only needs to read Paul's Prinzipien der
Sprachgeschichte16 carefully to realize that it was not blind to linguistic
reality and issues of general linguistics. It is difficult to tax the author
with something he has failed to notice and has not dealt with in his own
way. The connections Paul makes between things look strange today
until we put the author's requirements on scientific linguistic investiga
tion into a present-day perspective. Scientific study must not merely
state, it has to interpret; to explain a linguistic phenomenon means to
establish its causal connections in historical sequence.17 The charac
terization of separate stages of a language is only the internal prerequi
site for historical study. Synchrony hidden under historism thus re
mains an open issue to be solved by future generations of linguists. The
object of description of a linguistic stage lies in an individual "psychic
(linguistic) organism", i. e. variable associative arrangements beyond
the threshold of consciousness of all linguistic input that has entered
individual consciousness,19 and the description of the linguistic stage
must faithfully reflect these arrangements.20 Perceptive introspection
and analysis of one's own linguistic consciousness are both a prepara
tion and a means for this kind of work21 with the aid of observed
linguistic facts. Objectivization of the language arrangement will be
come the key problem of future synchronic studies. Common to a
variety of "(linguistic) psychic organisms" is "language usage".22 The
whole of Prinzipienlehre der Sprachgeschichte revolves around the rela
tionship between language usage and individual manifestations.23
The general issues of language - providing merely a framework for
the Neogrammarian search for causal historical relations and not an
aim in themselves - lost value as invigorating factors, failed to develop
and stagnated into a more or less immobile background to a fairly
simple technique of concrete work.24 Such work was unsatisfactory for
agile minds for its lack of challenge, but its high productivity and
12 OLDŘICH LEŠKA, ŘÌ NEKVAPIL AND OTAKAR ŠOLTYS
impressive factual richness and precision made it attractive to those

content with the Neogrammarian theoretical equipment. Until de Saus-
sure's appearance, no one noticed that Neogrammarians (e. g. Paul - in
our citations) had regarded language from different viewpoints, as was
aptly shown by Z. Stary.25 Unification of the viewpoints in de Saus-
sure's approach (to continue in the spirit of the paper we have quoted)
deprives the human subject of the role of prime agent; language speaks
through him and becomes the definite integral subject matter of linguis
tics.26 In this respect linguistics was not isolated; elsewhere, too, the
human subject relinquishes its central position. Marx observes that
people are unaware that they are making history.
The conditions for the change in atmosphere at the turn of the
century were present not only in personal feelings, but also in the need
for the search of linguistic models among the new generation to which
Mathesius belonged. Stimuli also came from nonlinguistic spheres,
especially contemporary philosophy, which, by turning to phenomeno
logy, tried to revive philosophic thought after the crisis of classical
philosophy - mainly German - in the 19th century. In this philosophical
direction language played a significant role. Among the disciples of the
school's founder, Franz Brentano (1838 - 1917), whose anticlerical
attitude was another attraction, were Anton Marty (1847 - 1914),
professor of the German University in Prague, and also T. G. Masaryk
(1850 - 1937), to whose Foundations of Concrete Logic Mathesius refers
in the conclusion of his treatise "On the Potentiality": hence his distinc
tion between static (i. e. synchronic) and dynamic (i. e. diachronic)
problems.27 Mathesius' colleague, English linguistics scholar Otto
Funke (1885 - ?), was a disciple of Marty's. In the treatise "Über
Prinzipienfragen der Sprachwissenschaft"28, Funke reproduces Marty's
remarks on the interpretation of linguistic phenomena, found in his
estate: "Sobald man - meinte Paul - über das bloße Konstatieren von
Einzelheiten hinausgehe, sobald man den Zusammenhang zu erfassen
suche, so betrete man geschichtlichen Boden. Marty entgegnet: dem
gegenüber ist daran zu erinnern, daß das Begreifen der Erscheinungen
und das Erfassen der Zusammenhänge, wovon Paul als in engerem
Sinne wissenschaftlicker Tätigkeit spricht, nicht notwendig das Erfassen
der Kausalgesetze und das Begreifen der Erscheinungen aus ihren
Ursachen sein muß. Begreifen bedeutet allgemein "ein einzelnes als Fall
eines allgemeinen Gesetzes, einer Notwendigkeit erkennen". Solche
Notwendigkeiten aber bestehen nicht bloß in bezug auf die Entstehung,

kurz: es gibt neben genetischen auch deskriptive Gesetze" (cf. quotation
in Note 17 on this.)29 Marty is also recalled by Mathesius, namely his
sign conception of language, but much later.
When de Saussure (1857 - 1913) took over the course in general
linguistics from his colleague Josef Wertheimer, he had scarcely seven
years to live. The book which was published by his students30 in the
middle of World War I is, in this respect, a historical accident; if no one
had taken care of and preserved the notes, historians of linguistics
might later on have noted elements of structuralist thought without a
general background in de Saussure's comparative works, and quite
likely marvelled at his first treatise "Mémoire sur le système primitif des
voyelles dans les langues indoeuropéennes" (1878), which sticks out like
an erratic boulder at the beginning of the Neogrammarian era.31 To
wards the end of his life de Saussure was engaged in the analysis of
Latin anagrams; notes on this form the greater part of the unpublished
material in his estate. The links between this interest and the theory he
expounded in his lectures remain unclear. It is known that he was not
going to publish his views on general linguistics;32 preserved notes and
preliminary studies are few and far between.33 There is no doubt that
his posthumous book contains a certain number of accidental features.
It is impossible, however, to determine which they are; the text of the
Cours must therefore be taken as it is. The factors involved include the
participation of the no te-takers and editors in the text as well as the
reflection of de Saussure's own doubts which he mentioned to L.
Gautier in 1911: "Je suis toujours très tracassé par mon cours de
linguistique générale (...) Je me trouve placé devant un dilemme: ou bien
exposer le sujet dans toute sa complexité et avouer tous mes doutes (...)
Ou bien faire quelque chose de simplifié (...) Mais à chaque pas je me
trouve arreté par des scrupules."34 If the origin of this particular book
was due to chance, then a similar book was bound to appear sooner or
later just as someone like V. Mathesius was sooner or later bound to
emerge in Prague. De Saussure's Cours was in fact in tune with the
trends of both scientific and artistic thought of the period.35
If it was previously possible to view things with their interrelations
in the background or even without any reference to them at all, in the
following period, these relations come to the fore and the focus is on
things (objects) which have no existence outside their relations and are
14 OLDŘICH LEŠKA, JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL AND OTAKAR ŠOLTYS
defined by them. This new perspective is primarily reflected in the fact

that the key notion of de Saussure's conception becomes the sign,36 a
relational concept par excellence. The change in the tide is above all
manifest in the reception of de Saussure's work and the way it was being
developed.37 De Saussure's contribution was not a revelation of a new
truth but a clear formulation of things more or less clearly realized.
Strangely contrasting with the importance ascribed to Cours today is
the following annotation in Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 1929/5 (in the
bibliographic section summarizing the output between 1922 - 3) for the
2nd edition of Cours: "Unveränderter Abdruck der ersten Ausgabe.
Sehr ungleich von Wert. Neben tiefen Einblicken in das Leben der
Sprache, dilettantische Freisinnigkeiten." Whereas in the next item
(143), announcing the publication of Jespersen's book Language, its
Nature, Development and Origin, the annotator remarks:"Ausgezeich
nete Arbeit, die nun auch jeder lesen möge." De Saussure's book did not
fall into a vacuum. The linguistic public is a community of people
engaged in concrete work, with a fundamental need of internal continu
ity in their work; they do not live on reactions to external stimuli such
as the publication of a new book. And, of course, internal life of such
a community carries with it a certain amount of inertia. Also, the spirit
of the new times did not revive on the signing of the peace treaty; it took
some time before Europe recovered from the shock of war and grew
accustomed to the new conditions.
According to Mathesius' memoirs de Saussure's Cours reached
Prague "some time in 1919".38 De Saussure was, of course, known here
but only as a specialist in Indo-European linguistics.39 The Czech reader
could first learn about his lectures on general linguistics from foreign
sources; no news, not to mention a review, of the book was ever
published here. It was not mentioned until 1926 by Mathesius, who also
in a way assessed it.40 This course of things was far from usual, though
not entirely inexplicable. In the case of Mathesius, de Saussure's Cours
could, in the first place, be seen as a confirmation of the correctness of
the tenor of linguistic thought he had chosen.41 De Saussure's book
seems first to have entered general linguistic consciousness as an idio
syncratic formulation of common - evident or guessed - general issues.
And, as we shall see, only later - in a wide international exchange of
views - did de Saussure's formulations gradually assume the nature of
a referential basis with a conceptually unifying role in terms of a general
consensus (identification) or a background against which to identify

differences in individual conceptions. Within a short time de Saussure's
Cours began to occupy the position in linguistic consciousness that we
are used to assigning to it today.42
In the previous paragraphs we have considerably run ahead of our
exposition; now it is time to go back and deal briefly with Mathesius'
works from 1911 - 1920. First comes the above-mentioned treatise "On
the Potentiality". (In the following, numbers in brackets refer to JKS.)43
Here Mathesius treats variation in the quantity of English sounds,44
variable marking of the beginning of words by the glottal stop in Czech
and German (16ff), statistical tendencies in the degree of emphasis of
particular parts of speech (19ff), statistical word-order tendencies (21),
possibilities of investigating in this way what we would today call in
Karcevskij's terms the asymmetric dualism of the sign,45 statistical
regularity in the length of the English sentence and the distribution of
predications within it (21), and finally he considers the effects of the
functional orientation of communication ("style of speech") and the
individual characteristics of style within statistical selectional tenden
cies (22ff). Mathesius is markedly oriented (in de Saussure's words)
towards parole, and only this may explain the wide range of topics
appearing in his treatise (cf. potentiality of quantity/variability in mea
suring the quantity of a sound ~ the phonetic potentiality of a dialect
which can be observed in its system of sounds or the structure of words,
or both46). It should be noted that Mathesius' lecture easily tells us
more today than it told its listeners then. Not surprisingly, when de
livered under the chairmanship of J. Zubaty, it was not followed by a
discussion. Regardless of the fact that the text is not particularly suited
to spoken communication, the silence was more likely a sign of academ
ic liberalism than lack of understanding, as it was quite easy to point
out the heterogeneity of facts and sketchy argumentation on some
points.
Mathesius aims to show linguistic reality in its unsimplified, and
yet structured, form while founding the idea of structuredness on the
awareness of functional dependence, cooperation of a variety of factors
and the interrelation of different aspects of the same phenomenon.47
This awareness of the functional interrelation of linguistic phenomena
was enough for him to identify with the idea of the systematic nature
of language later on. Apparently, de Saussure's idea of systemic ar-
rangement blended with Mathesius' own view of the functional inter

dependence of linguistic phenomena, as shown here: "...in my lecture
'On the Potentiality of Linguistic Phenomena', published in Vëstnik
Královské ceské spolecnosti uk 1911, I also emphasize the mutual
dependence of coexistent facts of a given language".48 This was the
starting-point of Mathesius' further ideas and may be seen as the
amalgamating basis for everything new that was to come. In the context
of Czech linguistics this treatise is invaluable. With further historical
connections, Mathesius' functional thought gradually shifted away
from de Saussure's structural thought and in this way not only the core
but the overall contours of modern linguistics took shape. For our
further discussion we must remember the extended untraditional con
ception of morphology in his "On the Potentiality": "The morphologi
cal aspect by which I understand all that concerns the forms of words
and sentences..."49
Mathesius' syntactic works "Notes on So-Called Ellipsis and Eng
lish Verbless Clauses," "On Apposition in Modern English," "On
Nominal Tendencies in New English Verbal Predication"50 brought
forth critical response. It was a good sign.51 The treatises "On the
Passive in Modern English", "Notes on New English Qualifying
Clauses"52 bring nothing new methodologically. The article "On Lin
guistic Correctness"53 is somewhat special, giving a hint of Mathesius
as the future theoretician of language culture.
Compared with the previous period, the early twenties saw a
number of new developments: in 1920 Mathesius meets R. Jakobson;
from 1923 B. Trnka becomes Mathesius' constant assistant and col
laborator in the years he was suffering from an eye disease; the focus
and material basis of Mathesius' work shift to Czech language studies
(Mathesius concentrates on colloquial Czech which he could study
aurally).54 The treatise "A Few Words on the Essence of the Sentence"55
takes up the ideas of K. Bühler56 to outline the main pillars of Mathe
sius' system of functional grammar - functional onomatology and
functional syntax - and foreshadows the future distinction between the
sentence and utterance. With the above-mentioned extended conception
of morphology of 1911 added, by 1923 the contours of Mathesius'
functional grammar were complete. This must have been the way the
contents and arrangement of his regular university readings, started in
1909, developed; their final version is known to us in a book edited by
J. Vachek. The urgent need for a discussion forum and coordinated

work, which grew in proportion to the amount and extent of informa
tion on what was going on elsewhere in the world, resulted in the
foundation of the Prague Linguistic Circle.
The "ideological foundations"58 of the new association were pro
vided by Mathesius' reflections which were delivered on October 14,
1925, in the presence of B. Havránek, R. Jakobson, S. Karcevskij and
. Trnka and, quite aptly, published in English in Zubaty's Festschrift
MHNMA ("New Currents"). They are the result of Mathesius' think
ing, clearly reflecting the new horizons that were opening before
modern linguistics in different parts of the linguistic world. What may
have previously been suspected in him as an implication here finds
definite expression.
Let us review the contents of "New Currents" (the numbers in
brackets refer to Zubaty's Festschrift) from this point of view. The
distinction between static ~ dynamic was known before, what is new
is the terminology static/synchronic ~ dynamic/diachronic (190)59.
Mathesius contrasts the procedure "from form to function" with "from
function to form" (198); in this connection he also differentiates be
tween the approach from the listener's point of view and that from the
speaker's point of view (198). Formal systems are based on formal
associations (199).60 The central theme of the article is the analysis and
development of implications following from the functional approach
(i. e. from function to form). Here we find a schema of Mathesius' later
understanding of functional grammar.61 The functional approach is
extended to the study of more languages - both related and unrelated
genetically - by means of analytic comparison (199). Parallel to the
distinction between synchronic and diachronic linguistic aspects is the
differentiation between the analytic comparative and the historical
comparative method.62 Determination of tendencies is part of syn
chronic description in the form of analysis of functional alternatives
(191). A natural outcome of these thoughts is the idea of the scientific
description of language - linguistic characterology (191)."New Cur
rents" also requires to take account of the various functions of sounds,
the forerunner of Mathesius' subsequent interest in phonology (194).
The problem of de Saussure's separation of langue ~ parole appears
here in two forms: first, when the relation between syntactic and stylistic
investigations is characterized;63 secondly, when the problem of asym
metry between expression and function is expanded by an account of
18 OLDŘICH LEŠKA, J1ŘÍ NEKVAPIL AND OTAKAR ŠOLTYS
the difference between socially conventional and individual phenome

na.64 The quotation in Note 64 shows which ways were taken and what
conclusions arrived at by Mathesius' functionalism, and it also explains
why he was, even earlier, so intensely interested in the relation between
communicative and expressive function. The same functional orienta
tion leads Mathesius, after concurring with A. Marty's views, to the
conception of language as a system of conventional signs. This, at the
same time, settles for him the relationship between linguistics and
psychology; convergence with psychology was helpful in reviving a
number of linguistic problems, but linguistic psychologism completely
failed.65 Investigation of the interconnections between coexistent facts
becomes the starting-point for Mathesius in solving issues of historical
development as well. This is the way - i. e. functionalist/teleological - he
formulates the meaning of the question why? For example, he twice
returns to the need to explain in a new way the disappearance of the
declension in English and points out the connection with problems of
word order (192) and the possibility of generalizing occasional emphat
ic modes of expression in which the functionality of case endings
became obscured (202). According to Mathesius the notion of a purely
phonetic nature of sound changes should be revised; they can be due to
an original socially stylistic opposition which was obliterated when the
innovative member of the opposition became generalized.
"New Currents" thus shows the characteristic reflection of Saus-
surean themes in Mathesius' thinking. If we compare the contents of
this article with the developments he made before the early twenties, we
are surprised by the remarkable continuity and, at the same time, the
unfolding and enrichment of the subject. At the time when he was
preparing his lecture, he undoubtedly knew Cours. What we are unable
to tell is to what extent and in what respect the knowledge was a
necessary and direct instigation for the elaboration of his own system.
The form in which Saussurean topics appear in Mathesius is accounted
for by his need to preserve his own hallmark and by his own action-
directed makeup.66 The reason why a reference to de Saussure appears
in "New Currents" only at a quite trivial point is, however, not clear.
It may be that at first de Saussure's greatest contribution was generally
seen in his opposition to prevalent historism.67 Indisputably the issues
of general linguistics gained in factual clarity in Mathesius' formula
tions when connected with concrete questions of scholarly interest,
although, at the same time, their logical context and often also concep
tual definiteness were often lost. In the following year, 1926, after the
delivery of Mathesius' "ideological foundations" for the intended asso
ciation, the Prague Linguistic Circle (PLC) came into being.
If the Circle wanted to take part in the international efforts to
create modern linguistics, it had to present itself to the international
forum in an intelligible way. As de Saussure was becoming, or had
already become, the symbol of modern linguistics, swaying it in a
predominantly structuralist direction, members of the Circle could not
cling to the initial formulations based on synchronic functionalism. It
was also becoming evident that, for reasons of conceptual cohesion and
overall scientific strategy, functionally oriented considerations had to of
necessity take account of structure. And so a typically Prague
functional-structuralist, multiaspectual understanding of problems and
way of dealing with them began to evolve. Its positive feature was
constant attention to linguistic reality, which precluded dogmatic insist
ence on terminological issues. The Circle returned to general questions,
previously outlined only in working hypotheses, in its subsequent dis
cussions, but Mathesius contributed only a little to them in his pub
lished works; possibly because he had said as much as he needed to from
his functionalist point of view in his early works. We know, too, that he
did not identify with de Saussure's formulations completely.68 In this
atmosphere of lively discussion R. Jakobson - as we shall see later - took
the opposite stand.
A good example of a situation in which the essentially innovative
Prague approach could be confronted with others was the participation
of the Circle's members in the 1st International Linguistic Congress in
the Hague two years after the formation of the Circle (1928).69 They
contributed to the discussion on the method of linguistic description,70
but each spoke for himself and in his own way. Mathesius in his speech
"On Linguistic Characterology with Illustrations from Modern Eng
lish" (Actes, p. 56 - 63) used his typical functional synchronic method.
S. Karcevskij (Actes, p. 53 - 55) was thoroughly inspired by his teacher,
de Saussure, and his conception of synchronic description is quite
incommensurable with Mathesius' characterology. R. Jakobson, S. Kar
cevskij, N. Trubetzkoy in their joint contribution formulated the first
principles of Prague phonology. Their inspiration was de Saussure,
who, in the atmosphere of that time, was generally regarded as the
20 OLDRICH LESKA, JIRÍ NEKVAPIL AND OTAKAR SOLTYS
father of phonology.71 At the same time, the first disagreements with him
were voiced. But the novelty and importance of the situation in the Hague
comes home to us best when we read the theses on the synchronic
description of language approved by the plenary session of the congress
with Mathesius' signature beside those of Ch. Bally, R. Jakobson, A.
Sechehaye and N. Trubetzkoy.72 The functionalist Mathesius not only
signed the theses conceived in a structuralist spirit, but along with the
others took part in their formulation, although we know that on his own
he would have used different words: he was able to see things that he
himself viewed from a functional point of view through the eyes of others,
from a standpoint that was complementary to his functionalism.
As we have suggested earlier, phonology was a field of study where
de Saussure's influence on modern linguistics asserted itself most defi
nitely and in concrete results most convincingly.73 The tendency to link
de Saussure's name with the development of phonology is rather in
teresting. It shows how his suggestions for the systematic construction
of structural linguistics were put to use and simultaneously how some
of his fundamental ideas became transformed.74 As there is another
analogy elsewhere, we shall discuss this point in some detail in a brief
digression (numbers in brackets in the following refer to the text of
Cours).
De Saussure - like Baudouin before him - was in the first place
concerned with distinguishing a concrete sound, a physical object be
longing to parole, from its correlate in langue (image acoustique; 32).
The acoustic stream does not divide into equal segments but into units
homogeneous in terms of acoustic impression (64); we can describe
them as to their articulation. De Saussure's phonème is a sum of
acoustic impressions and articulatory movements, the combination of
a unit heard and a unit pronounced, in which both components are
mutually dependent (65). Disregarding temporal duration, each sound
in the stream of speech (a sound individual, e. g. t) can be assigned a
counterpart - a sound species (e.g. T; 66). In the articulatory classifica
tion of sounds it is important to state the points of difference; a negative
articulatory characteristic (e. g. voicelessness) may be of greater impor
tance in classification than a positive one (68). The signifying com
ponent of the sign (signifiant) is not a material sound but an "image
acoustique". Formulations as "the word in langue consists of
phonemes" should be avoided, since a phoneme implies phonation, the
actual realization in speech. It is preferable to choose a neutral expres

sion, e. g. "sound", bearing in mind, of course, that it is an "image
acoustique" (98). According to de Saussure, a signifying component of
a certain sign is constituted only by features differentiating it in relation
to the signifying components of all other signs. Les valeurs never blend
with what they are based upon. This principle is, in de Saussure's words,
so essential that it holds for phonemes as well: "Les phonèmes sont
avant tout les entités oppositives, relatives et négatives" (164). It would
seem - especially when leaving out the limiting "avant tout" - that we
have arrived at today's understanding of the phoneme. But de Saussure
continues: "Ce qui le prouve, c'est la latitude dont les sujets jouissent
pour la prononciation dans la limite où les sons restent distincts les uns
des autres. Ainsi en français, l'usage général de grasseyerl'n'empêche
pas beaucoup de personnes de le rouler; la langue n'en est nullement
troublée; elle ne demande que la différence et n'exige pas, comme on
pourrait l'imaginer, que le son ait une qualité invariable... (164 - 165)."
De Saussure's phonèmes - as the whole of his exposition shows - lie
between the "empty" differentiating elements of the signifying com
ponent (signifiant) of the sign (in terms of glossematics we would say
pleremes) and individual sounds. Only the marriage of the differentiat
ing function with phonic substance has led to the contemporary con
ception of the phoneme and the establishment of phonology as part of
langue linguistics.75 Description of phonemes in terms of substance -
which is necessary to determine modes of their arrangement - consider
ably pushed de Saussure's idea of pure valeurs into the background. The
above shift in the analysis of the expression component in the direction
of present-day phonology did not, of course, occur without the influ
ence of phonological thought elsewhere, especially in the empirical and
operationally oriented Anglo-Saxon world.76 The founders and builders
of this new scientific discipline in Europe, however, felt the need to come
to terms with the well-known Saussurean distinction langue ~ parole.
Thus Trubetzkoy, e. g. speaks of Sprachgebildelautlehre (i. e. langue
science of sounds - phonology) and Sprechaktlautlehre (i. e. parole
science of sounds - phonetics). Even such a careful reader of Cours as
Trubetzkoy missed the peculiarity of de Saussure's distinction langue ~
parole in relation to the level of expression: Saussure's phonology (our
phonetics) describes sound types, not sound parole (i. e. individual
sounds) and at the same time all that is substantial (acoustic) is, from
the point of view of langue expression form just accidental. Trubetz-

koy's correlation of the pairs - phonology ~ langue, phonetics ~
parole - is thus based on error. If, in phonology, expression has already
combined with material (substantial) characteristics, then even phonet
ics, as a social fact, does not belong to parole.77 Mathesius, who made
do with the idea of a distinctive function in phonological analysis,
remained, in spite of his different perspective on language, closer to de
Saussure than Jakobson and Trubetzkoy, whose versions of phonology
have been canonized.78 The 1931 Phonological Conference in Prague
must have been the greatest event in the life of the Circle from the point
of view of international recognition; the Prague School was brought to
the world's notice. In order to achieve a feasible systematic structural
description based on de Saussure's stimuli it was necessary to simplify
Saussure's basic standpoint. His distinctive, purely relational (im
material) units had to cease to form an independent level; they merged
with the acoustic (material) level and this connection results in today's
phoneme: in principle a sound unit (although not concretely physical)
with differentiating (distinctive) function.
If, at the congress in the Hague, members of the Circle spoke as
individuals, the 1st Congress of Slavicists in Prague in 1929 provided an
opportunity for the Circle to present itself as one body. It both for
mulated its Thèses and published a collection of papers which started
the series of the Circle's Travaux.19 And so the Circle introduced itself
as an integrated school of thought within the context of modern linguis
tics. Comparison of Mathesius' lecture "New Currents" of 1925 with
the text of the Thèses shows what had changed during the four years in
between; with the understanding that the contents of the Thèses was to
some extent designed for a forum of Slavonic studies scholars.
In the conception of language (Conception de la langue comme
système fonctionnel80) purposiveness (finalité) is newly superordinated
to function notionally. Language is purposeful and so, when analyzed,
its function(s) should be taken account of. From a functional point of
view, language is a system of means. Understanding linguistic facts is
possible only with reference to the system they belong to (this feature
characterizes the systemic ordering). Structural and functional aspects
combine here, in terms of formulation, into one whole as a multiaspect-
ual viewpoint, which assumes a concrete historical form in the Circle.
The term langue is, in the passage commented on, distinguished from
langage, in passages devoted to poetic language we find the whole triad
langage ~ langue:: parole.81
The following paragraph (Tâches de la méthode synchronique. Ses
rapports avec la méthode diachronique)82 includes, as most important,
a discussion of the distinction between synchrony and diachrony in the
Saussurean sense. We feel that it is R. Jakobson who takes the lead but
we also know that this idea was not strange to V. Mathesius (see
above)83. Taking account of the teleological nature of developmental
changes, an approach which in certain stages of development provides
an insight into the interconnection between separate changes and the
therapeutic - system-oriented - meaning of their concatenation, is no
doubt very important. But to see this as an obliteration of the difference
between sychrony and diachrony as it was formulated by de Saussure
was a chronic error of the Prague School.84 According to de Saussure,
what is of systemic character is the synchronic arrangement; it is a
network of value (valeur) oppositions making up a system. He regards
a diachronic fact as combining elements (members) of different systems:
S1 S2
a - a
1 2
Although some developmental changes do interdepend in that

their cumulative effect restores the stability of the system, this thera
peutic influence naturally does not make a system of changes out of this
block of changes in the sense of de Saussure's synchronic system. If we
insisted on speaking of these changes as systemic - in the above sense of
interdependence within the evolutive orientation - we would be using
the term system in a different meaning than when speaking of a system
in the sense of synchronic arrangement. This use of the terms system (1)
and system (2) does, of course, nothing to change the relation between
synchrony and diachrony, as outlined by de Saussure. He could be
criticized only for overlooking something that the Circle happened to
notice, but that would be fatuous. Similarly, it would be a mistake to
24 OLDRICH LESK A, JIRÍ NEKVAPIL AND OTAKAR SOLTYS
affirm that diachrony enters into synchrony just because a parole-

directed description finds side by side, e. g., an archaism, a common
expression or a neologism. It is natural: parole makes no difference
between synchrony and diachrony. It can include phenomena belonging
to quite different systemic contexts.85 Nor does diachrony spill into
synchrony, only because we find productive facts besides nonproductive
ones.86 Jakobson argued against the "antinomy of synchrony ~ dia
chrony", just as he argued against de Saussure's other contentions.87
A new feature in the Thèses is the interest in problems of structural
affinity in regional language groups.88
In keeping with the purposiveness of language, the Thèses call for
the inclusion of the acoustic aspect89 in study of the expression level
(Recherches relatives à l'aspect phonique de la langue90), a demand
fully realized only later by the Harvard School. Among the relations
ordering a synchronic system the Thèses stress especially correlation,
marking the beginning of a logical classification of phonemic relations,
made by Trubetzkoy. In contrast to the Hague papers, the phonological
topics in the Thèses also comprise issues that were subsequently to form
the basis of Mathesius' typical contribution to phonology.91 A descrip
tion of the expression level includes morphophonemics (morphono-
logy). In practice, the Circle had progressed much further in phonology
than the Thèses would make it appear; this becomes clear from the
contents of both the studies in Travaux 1 and Jakobson's monograph,
published simultaneously in TCLP.92
The section "Recherches sur le mot et le groupement des mots" 93
already contains Mathesius' well-known conception of functional
grammar. The section "Problèmes des recherches sur les langues de
diverses fonctions"94 is new in that it brings much precision, although
thematically (beyond certain shifts of ground) it develops some older
ideas, the same as the section "Importance de la linguistique fonction
nelle pour la culture et la critique des langues slaves",95 which takes up
the subject of, e. g., Mathesius' article "On Linguistic Correctness" (see
above). The ways followed by thoughts on these general topics, starting
from "On the Potentiality" to the Thèses and up to more recent times,
are described in more detail in the final part of this study. The Prague
School, led by its functional orientation, consciously drifted away from
the Saussurean ideal of internal linguistics; it did not, however, build a
notional bridge that would connect internal and external linguistics.
As we have said above, de Saussure's stimulus to the formation of

phonology was generally followed up. The idea of a distinctive function
was sufficient for phonemic analysis without a complicated theory. The
position was different in the case of the content value (valeur), on the
development of which the definiteness of ideas about the level of mean
ing was dependent. If, e. g., the Czech [n] and [r)] were two similar, but
different sounds and, by introducing /n/, phonology brought economy
to the description of the expression level, then, e. g., the distinction
between the subjective genitive (příchod) jara (the advent of spring) and
the objective genitive (vítání) jara (the welcoming of spring) was always
made with respect to one paradigmatic unit (genitive). Questions of the
type "one paradigmatic form or two?" were rare. Attempts to establish
morphological oppositions were thus not only of later origin and rare,
but also often much less uniform, as they lacked the support that
phonology had in phonic reality. De Saussure's work outlines only a
very general framework for the systematic development of this section;
in Prague, structural morphology was based on parallelism with
phonology.96 At the beginning of this road is S. Karcevskij's book
Système du verbe russe,97 but this new approach to the morphological
system - and to problems of the level of meaning in general - finds the
clearest expression in Jakobson's writings "Beitrag zur allgemeinen
Kasuslehre" and "Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums".98 The theory
of invariants was one of the most important contributions of the Prague
School, following in de Saussure's footsteps.99 Attempts to define the
link between the structural semantic aspect (de Saussure's valeur) and
the functional content aspect (de Saussure's signification) come much
later; originally these two aspects existed side by side and their relation
was most likely realized as the relation "prerequisite ~ realization".
An important result of the wholistic structural way of thinking is
V. Skalicka's typology whose foundations were expounded in his disser
tation Zur ungarischen Grammatik (Prague, 1935). Mathesius welcomed
it as an attempt at a theory of structural grammar.100 At the same time
Havránek published his structural dialectology.101
Evidence of the structural/functional multiaspectual orientation of
the Prague School being a factor fuelling internal dynamics is given
especially by the development in the field of syntactic study. From the
very beginning Mathesius places the word as a structural unit side by
side with the naming as a functional unit. There are pointers in his
writings suggesting the possibility of considering the analogous pair:

sentence (veta) ~ utterance (vypovëd). And such development did
indeed take place. Since it represents an important advancement of the
syntactic issues contained in de Saussure's work (cf. his remark on
uncertain boundaries between langue ~ parole in syntax), we shall deal
with it in detail.
We may start by noting where Mathesius and de Saussure see the
starting point of the process of communication. De Saussure finds the
point of departure for communication (le point de départ du circuit de
la parole) in the speaker's brain, where facts of mind, i. e. notions,
combine with acoustic impressions. De Saussure is interested in the
description of communication only at the point when a certain notion
elicits (déclanche) the corresponding acoustic impression in the brain.
He never asks the question why, or rather, under what conditions this
mental process takes place. Unlike de Saussure, Mathesius proceeds
from the assumption that the speaker needs to communicate about a
particular portion of the world and that his mind is organized in a way
to meet these communicative needs (Mathesius himself calls it a func
tional standpoint). Already in his study "Nĕkolik slov o podstatë vëty"
(A Few Words on the Essence of the Sentence) of 1923, Mathesius
describes the speaker's mental activity preceding the utterance of a
particular sentence as follows: first the speaker makes a selective analy
sis of the situation or experience into identifiable segments and these he
interrelates in a sentence-forming act.102 Beyond that, as early as 1923
Mathesius contemplated a kind of set of ready-made elements or rules
the speaker has on hand when implementing a particular sentence -
both naming and interrelation must, according to Mathesius, follow
some kind of conventional, i. e. usual, pattern.103 This feature appears
even in his definition of the sentence which he understands, in keeping
with the general functional approach, first of all as an instrument of
communication. According to Mathesius, the sentence is "an (elemen
tary) utterance through which the speaker actively and in a way which
formally leaves the impression of being usual and subjectively complete,
adopts an attitude towards some aspect of reality".104 Nevertheless it is
obvious that Mathesius' definition of the sentence is dominated by
parole definitional features, referring back to an individual linguistic
manifestation. Thus we may say that in 1923, apparently without any
connection with Cours whatsoever, Mathesius defines the sentence
both by langue and, especially, parole features (to use de Saussure's

terms). The process of overcoming this definitional duality is evident
not only in Mathesius' further development, but in the development of
Czech syntactic theory after World War II as well.
In this Mathesius was stimulated by the need to respond to the
influential book by A. H. Gardiner The Theory of Speech and Language
(Oxford, 1932), who simplified - unlike de Saussure - the sphere of
langue as that of words and the sphere of parole as that of sentences.105
Only when confronted with absolutization of this distinction did
Mathesius feel the necessity to tackle syntax from the point of view of
the dichotomy langue ~ parole. In his review of Gardiner's book,
Mathesius argued that: "As far as the sentence is concerned one should
bear in mind that only such an utterance is a real sentence whose form
is in keeping with linguistic usage so that formation of sentences is
completely dependent on the nature of the linguistic system. This is a
fact that I have stressed in my functional definition of the sentence by
saying: 'in a way that formally leaves the impression of being usual'." 106
These issues were importantly influenced by studies written by S.
Karcevskij, especially "Sur la phonologie de la phrase"107, in which
Karcevskij distinguished between proposition - a unit of grammar - and
phrase - in principle a unit of dialogue. That syntactic formations
cannot be excluded from langue is shown, e. g., in this passage from the
subsequent study "Phrase et proposition": "On ne saurait surestimer le
rôle de la proposition dans le fonctionnement de la langue. C'est là un
schéma cognitif dont la pensée est armée en face de la réalité, mais c'est
aussi un moule tout prêt pour y couler la pensée".108
By introducing the notional distinction proposition ~ phrase, Kar
cevskij in effect shattered the global definition of the sentence covering
both langue and parole aspects.
Mathesius took a similar direction.109 Although he did not give up
the term sentence, or at least did not introduce any term correlative to
the sentence, he added a dual semantic determination to it; to quote
from his study "On Some Problems of the Systematic Analysis of
Grammar": "we can say that in language we have the word in the
conceptual meaning and the sentence as an abstract pattern, whereas in
speech we have the word as referring to concrete reality and the sentence
as concrete utterance."110
In the subsequent development of linguistic theory in Czechoslova

kia, this fundamental distinction was established terminologically (in
part also thanks to Mathesius) as the difference between the sentence
and the utterance (as regards syntax).111
The culmination of Mathesius' efforts is the study "Speech and
Style" published in 1942.112 It documents Mathesius' fine differentia
tion between the functional and the structural aspects of his conception
of language and yet remains admirably true to his original idea outlined
in 1923 in his study "A Few Words on the Essence of the Sentence": the
naming and sentence-forming acts appear to him now as parole acts
with structural correlates in the language system. We quote: 'The
background to the sentence-forming act consists of sentence patterns
according to which sentences of different types and in general every
thing that concerns the structure of sentences are formed in a given
language."113
A similar relation holds between the naming act and vocabulary.
These passages already show how de Saussure's dichotomy lan
gue ~ parole permeates the structural-functional conception of lan-
guage.114
We may sum up in the following way. In the writings of a number
of members of the Prague Linguistic Circle de Saussure's conception of
langue was substantially developed in the field of syntax (Mathesius,
Karcevskij, Skalicka, Artymovyc); this particularly concerns sentence
patterns (Skalicka, Mathesius), which became the focus of attention
after World War II. De Saussure's dichotomy langue ~ parole acted as
a call for a subtle differentiation between the structural and functional
aspects of linguistic phenomena (Mathesius).
The distinction sentence ~ utterance has become a logical spring
board for text grammar. An important step in this direction was V.
Skalicka's study "Discourse as a Linguistic Notion." 115 Its principal
feature was that discourse was not conceived of as a purely parole
phenomenon. Langue and parole appear in Skalicka's study as qualities
that apply in varying measure to different kinds of unit: the langue
quality decreases on the way from less complex to more complex units
- which does not mean, however, that the word is entirely in the sphere
of langue or that discourse is entirely in the sphere of parole.116 It can
be expressed graphically as follows:
word sentence discourse
langue
parole
The distinction langue ~ parole was, for de Saussure, cardinal.

The Prague School understood it rather as a natural loose parallel to
the structural-functional multiaspectuality that was characteristic of the
Circle. The example of the relation phonology ~ phonetics (see above)
shows that a superficial understanding of de Saussure's distinction
provided scope for vagueness or misleading simplification (see above on
Trubetzkoy and Skalicka). Also, interest in this subject in the publica
tions of the Circle indicates that the understanding of langue ~ parole
was a long way from making this distinction a scholarly productive
interpretational instrument.117 De Saussure's formulations did not
make it clear in the first place how, according to the scientific strategy
that he sketched out, to deal in a systematic analysis with what stood
- as a social phenomenon - between the structural basis of language and
an individual manifestation. There is a qualitative difference in how de
Saussure views the social aspect - as an anonymous force manifested by
anonymous obligation - and the way it is viewed by the Circle (for
example, by V. Mathesius or B. Havránek) as a force that, although
constituting obligation and norm, is at the same time a known force
which can be even interfered with through the efforts of qualified and
unqualified users of the language. The social aspect in the Prague
School's conception is felt as a dynamic force, in manifestation and
assumptions, and so it can direct and form linguistic activity. This
attitude to the social aspect then gives rise to the whole of the concep
tion of functional stylistics and language culture. Functionality and
superordinate teleological aspects constitute the framework for these
two disciplines which are a significant step beyond Cours.
V. Mathesius was at the birth of functional stylistics by distinguish

ing between the style of speech and individual style, a distinction he
made as early as 1911 in his lecture "On the Potentiality" (see Note 15).
Mathesius writes literally:
"Stylistic analysis thus always concentrates on an individual; at
most it can apply its examination to several individuals for the purpose
of studying their stylistic dependence, either mutual or on some other
individual. As a consequence, stylistics can never be concerned with the
whole of the social community, and titles of books like Czech stylistics,
German stylistics, etc., are selfcontradictory. (...) On the other hand,
language does contain phenomena whose examination appears to re
semble stylistic analysis: they are the so-called styles of speech (slohy
řeci). By this term we mean not the individualizing character of artistic
literary creation but simply the fact that specimens of actual speech
possessing analogous character or analogous aims, display some common
features in different speakers of the language. The influence upon lan
guage materials exercised by the said determining forces is made pos
sible exactly by the potentiality of language, and by the continuous
mixing of the social dialects and slangs existing in the given commun
ity." {On the Potentiality, JKS, pp. 22-23, cf. also Note 63). Functional
ity and teleological aspects should be evident from the italicized part of
the quotation. The quotation also clearly shows that separation of
speech style does not concern the structure of the language system, only
the functional use of linguistic potentiality, of part of the system or the
system as a whole. This fact needs to be emphasized so that we can
separate Mathesius' share in the notional formation of functional style
from Havránek's contribution.
V. Mathesius himself did not expand on the distinction between
individual style and style of speech. He asked B. Havránek118 to take up
the question of functional styles. It was a happy choice on several
counts. At that time B. Havránek was immersed in the principles of
synchronic linguistics and had gained an overall view of general linguis
tic literature, had begun his scientific work on Czech dialects,119 con
cerned himself with the delimitation of standard language in general
and of Czech in particular120 and, most importantly, was at that time
teaching at secondary schools, so that he saw the contemporary state of
language and linguistic theory with regard to the situation at school.
Thus intelectually equipped and motivated, Havránek thought out and
developed de Saussure's relational distinction langue ~ parole in a way

similar to that of the Prague Circle developing the relational pair
phonetics ~ phonology. He combined theoretical thinking with con
crete facts from a concrete language, Czech. Havranek's langue is not
an abstract relational structure existing in synchrony, but a historically
concrete language with its norm, modified through standardizing ef
forts of specialists. Adopting this approacu, Havránek could, of course,
hardly arrive at de Saussure's well-known equation 1 + 1 + 1 + ... =
1 (modèle collectif; Cours, p. 38). Logically, he concluded that there
would be as many systems as communities that will be regarded as
socially and linguistically homogeneous to such a degree as to be
distinctive, discernible. See the first note to his well-known study 'The
Tasks of the Standard Language and its Culture"121, in which Havránek
equates 'norm' with the conventional aspect of any linguistic formation
(e.g. a local dialect). It can also be found in the Thèses122. In effect,
Havránek's concrete understanding of langue articulates the unity of a
national language as a concrete historical formation. In this respect we
may speak about the "national wing" of the Prague Linguistic Circle,
which was addressing concrete problems of the Czech language in the
first half of the 20th century.
The division of language that we find in the Thèses suggests123 that
it includes Mathesius' views (opposition: language as communication as
against language as intentional or unintentional expression), views of
the Russian formalist school put forward by Jakobson (difference be
tween the communicative and the poetic function) and Havranek's
views (internal differentiation of the communicative function). Hav
ránek's teleogical and consistently functional approach resulted in a
differentiation between functional style and functional language which
is formulated in the following way:
"The difference between functional language and functional style
consists in the fact that functional style is intended for concrete aims of
each linguistic communication; it is a function of linguistic communica
tion (of the act of speech,"parole") while functional language is deter
mined by the general purpose of a standardized set of linguistic means,
i. e. it is a function of language ("langue").
Accordingly, linguistic communication involves functional lan
guages in different types of functional styles." (Tasks, p. 69).
Here the use of the Saussurean distinction between langue and

parole has become so different that it is difficult to find any other
connection between the two conceptions but the use of the same terms.
For Havránek the langue of standard Czech divides into four functional
languages that are distinguished on account of their general purpose: 1.
communicative, 2. practical-specialist, 3. theoretical-specialist, and 4.
esthetic.124 These purposes have also led to the distinction of four modes
of functional language: colloquial, professional, scientific and poetic,
while functional style is determined either by the concrete goal of the
communication, or by the concrete situation or manner of communica
tion.125 When the classification of functional languages was later
grounded in additional arguments in the basic synthetic work Develop
ment of the Czech Standard Language,26 which took this conception as
the meaning and outcome of the history of the standard language, and
when, in the study "On the Functional Differentiation of the Standard
Language",127 Havránek relinquished the term functional language to
replace it by another, functional dialect (in this way he solved the unity
of the standard language), then this conception became sufficiently
powerful terminologically to determine the further development of
Czech stylistics. It is interesting to note that the PLC offered even other
possibilities of tackling the basic distinction between langue and parole.
It was J. Vachek who, in his note which was aimed at a radical refor
mulation of the langue ~ parole distinction while preserving its basic
purport, was closest to the notional clarification and solution of this
issue. In connection with written language J. Vachek says that parole is
a redundant concept as it can be replaced by the term linguistic com
munication (projev). Communication may be contrasted with norm
which determines the construction of communication. 128 This was an
excellent opportunity to do away the uncertainties dogging the distinc
tion langue ~ parole and to conceive it in a new way. Although this
opportunity was not made use of, it gave a glimpse of Vachek's
thinking ahead of that time by a number of years. This conception
would make it possible to speak of the distinction: hierarchy of specified
norms ~ linguistic communication, rather than the pair langue ~
parole. Far from being against the Saussurean spirit, it would be a
continuation of de Saussure's intentions. The structure of specified
norms presumes two universal components, otherwise its composition
is language specific. For instance, at the level of expression it is neces-
sary to distinguish between the phonematic norm ( ~ phonology) and

the subordinate phonetic norm ( ~ phonetics). Language specific is, for
example, the subordination of the orthoepic norm to the phonetic one.
This set of norms is opposed to the phonic structure of the communica
tion, i. e. it is governed by the set. The conception of language (langue)
as a hierarchy of norms, already inherently dynamic, would remove the
sharp dividing line de Saussure drew between internal and external
linguistics. Problems of functional styles, functional languages could be
formulated in terms of norms of a certain type. It seems, however, that
bypassing this opportunity was no accident. Such a hierarchical ar
rangement already presumes a higher level of systematic thought on the
one hand and a higher stability of the language under consideration on
the other. If Vachek's ideas were not followed through, it was apparent
ly due to practical reasons; the definitional and classificatory approach
achieved greater stability in standard Czech. And so history shows a
direct historical as well as notional link between Mathesius' style of
speech and Havránek's functional dialect, but it does not make obvious
the fact that there was a certain difference between the two in their
conception of style. It is true of Havránek's classification of functional
dialects that it can be assigned with relative ease to concrete texts. But
practical and, in a way, prescriptive stylistics was never the focus of
Havránek's attention. On the other hand, Mathesius although separat
ing individual style from functional in the same way, did so mainly
because he believed that functional style, especially a clear style of
exposition (to which the study "Speech and Style" is devoted129),
could be learned. Mathesius' approach to style and stylistics is ulti
mately more practical than Havránek's. Theory and practice of func
tional stylistics is one of the culminations of Czech linguistic study
within the framework of synchronic linguistics, its roots going back to
1911.
Another climax is the theory and practice of language culture
which is closely connected with the development of functional stylistics; it
has the same practical framework and its development has been shaped by
functionality and teleological aspects just like functional stylistics. Mathe
sius' and Havránek's views differ to some extent also in points of language
culture. Mathesius regarded the term language culture as synonymous
with linguistic refinement and linguistic refinement is a concept umbrel
la for linguistic correctness.130 The teleological, functionalist and practi-
cal approach, with its natural inclination to develop a conception of the

prospective needs of the language, is evident from the delimitation of
linguistic refinement131:
"What is linguistic refinement? Language is a system of functional
means of expression and its value is measurable only by its adequacy to
fulfill its purposes. In other words, a language is an instrument and its
value, as with any instrument, is in proportion to its success in perform
ing its task. A cultivated standard language is a delicate and unfailing
instrument. It is well suited to any of the numerous functions it takes
on. It expresses accurately, fully and clearly even the most subtle
perceptions and thoughts. It is a supple interpreter of emotions and will
give voice to any melody its speaker or writer will tune it for ... Ap
parently the refinement of language is something that can be learnt only
through practical use. And so even the qualities that on detailed analy
sis emerge as components of linguistic refinement will be qualities from
the practical sphere and the theoretical consideration of these qualities,
too, must follow the principle of practical applicability."
Mathesius thus views language as an instrument, the value of
which derives from its applicability; the measure of applicability indica
tes the refinement of a given standard language, its culture that can be
measured in terms of its development:"... as a language of conversation,
literature, science and philosophy." (op. cit., p. 17). The best way of
improving linguistic refinement is to provide a secondary-school stu
dent with a grammar book, a book on style and a dictionary. Mathesius'
interventions in language, although he took these into account, were
indirect, mediated by scientific knowledge of language, which in the
consciousness of speakers would combine with practical experience
with the language. This attitude ranks Mathesius very close to de
Saussure.
To understand after the passage of years why members of the PLC
approached language as they did it is necessary to quote a passage in
which they assess the synchronic state of standard Czech in the early
thirties132: 'The time limit from which we may regard standard lan
guage as contemporary depends, in each language individually, on the
time when the standard became relatively fixed in the form now in use.
The Czech standard language and its essential grammatical structure
was roughly established at the time of national revival (especially thanks to
the work of Josef Dobrovsky) and partly as late as the end of the 19th
century (especially by Jan Gebauer's grammars). The vocabulary of the

Czech standard language can be described as established in its present
form only from the beginning of the 1880s and that of the technical
language even later, scientific terminology being partly in the process of
stabilization only at present."
The quotation reveals two things: 1) Much of what we consider
today, with Czech successfully functioning as a standard language, as a
matter of course was in the early thirties only an academic prognosis.
2) Much of what we regard as a scientific deduction applicable to
language in general must be seen as a concrete response to the problems
concerning the existence of Czech at that time. The generality of this
national theory of a standard language and its culture can be seen only
in that it sets out to solve typical problems of a language functioning
in a relatively young, tempestuously developing society, i. e. such prob
lems as must ordinarily be tackled by any language that finds itself in
a typologically similar situation.
The specificity of Havránek's conception of language culture and
its departure from that of Mathesius is in the way Havránek looked
upon standard language. For him standard language was not merely an
instrument which must be considered according to its practical qualities
and nor just an interdialect which serves a national community, but also
the result of the efforts and care of many generations. In this Havránek
diverges from the path of practical activism, typical of Mathesius'
approach, to follow that of definitional specification. It seems that he
was closer to the needs of the nation since his attitude towards the
standard language has taken root in Czechoslovak linguistics. Hav
ránek distinguishes three concepts: the norm of the standard language,
codification (standardization) of the standard language which stabilizes
the norm, and usage which comprises factors of dynamic progression.
It is apparent that de Saussure's synchronic and relational definition of
langue is here stripped of its abstractness. Havránek's norm is not
determined only by structural relations, but through usage, which it
enters by means of the principles of dis-automatization and automati
zation, the norm is made dynamic. Its dynamic balance is under the
influence of standardization which is in the care of linguists. The
systematic care of linguists for the standard language is then an impor
tant feature that distinguishes Havránek's conception of language cul
ture from Mathesius'. As Havránek writes133: "Although the standard
36 OLDRICH LESKA, JIRÍ NEKYAP1L AND OTAKAR SOLTYS
language is not made stable by the dictate of linguistic theory, its

stabilization, fixation does not take place without normative theoretical
influence. The normative effects of linguistic theory are greatest on
orthography, less on the grammatical structure of language, i.e. the
sound system, morphology and syntax, and least on its lexical structure
and content." Accordingly, the standard language is to achieve qualities
such as we find in the Thèses134 and which can be summed up in these
attributes: a) more norm-based and normative than everyday language,
b) expressing the cultural and intellectual life of society, a feature
manifested in its c) intellectualization and increased control of emotion
ality. Linguists not only standardize, but they can also promote the
functional differentiation and stylistic richness of a standard lan
guage:135" Such promotion is effected by A) cooperation in the creation
of scientific terminology, B) assistance in the development of functional
use of linguistic means and systematic observation and evaluation of
stylistic possibilities of a given language, and C) criticism of particular
linguistic phenomena from a functional point of view." At this point we
enter the sphere of linguistic prognosis rather than historically con
firmed procedure.
We have written that functional stylistics, although not directly
stemming from de Saussure's Cours, unfolds its principles to the full.
Hence it is possible to speak of at least a connection between Cours and
the theory of the Prague Circle. As regards the definition of standard
language and creation of language culture theory, Prague linguistics
lived its own independent intellectual and, especially national, life. Both
functional stylistics and the theory and practice of language culture are
among the permanent assets in the history of linguistic thought.
Considerations of the relation between de Saussure and the Prague
Linguistic Circle have made it possible to show its historically specific
aspects. Not as the conclusion of the study, but rather a prospect for
further study, we may ask what the Prague School's place is within
European structural linguistic thought. The Geneva School was basic
ally concerned with the fundamental contrast langue ~ parole as
outlined by de Saussure and examined the interminable interaction of
these two elements without any apparent attempt at laying down the
systematic organization of langue. The Prague School, as we have seen,
typically emphasized this aspect of langue and only the complementary
teleological functional aspect protected it against classificational rigid-
ity. We have shown the importance of conceptual differentiation in the

development of modern linguistics. This was a task which became the
focus of attention of the Copenhagen School; it was subsequently
charged with abstractness removed from linguistic reality. We can see
that at a deeper historical level these three components of modern
linguistic thought are mutually complementary. Any simplifying com
parison in terms of historical importance is in this case meaningless.136
Notes
1 Mathesius (1882 - 1945) studied Czech, German and French at the Czech university
in Prague from 1901, later on also English at the German university. See "Prague
Faculty of Arts at the Beginning of This Century." In: V. Mathesius, Jazyk, kultura
a slovesnost (Language, Culture and Literature) (collection of papers; JKS onwards),
Prague 1982, pp. 417 - 422.
2 On the history of the Prague School cf. especially Vachek J., The Linguistic School
of Prague, Bloomington - London 1966. Other sources, e.g. T. V. Bulygina in
Osnovnyje napravlenia strukturalizma (The Main Trends of Structuralism), Moscow
1961, pp. 46 - 126.
3 Recollection quoted in Note 1, p. 419. See also "Koreny mého lingvistického my-
slení" (The Roots of My Linguistic Thought), JKS, p. 435, and the study"Osobnost
Josefa Zubatého" (The Personality of J.Z.), JKS, pp. 428 - 433 (comparison of the
personalities of Gebauer and Zubaty). A similar opinion about Gebauer was quite
frequent, especially among those who did not know him; cf. R. Jakobson: "Questo
lavoro fu rapidamente compiuto nelle sue grandi linee della scuola di J. Gebauer, a
cui si deve un edificio imponente, solido e semplice come la mentalità del suo
fondatore","La scuola linguistica di Praga". In: R. Jakobson, Selected Writings II
(SW onwards). The Hague-Paris 1971, p. 540.
4 Mourek noticed the young Mathesius towards the end of the fourth semester and
advised him to prepare for an academic career in English studies. He introduced him
to the phonetician Wilhelm Viëtor, which marks another stage in Mathesius' career
(JKS, p. 436).
5 Mathesius says:'Tt is a pity that my scientific interests drew me to other material than
that which he (i. e. Zubaty) worked with and to different spheres of problems.
Otherwise this profound and gentle scholar (...) would surely have had an important
influence on my scientific development", JKS, p. 422 - But Zubaty may have provided
inspiration for Mathesius in spite of these words; we do not know whether their
thinking really met or whether these are accidental concurrences. In a review of
Berneker's book on word-order Zubaty (LF 28, 1901, p. 129ff) points out certain
"psychological rules" that determine word-order and by this he means the influence
of "psychological arrangement" (psychological subject - predicate) on word-order
positions (with the psychological subject usually at the beginning - byl jednou jeden
kràl, okolo rybnícka tekl potok). In his study "Die man-Sätze" {Zeitschrift für ver
gleichende Sprachforschung 40, 1907, pp. 478 - 520) he draws attention to various
functions of the pronominal to, such as the adverbial function in sentences of the type
to prši etc.
6 Zubaty J.,"Ceské sloveso", Prague 1980 (ed. J. Porák).
7 Zubaty as a teacher is aptly characterized by M. Weingart in the commemorative
study in CMF 4, 1914 - 5, pp. 385 - 396 (Josef Zubaty. Writing on his 60th Birthday...)
It is interesting to note that such an important disciple of Gebauer and Zubaty as
Oldřich Hujer (1880 - 1942) became the main representative of the Neogrammarian
school in its purest form in this country and perhaps only the tact and undogmatic
approach in his work as a teacher were due to Zubaty's influence (Hujer's pupil was
J. M. Korinek, 1899- 1945).
8 Charisteria Guilelmo Mathesio ... oblata, Prague 1932, p. 3.
9 JKS, pp. 435 - 438. Cf. also "Deset let Prazského lingvistického krouzku" (Ten Years
of the Prague Linguistic Circle), JKS, p. 439.
10 "My secondary-school years gave me a lot of practical linguistic experience. Apart
from Latin and Greek, the secondary-school curriculum also included relatively
obligatory German and four years of optional French. In addition, the Evangelical
Church minister of Kolin, Cenëk Dusek, kindly gave me lessons in English from fifth
form at secondary school. With private aplication I have also acquainted myself a
little with the essentials of Italian and Russian. My greatest linguistic teacher at that
time, however, was the Czech language; not as part of the curriculum, but in private
reading and my versifying efforts. In fifth form, The Small Book of Poetic Art by
Frantisek Bily and Leander Cech opened our eyes to the beauty of poetry; the eager
years of adolescence tempted one to try writing one's own poetry. It was an excellent
exercise for me in assessing the qualities of words and rhythmical sets. Since that time
this artistic assessment of language has been an important part of my linguistic
thought. I received a similar instruction in prose style later on at university, when
reading French and English fiction. My studies on the dynamic line of Zeyer's verse
from 1930 have their roots as far back as my secondary-school reading of The Small
Book of Poetic Art." JKS, pp. 435 - 436.
11 " My friend Peklo came to Prague a year before me and became a demonstrator in
professor Bohumil Nëmec's institute for the physiology of plants. I went there to
breathe in, as I used to say, scientific air. Against the background of the busy
scholarly activity of the modern physiology of plants, all that the Faculty of Arts
offered me in philology seemed insipid, with little ardour and focus. I absorbed the
knowledge handed down to us but tried to search for more, at my own expense."
JKS, p. 436. - A similar sentiment as in the quotations in this and the previous note
is echoed in the conclusion to the paper "Functional Linguistics" from 1929: "The
linguist, viewing language from a functional point of view, holds hands with an artist
creating in language, in the question of correctness. This is not accidental. This
proximity of new linguistics and belles letters is attested elsewhere, too. New linguis
tics helps to lay the foundations for a new science of poetic form, and it itself learns
from poetic creators about the possibilities of linguistic expression. You cannot be
a linguist of the new type if you are not possessed of a fine sense of linguistic values.
All this is a natural consequence. New linguistics, as I have said at the beginning,
means to bring linguistic study nearer to pulsing reality and, if nothing else, this is
its indisputable merit". JKS, p. 38.
12 "First of all I found the way to the representatives of German linguistics of the
Humboldtian direction... Of the authors I learned from I could name especially von
der Gabelentz, Kruszewski and Wegener. The other discovery was brought to my
notice by Wilhelm Vïëtor's book Einführung in das Studium der englischen Philolo
gie... There he recommended two representatives of English linguistics that were to
have a profound influence on me later, the Englishman Henry Sweet and the Dane
Otto Jespersen. Both were phoneticians like Victor but also linguists who analyzed
English from the point of view of general linguistics. They and the German linguists
that stood apart from the Neogrammarian current could offer me something I was
looking for: linguistics as a science which I could pit against the botanical physiology
of my friend Peklo. In the busy years of my faculty studies I read and thought about
these things a great deal." JKS, p. 436. - The review of Jespersen's book Growth and
Structure of the English Language is Mathesius' first published work; see The List of
Writings by Vilém Mathesius, JKS, pp. 473 - 519, No 1 {The List of Writings in the
following). - As we can see, the synchronic orientation was strongly supported by the
development and success of phonetic sciences where such an orientation was a
natural prerequisite for study. It is only to be expected that this orientation led to
reformulation of some of the questions concerning the content levels of language,
bringing them within the scope of synchronic relations. Mathesius did not forget to
mention his encounter with an inherently synchronic scientist and one of the most
discriminating auditive phoneticians of all times, the Norwegian Olaf Broch.
13 "Thereby I was even then introduced to the way that modern linguistics works." See
The List of Writings No 5.
14 JKS, p. 437; see The List of Writings No 4, 10, 15, 22, 32.
15 "O potenciálnosti jevu jazykovych", JKS, pp. 9 - 28. Further on abbreviated to "On
the Potentiality".
16 The book was expanded in the 2nd edition (Halle 1886) and appeared in definitive
form in the 3rd edition (1898). Quotations used here come from the 5th impression
(1920). The text of the 5th impression was translated into Russian (Principy istorii
jazyka, Moscow 1960). In the following quotations Prinzipien for short. - Paul's book
is the best known, although not the only one; among other general books in the same
line are, e. g., Berthold Delbrück, Einleitung in das Sprachstudium, Leipzig 1880; by
the same author Grundfragen der Sprachforschung, Straßburg 1901.
17 "Es ist eingewendet, daß es noch eine andere wissenschaftliche Betrachtung der
Sprache gäbe, als die geschichtliche. Ich muß das in Abrede stellen. Was man für eine
nichtgeschichtliche und doch wissenschaftliche Betrachtung der Sprache erklärt, ist
im Grunde nichts als eine unvollkommen geschichtliche, unvollkommen teils durch
Schuld des Betrachters, teils durch Schuld des Beobachtungsmaterials. Sobald man
über das bloße Konstatieren von Einzelheiten hinausgeht, sobald man versucht den
Zusammenhang zu erfassen, die Erscheinung zu begreifen, - so betritt man auch den
geschichtlichen Boden, wenn auch vielleicht ohne sich klar darüber zu sein." Prin
zipien, p. 20.
"Die deskriptive Grammatik verzeichnet, was von grammatischen Formen und

Verhältnissen innerhalb einer Sprachgemeinschaft zu einer gewissen Zeit üblich ist,
was von einem jeden gebraucht werden kann, ohne vom andern mißverstanden zu
werden und ohne ihn fremdartig zu berühren. Ihr Inhalt sind nicht Tatsachen,
sondern nur eine Abstraktion aus den beobachteten Tatsachen. Macht man solche
Abstraktionen innerhalb der selben Sprachgenossenschaft zu verschiedenen Zeiten,
so werden sie verschieden ausfallen. Man erhält durch Vergleichung die Gewißheit,
daß sich Umwälzungen vollzogen haben, man entdeckt wohl auch eine gewisse
Regelmäßigkeit in dem gegenseitigen Verhältnis, aber über das eigentliche Wesen der
vollzogenen Umwälzung wird man auf diese Weise nicht aufgeklärt. Der Kausal
zusammenhang bleibt verschlossen, so lange man nur mit diesen Abstraktionen
rechnet, als wäre die eine wirklich aus der anderen entstanden. Denn zwischen
Abstraktionen gibt es überhaupt keinen Kausalnexus, sondern nur zwischen realen
Objekten und Tatsachen. So lange man sich mit der deskriptiven Grammatik bei den
ersteren beruhigt, ist man noch sehr weit entfernt von einer wissenschaftlichen
Erfassung des Sprachlebens." Prinzipien, p. 24.
18 Prinzipien, pp. 29 - 32.
19 Prinzipien, pp. 26 - 28. The examples given by Paul show the influence of association
psychology on this approximation to synchronic systemic ordering and how far it
was from the subsequent concepts.
20 "... sie muß (die Beschreibung des Sprachzustandes), wollen wir es populär aus
drücken, uns zeigen, wie sich das Sprachgefühl verhält." Prinzipien, p. 29.
21 Prinzipien, p. 30.
24 "The interest in general linguistic problems, too, has been subsiding for a long time,
as if it had been exhausted by Hermann Paul's Prinzipien and the controversy
concerning W. Wundt's Völkerpsychologie." Mathesius V.,"New Currents and Ten
dencies in Linguistic Research," MNHMA (Zubaty's Festschrift), Prague 1927, p.
200; "New Currents" for short onwards.
25 Stary Z.," Sprachwissenschaft an der Scheide", Germanistische Mitteilungen. Zeit
schrift des Belgischen Germanisten- und Deutschlehrer verbandes 12 (1980), pp. 25 - 36.
Cf. a quotation on this from de Saussure's letter to A. Meillet of 1894, mentioned by
R. Jakobson:"... Mais je suis bien dégouté de tout cela, et de la difficulté qu'il y a en
général à écrire seulement dix lignes ayant le sens commun en matière de faits de
langage. Préoccupé surtout depuis longtemps de la classification logique de ces faits,
de la classification des points de vue sous lesquels nous les traitons, je vois de plus
en plus à la fois l'immensité du travail qu'il faudrait pour montrer au linguiste ce qu'il
fait..." SW I, p. 744.
26 Also Mathesius saw new linguistics as a unification, but in a different sense, as a
synthesis. Tn the conclusion to his welcoming address at the phonological conference
in Prague, 1930, he said: "Ce qui doit donner à la linguistique fonctionnelle et
structurale, remontant dans ses origines aux idées de Ferdinand de Saussure à
l'Ouest et de Baudouin de Courtenay à l'Est, sa place dans le développement général
de la linguistique, c'est la possibilité qui lui est propre de réunir la rigueur métho-
dique de l'école boppienne à la fraîcheur de vue et à la notion de l'interdépendance

des faits grammaticaux de l'école humboldtienne. Notre devise n'est donc pas
'Révolution', mais 'Renaissance'. Ce que nous voulons, ce n'est pas une rupture des
traditions linguistiques, mais leur rajeunissement et leur synthèse organique", TCLP
4 (1931), p. 292. Cf. also the paper "Kam jsme dospëli v jazykozpytu" (The Present
Stage of Development in Linguistics), JKS, p. 43. - Mathesius rightly discerns the
different origins of modern linguistics in the West and in the East.
27 JKS, p. 28. - The distinction between "static" and "historical" analysis is the basis
of Mathesius' study in The List of Writings No 42. - Extralinguistic stimuli are
pointed out in the editorial article in the No 1 issue of Slovo a slovesnost, the journal
of the Circle (1935).
28 Englische Studien 57 (1923), p. 174ff.
29 Cf. also the introduction in Marty's Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung einer allge
meinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie, Halle 1908.
30 de Saussure, F., Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert
Sechehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger, Paris-Lausanne 1916. Below
this will be abbreviated to Cours; references are to the 1965 impression. - Today there
are a number of reprints available - critical editions: Cours de linguistique générale,
edited by Tullio de Mauro, Paris 1973; Cours de linguistique générale. Kritische
Ausgabe von Rudolf Engler, Wiesbaden 1967-74. -It has been translated into many
languages; there was no translation of Cours into Czech until 1989.
31 The book came out in the year when Hermann Osthoff together with Karl Brugmann
began to publish their Morphologische Untersuchungen, two years prior to the
publication of Hermann Paul and Berthold Delbrück's works quoted above (see
Note 16) and seven years after Delbrück started his series Syntaktische Forschungen.
32 In the study "Saussure's unpublished reflections on phonemes" R. Jakobson writes:
"Asked in 1909 to complete a book on the theory of language, Saussure replied: 'On
ne peut y songer: il doit donner la pensée définitive de son auteur'." SW I, p. 744.
33 See Note 25.
34 Quoted from SW I, p. 744.
35 See also Note 11 about the ideal of science in Mathesius' conception.
36 Cf. the paper by Z. Stary mentioned in Note 25.
37 Cf., for example, the ease and alacrity with which de Saussure's suggestions were
made use of in building up phonology ("Les phonèmes sont avant tout des entités
oppositives, relatives et négatives", Cours p. 164). For more on this see below.
38 JKS, p. 438.
39 For example, as a discoverer of one of the laws of stress shift in Baltic and Slavic. -
In this year, 1919, he is quoted, e. g., by Oldrich Hujer, cf. Příspĕvky  historii a
dialektologii ceského jazyka (Contributions to the History and Dialectology of
Czech), Prague 1961, p. 101.
40 The new situation is characterized briefly but aptly and with a comprehensive
bibliography by B. Havránek (Trends in Present-Day Linguistic Study) in his Genera
verbi ve slovanskych jazycích 1 (Genera Verbi in Slavonic Languages), Prague 1928,
pp. 3 - 7. He refers to Mathesius' lecture. Havránek considers de Saussure a pioneer
of synchronism. - Oberpfalcer's Jazykozpyt (Linguistics), Prague 1932, quotes de
42 O L D R I C H LESKA, J I R Í NEKVAPIL A N D OTAKAR SOLTYS
Saussure in bibliographical notes, but on particular points. In Note 2 ("From

reflections on new linguistic methods, we present:", p. 69) we find no mention of de
Saussure's Cours. - In the first volume of Slovo a slovesnost R. Jakobson comprehen
sively reports on the Russian edition of de Saussure, but much more on the apparatus
of the publication than the text.
41 Perhaps in this sense we should understand the remark on the chronology of his own
discoveries in relation to de Saussure's work (JKS, p. 438).
42 In the quotation given here in Note 26 Mathesius singles de Saussure out as the
founder of modern linguistics.
43 We must regard his studies "Poznámky o substantivnich slozeninách a sdruzeninách
v soucasné anglictinë" (Remarks on Noun Compounds and Noun Collocations in
Contemporary English), "O generacnich dialektech v moderni anglictinë" (On
Generation Dialects in Modern English) {The List of Writings N o 30) as preparatory;
and also the above-quoted studies on word-order.
44 In the conclusion to his analysis he says:"We may say that the duration of English
sounds is today statistically variable, potential, but that the variability is differently
movable in separate sounds and that within this variability particular cases follow
certain trends that can be determined statistically. The direction of this trend is due
to influences which are not strong enough to [...] allow accurate calculation of the
given forces, for example, as is the case in physics, nonetheless they are quite
manifest. To call such linguistic findings laws would create the wrong impression that
the influences are absolute, and so it is better to give them another name and speak
of statistical tendencies." JKS, p. 13.
45 Cf. "This is the way the content potentiality of speech looks like if we proceed from
a given unit of expression, as a real variability of meaning. The moment we start from
the given idea and begin to search for its verbal expression, the content potentiality
of speech appears to us as a plurality of expressions, i. e. a possibility of expressing
the same thing in several ways". JKS, p. 22.
46 JKS, p. 23.
47 E. g.,the unity of meaning, syntactic function and expression in statistical tendencies
in the distribution of emphasis between separate parts of speech in the utterance.
48 JKS, p. 438. - Elsewhere Mathesius explains the meaning of his work in a different
way which shows how different conceptions combined syncretically in his synchrony:
"In 1911 I attempted to solve the discrepancy between the demand of synchronic
analysis and the constant changeability of speech by the theory of the potentiality of
linguistic phenomena, which in actual fact runs ahead of the teaching of structural
linguistics about the facts of the linguistic system and their various forms of realiza
tion in speech". JKS, p. 43.
49 JKS, p. 14.
50 See The List of Writings N o 42, 58, 76.
51 The discussion revealed two basic problems: A. Beer considers Mathesius' works as
incomplete because of their focus on synchrony; he does not see the complex relation
between the character of style and the structural features of language.
52 See The List of Writings N o 91, 112.
53 See The List of Writings N o 70.
54 See The List of Writings No 171, 177.

55 See The List of Writings No 181.
56 Cf. Leska 0.,"Karl Bühler und die Prager Schule. Bemerkungen zu einem Kapitel
aus der Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft", Bühler-Studien 2, Frankfurt am Main
1984, p. 267.
57 Mathesius V., A Functional Analysis of Present-Day English on a General Linguistic
Basis (ed. J. Vachek, transl, by L. Dusková). Prague 1975.
58 JKS, p. 440.
59 The only allusion to de Saussure's Cours is the following: Saussure is to be given
credit for having contributed to the recognition of the scientific importance of
synchronic studies. See also Note 40.
60 In this sense the conception of formal systems does not greatly differ from, e. g.,
Paul's conception.
61 That is, with functional onomatology and functional syntax as its basic divisions.
The extended (generalized) conception of morphology is known from before.
62 Cf. . Trnka's study "Méthode de comparaison analytique et grammaire comparée
historique", TCLP 1 (1929), pp. 33 - 38.
63 "In the study of language, of course, individual utterances are analysed as specimens
of the linguistic possibilities of a whole community, whereas in the study of style we
try to ascertain how the linguistic possibilities common to the whole community have
been made use of in a special case for an individual purpose. Linguistic analysis
accordingly, always concentrates on what is common or may become common to the
whole community; stylistic analysis on the other hand is concerned with what is
individual." Pp. 197 - 198.
64 "The original expressive function of language has been so much overshadowed by the
communicative function that the linguistic forms which we know have entirely
developed upon the basis of the latter function. The communicative character of
language is made possible by the conventionality of the linguistic means of expres
sion. The need, however, to make oneself understood has, in reality, not been able
entirely to suppress the need to express oneself; and so it has come about that in
linguistic research we cannot limit our attention to what is conventional in language.
A consequence of the conventional character of language is the fact that individual
needs to express oneself can never be fully satisfied by existing linguistic means. Each
individual's experience is unique, and nevertheless has to be expressed by conven
tional means. This incongruity is, at least partially, removed by the constant adapta
tion of linguistic means to freshly arising needs of expression." Pp. 195 - 196.
65 "If, however, language, instead of being simply a result of reflex processes, is, as has
been held, in opposition to W. Wundt, by A. Marty (...), a system of conventional
signs, then psychology cannot be expected to afford easy and direct help to linguis
tics. Consequently there is no chance of linguistics ever becoming a mere branch of
psychology", p. 203. - The sign conception of language continued to be a natural,
though little articulated, background to the Circle's reflections; the sign, together
with structure, was at the same time a concept that helped to expand the linguistic
topics of the Circle, especially by issues of literary science and ethnography. And it
was in these disciplines that the sign was being developed most.
66 Mathesius' essays cannot be separated from his linguistic work, cf. Moznosti, které
cekají (Possibilities in Store), Prague 1944.
67 Cf. Havránek's assessment of de Saussure above in Note 40.
68 "It is natural that not even Ferdinand de Saussure managed to develop his concep
tion fully and that we cannot agree with everything in his famous Cours de lin
guistique générale, published in 1916 by his pupils after their teacher's death." JKS,
p. 43 - Mathesius did not return to this subject later.
69 Cf. Actes du Premier Congrès de Linguistes tenu à La Haye du 10 - 15 avril 1928.
Leiden {Actes onwards).
70 "Quelles sont les méthodes les mieux appropriées à un exposé complet et pratique
de la grammaire d'une langue quelconque?" Actes, pp. 33 - 63, 84 - 86.
71 "La thèse de F. de Saussure définissant la langue comme un système de valeurs
relatives est presque généralement admise dans la linguistique contemporaine."
Actes, p. 33.
72 Actes, pp. 85 - 86.
73 Evidence of grasping the practical importance of phonology is given by Oberp-
falcer's eclectic, but undeservedly ignored Jazykozpyt (Linguistics), quoted in Note
40; on the whole it gives a good and clear account of phonology.
74 Closest to de Saussure has remained Hjelmslev's glossematics.
75 As reported by St. Lyer (SaS 9, p. 56), A. Sechehaye (Vox romanica 5, 1940, p. 4) -
a disciple of de Saussure - welcomes this development.
76 Mathesius correctly observes that phonological studies had been pursued fully and
systematically in the world since the early twenties (Ziele und Aufgaben der ver
gleichenden Phonologie); as an English linguistics scholar and a careful reader of H.
Sweet he could not possibly have missed the older Anglo-Saxon sources.
77 Grundzüge der Phonologie, TCLP 7, p. 8. - Unlike Trubetzkoy, this is what V. Skalicka
thought: "A variant is something that quite unmistakably belongs to langue" (SaS 2,
1936, p. 194).
78 That this form was not generally accepted is shown by L. Novak's study "Projet
d'une nouvelle définition du phonème", TCLP 8 (1939), pp. 66 - 70.
79 Mélanges linguistiques dédiés au Premier Congrès des philologues slaves, TCLP 1
(1929; Thèses, pp. 7 - 29). The Czech translation with an introduction was published
by J. Vachek in U základu prazské jazykovĕdné skoly (The Beginnings of the Prague
Linguistic School), Prague 1970.
80 TCLP 1, p. 7.
81 TCLP 1, p. 17ff.
82 TCLP 1, pp. 7 - 8.
83 Cf. papers by Jakobson, Karcevskij and Trubetzkoy even at the Hague congress
(Actes, pp. 35 - 36). In the Thèses (p. 8): "Les changements linguistiques visent
souvent [underlined by the authors] le système, sa stabilisation, sa reconstruction,
etc." We shall hardly ever know what was N. Trubetzkoy's and what R. Jakobson's
share in the formulation of the teleological standpoint. According to Trubetzkoy's
autobiographical notes (Autobiographische Notizen von N. S. Trubetzkoy mitgeteilt
von R. Jakobson) published by R. Jakobson in the supplement to the reprint of
Grundzüge der Phonologie (Göttingen 1962), the issue of teleology was one of the
starting-points in the formulation of the author's linguistic outlook. Trubetzkoy

began to think about new methods of historical study in 1915 after a discussion about
Sachmatov's book Ocerk drevnejsego perioda istorii russkogo jazyka (An Outline of
the Oldest Period in the History of Russian); the discussion sprang from Trubetz-
koy's criticism of Sachmatov's method. In a letter to Jakobson (December 29, 1926)
Trubetzkoy writes: "Der logische Charakter der Sprachentwicklung ergibt sich aus
der Tatsache, daß die Sprache ein System ist. In meinen Vorlesungen versuche ich
immer, die Logik der Entwicklung aufzuzeigen. ... Wenn Ferdinand de Saussure,
obgleich er lehrt, daß die Sprache ein System ist, nicht gewagt hat, die Konsequenzen
aus seiner Theorie zu ziehen, so erklärt sich das besonders durch die Tatsache, daß
ein solcher Schluß nicht nur der üblichen Auffassung von der Sprachgeschichte,
sondern sogar den landläufigen Vorstellungen von der Geschichte im allgemeinen
widersprochen hätte..." (Autobiographische Notizen, pp. 282 - 283). The extension of
the concept of teleology to include even functionality is apparently Jakobson's work.
He may have been led to do this by the need to have an idea that would synthesize
the structural and functional aspects into one whole.
84 Korinek's dismissive attitude towards teleology is clear from his article "Einige
Betrachtungen über Sprache und Sprechen", TCLP 5 (1936), esp. p. 25f. Later he
wrote: "What was discovered by de Saussure, i. e. developmental changes in lan
guages over a period of time are strictly a matter of "parole", applies unshakeably
even today, in spite of hitherto efforts to include diachrony in linguistic theory as an
equal component of its subject matter, side by side with linguistic synchrony." CMF
28, p. 372.
85 This explains why with the functionalist parole approach the notion of a synchronic
system remains indeterminate as an implication, a mere assumption. The structural/
functional multi-aspectuality typical of the Prague School was important in practical
matters, but for reasons of conceptual purity it could not be left indefinitely without
hierarchical structuring and perspectivization. - It is interesting to see how careful
Mathesius was - apparently by intuition - when formulating the conclusion to his
work "On the Potentiality".
86 Cf., for example, Ch. Bally, A. Sechehaye in Actes, p. 36ff.
87 Just as Jakobson kept on questioning de Saussure's dichotomy synchrony ~ dia
chrony all his life, so he questioned the principle of arbitrariness of the sign and the
linearity of the signifiant; cf., e. g., "Zeichen und System der Sprache", SW II, pp.
272 - 279. - As far as the principle of arbitrariness of the sign is concerned, the Circle
did not share Jakobson's objections; cf., e. g., . Trnka's paper in SaS 8, p. 218.
88 Cf. N. Trubetzkoy in Actes, pp. 17 - 18.
89 The same even in Actes, p. 36.
90 TCLP 1, pp. 10-11.
91 Cf. the Thèses, p. 11, point 3. - That Mathesius' attitude towards phonology was
definite and different from that of the rest of the Circle can also be seen in the way
he assessed Trubetzkoy's work in 1929 (Ziele und Aufgaben der vergleichenden
Phonologie, Xenia Pr ageusia E. Kraus ...et J. Janko ... oblata; in Czech in Cestina a
obecny jazykozpyt, Prague 1947, pp. 39 - 58).
92 Cf. N. Trubetzkoy, Description phonologique du russe moderne, 2. Das mor-

phonologische System der russischen Sprache, TCLP 5 (2), 1934. - The other two parts
(1 and 3) announced by Trubetzkoy not only remained unpublished; they were not
even written. Jakobson R., Remarques sur l'évolution phonologique du russe comparée
à celle des autres langues slaves, TCLP 2, Prague 1929.
93 TCLP 1, pp. 11-13.
94 TCLP 1, pp. 12 - 21.
95 TCLP 1, pp. 27 - 29. - It is not difficult to find out that in the last section two other
important members of the Circle - B. Havránek (1893 -1978) and J. Mukarovsky
(1891 - 1975)-joined in.
96 To be included here is in particular the idea of binary morphological oppositions of
the marked vs. unmarked member (so-called privative opposition as in the Czech
/d/ : : /t/).
97 Système du verbe russe. Essai de linguistique synchronique, Prague 1927. - The book
has a most important introduction. - On the whole, Karcevskij's linguistic outlook
was basically shaped in Geneva, reflecting a different influence.
98 TCLP 6 (1936), pp. 240 - 288; Charisteria Guilelmo Mathesio ... oblata, Prague 1932,
pp. 74 - 84. Both reprinted in SWII. - We should not overlook the introductory notes
{Allgemeine Vorbemerkungen) in Trubetzkoy's book quoted in Note 92.
99 The result of invariant studies in Prague are assessed and welcomed as a development
of de Saussure's ideas by A. W. de Groot (TCLP 8, 1939, p. 149).
100 SaS 2 (1936 - 7), pp. 47 - 54.
101 "Nářecí ceská" (Czech Dialects), Ceskoslovenská vlastivêda III, Jazyk, Prague 1934,
pp. 84-218.
102 For a detailed analysis of Mathesius' notions'functional onomatology' and 'func
tional syntax' and exemplification of their developmental dynamics in Mathesius'
conception of functional grammar, see O. Leska and P. Novak's study O chápání
"jazykového pojmenování" a "jazykového usouvztaznëni" (On the Concept of 'Lin
guistic Naming' and 'Linguistic Interrelation'), SaS 29 (1968, pp. 1 - 9).
103 One should bear in mind that underlying his thoughts is an earlier conception of
morphology generalizing all components of form, lexical and syntactic.
104 The conceptual feature 'elementary' appears in Mathesius'definition of the sentence
in subsequent works, probably under the influence of Skalicka's distinction between
the sentence as elementary and discourse as the total semiological reaction.
105 De Saussure was aware that in syntagmatics the boundary between parole and langue
phenomena is not sharp; cf. his assertion that "il faut attribuer à la langue, non à la
parole, tous les types de syntagmes construits sur des formes régulières" (Cours, p.
173). In general, however, syntactic issues were not elaborated in Cours; they seem
to have been regarded as the subject of parole linguistics which was beyond de
Saussure's attention.
106 SaS 1 (1935, p. 43).
107 TCLP 4 (1931, pp. 188 - 227).
108 In: Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie offerts à J. van Ginneken. Paris 1937, p. 64.
109 Karcevskij's inspirational influence on the work of Mathesius remains, of course,

unclear and deserves deeper analysis; in general, S. Karcevskij's participation in the
Prague School merits special attention.
110 TCLP 6 (1936, p. 106).
111 For detailed analysis of this development see J. Nekvapil's dissertation Periferni
vypovĕdnïrealizace vétnych struktur (Peripheral Realization of Sentence Structure in
Utterance), Ústav pro jazyk cesky CSAV, Prague 1982, pp. 7 - 40, and his study
"Historiografické poznámky  problematice vëty a vypovëdi" (Historiographie
Comments on the Problem of the Sentence and the Utterance), Jazykovedny casopis
38, 1987, pp. 60 - 77.
112 "Řec a sloh". In: Cteni o jazyce a poesii, Prague 1942, pp. 11 - 102.
113 "Řec a sloh", p. 17.
114 In his later studies Mathesius was able to refer to VI. Skalicka's works from 1935, "K
problému vëty" (On the Problem of the Sentence) SaS 1, pp. 212 - 215, and esp. Zur
ungarischen Grammatik (Prague). In the latter study Skalicka introduced the term
Satzcliché or Satzschema and was the first in the Prague School to list its types. The
important thing is that Skalicka placed sentence patterns in langue. In an extensive
review of this work Mathesius (SaS 2, 1936, pp. 47 - 54) in principle accepted
Skalicka's account of sentence patterns, but, at the same time, criticized him for
neglecting analysis of non-verbal clauses; according to Mathesius they, too, belong
to langue. - Skalicka's study Zur ungarischen Grammatik is a good example of how
de Saussure's Cours really served as a kind of referential basis facilitating com
munication among linguists. Skalicka did not mention de Saussure's Cours in his
bibliography and did not even refer to de Saussure in the text, though he used the
term langue. Cf. "Sie (i. e. Satzclichés) sind natürlich ein integrierender Bestandteil
des Sprachvermögens (de la langue)." (p. 35) - Another article worth mentioning is
A. Artymovyc's "O potenciálnosti v jazyce" (On the Potentiality of Language) (SaS
1, 1935, pp. 148 - 151), in which the author includes different syntactic constructions
and intonation patterns in langue.
115 "Promluva jako linguisticky pojem". SaS 3, 1937, pp. 163 - 166.
116 Cf. Skalicka's study "The Need for a Linguistics of la parole". In: Recueil linguistique
de Bratislava, 1, 1948, pp. 21 - 38.
117 On this occasion we would like to thank PhSt. Iva Tichá for thoughtful excerpts from
the writings of the Circle members.
118 Cf. Hausenblas, .: "Vyklad vztahu mezi stylem a jazykem v ceské jazykovëdë l.
poloviny 20. století" (An Account of the Relationship between Style and Language
in Czech Linguistics of the 1 st Half of the 20th Century). In: Konfrontacni studium
ruské a ceské gramatiky a slovní zásoby. Prague 1983, p. 323.
119 Havránek, .: " ceské dialektologii" (On Czech Dialectology), LF 51, 1924.
120 Havránek, .: "Funkce spisovného jazyka" (The Functions of a Standard Lan
guage), a paper delivered at the 1st Congress of Czechoslovak Professors of Philo
sophy, Philology and History in Prague April, 3 - 7, 1929.
121 Havránek, .: "Úkoly spisovného jazyka a jeho kultura". In: Spisovná cestina a
jazyková kultura, Prague 1932, p. 33; in the following only Úkoly (Tasks). "According
to an earlier linguistic approach the term norm could be invoked only in connection
with a standard language (whose norm is, in fact, realized and enforced with greater
consciousness and vigour, see below), since linguistics regarded "natural" language
as a mere sum of speech acts (individual phenomena). If today's linguistics draws a
distinction between language as a collective system of conventions (collective
phenomena) and actual speech, i. e. individual concrete linguistic manifestations
(individual phenomena), the distinction between langue and parole in de Saussure's
terminology, applying to every dialectal whole (even to functional languages - see in
the thesis of the Prague Linguistic Circle on functional languages from 1929, quoted
in the foreword), then we can speak of a norm, i. e. a set of linguistic means that are
to be regularly used, even in everyday language, in contrast to concrete linguistic
communications. For example, a local dialect also has a norm which exists however
in the concrete communications of its users only potentially; individual manifesta
tions may show deviations from it, clashes with other norms, etc."
122 Thèses, p. 15: "An important factor in the differentiation of a language is the relation
ship between participants in the linguistic contact: the degree of their social cohesive-
ness, membership in professional, territorial communities, clans and families, their
membership in different collective bodies with its resultant mixing of various linguistic
systems in urban languages. Among the related issues is that of languages for inter-
dialectal communication (so-called common languages), special languages, i. e. those
adapted for contacts with another-language environment, and the issue of language
differentiation in urban communities. - Diachronie linguistics must also heed the
profound effects of these linguistic formations on each other, not only territorial
influences, but also the influence of various functional languages, different modes of
linguistic manifestation and languages of different groups and communities."
123 Thèses, p. 14:
practical speech
internal speech communicative function
speech intellectual speech theoretical, formula-

tional speech
manifested speech poetic tunction
emotional speech listener-oriented, ie. emotive speech
disregarding the listener
124 Úkoly (Tasks), p. 67:

"Functions of a standard language Functional languages
1. communicative colloquial (conversational)
2. practical-specialist professional (factual)
3. theoretical-specialist scientific
4. esthetic poetic
ad 1. uniform semantic plan; free relation of lexical units to the communicated
content; incomplete verbal responses; intelligibility due to situation and conversa
tional automatisms
ad 2. uniform semantic plan; relation of lexical units to the communicated content

determined by convention (word - term); relatively complete responses; definiteness
due to specialist conventional automatisms (terms and formulae)
ad 3. uniform semantic plan; exact relation of lexical units to the communicated
content (word - concept); complete responses; precision due to well-defined or
standardized automatisms
ad 4. combined (multiple) semantic plan; relation of lexical units to the com
municated content; completeness and clarity of discourse determined by the struc
ture of the poetic work."
125 Ukoly (Tasks), p. 68:
"Functional styles of the standard language:
A) according to the specific goal of communication: 1. practical report, information;
2. invitation (call), persuasion; 3. general instruction (popular); 4. specialist instruc
tion (exposition, demonstration); 5. standard-establishing formulation;
B) according to situation and mode of manifestation: private - public; spoken -
written."
126 Havránek, .: Vyvoj spisovného jazyka ceského, Prague 1936.
127 Havránek, .: "K funkcnímu rozvrstvení spisovného jazyka". In: CMF 28, 1942, pp.
409 - 416.
128 "Poznámky  problematice psaného jazyka" (Some Remarks on the Problem of
Written Language). SaS 5, 1939, p. 63.
129 Mathesius, V.: "Řec a sloh". In:  teñí o jazyce a poesii. Prague 1942, pp. 11 - 102.
130 Mathesius, V.: "O pozadavku stability ve spisovném jazyce" (On the Requirement of
Stability in a Standard Language). In: Spisovná cestina ajazyková kultura, Prague
1932, p. 14. "The difficulty with present-day disputes about correct Czech arises
because linguistic correctness is considered in isolation. It is disregarded (or at least
not taken account of consistently enough) that this question is obviously part of a
wider and, therefore, superordinate issue of linguistic refinement. And yet the objec
tive assessment of the striving for linguistic correctness cannot be achieved unless
done in the context of larger-scale attempts at linguistic refinement, or rather
language culture."
131 Mathesius, V.: "O požvadavku stability", p. 14.
132 "Obecné zásady pro kulturu jazyka" (General Principles of Language Culture). In:
Spisovná cestina a jazyková kultura, Prague 1932, p. 245.
133 Obecné zásady, p. 248.
134 Thèses, p. 16: "The differentiation of the standard literary language is due to its task
and above all the greater demands made on it in comparison with everyday
language; the standard language is the bearer of cultural life and civilization (advan
ces and results of scientific, philosophical, religious, socio-political and administra
tive-legal thought). This task, together with the aims to ensure technical/specialist
instruction and formulation extends and changes in particular its lexis; (...)"
"This intellectualization of the standard language also results from the need to
express the interdependence and complexity of thought processes - a need shown in
the development of abstract notions as well as syntactic forms (e. g. elaboration of
complex sentence patterns by precise formulations). Moreover, the intellectuahzation

of the standard language brings about an increased control (censorship) of emotional
elements (the culture of euphemism)."
"The more attentive and demanding attitude towards language is connected with
the more standard-based and more normalized nature of the standard literary
language. (...)"
135 Obecné zásady, p. 255f.
136 This paper is a revised version of an article published under the same title in
Philologica Pragensia 30, 1987, 77 - 109. The main contributions of the authors are
as follows: J. Nekvapil - the section on syntax; O. Šoltys - the sections on functional
stylistics and language culture; O. Leška - the remaining sections and the conception
of the paper.
Abbreviations
CMF Casopis pro moderni filologii

(Prague)
JKS Jazyk, kultura, slovesnost (cf.
Note 1)
LF Listy filologiché (Prague)
PLC Prague Linguistic Circle
SaS Slovo a slovesnost (Prague)
sw Selected Writings (cf. Note 3)
TCLP Travaux du Cercle Linguistique
de Prague
The Position of Style in Verbal Communication
Karel Hausenblas
1
Linguistic or verbal communication as a whole is not actually the
subject of one special science. Linguistics deals with but one part of it:
it concentrates on merely some components of the system of com
munication of a given kind and, when accounting for the structure of
communicated messages, on merely some of their layers, i.e. those of
"lower" complexity. The science of communication - which is un
derstood in general terms here, not only in its mathematical or technical
aspects, and which is little developed as yet - has, or rather should have,
its subject much broader than that; it should include all kinds of
communication, even those dispensing with the means of verbal lan
guage. Likewise, the subject of semiotics, the study of signs, and of
information theory is much broader, for even these are not limited only
to verbal communication.
The notion of linguistic or verbal communication is in need of a
more exact definition of both aspects this term refers to. Communica
tion is usually, even in monographs devoted specifically to it, identified
with the transmission of information and its exchange (see J. Janousek,
1968). I believe it should be expanded to include interactions between
persons, or joint participation1 in an activity accompanied by mutual
contact. Although conveyance and exchange of information are the
most frequent aim and the main subject of communication,2 com
munication is not usually confined to these two (cf. social conversation
in which the factual value of the conveyed information is often super
seded by the need to maintain social contact on its own, etc.) and
assumes other forms without information being imparted, such as mere
staying together by people in a particular environment, common leisure
activity, e. g. recreation, or even work. For instance, in the educational
52 KAREL HAUSENBLAS
process young people learn from their elders many things without
sharing information through language or any other special system; the
learning takes place through imitation in the process of working togeth
er. Conveyance and exchange of information deserve to be observed
within the broader context of communication, interactions being one of
its important, though not always inevitable, component.
Even "linguistic" or "verbal" aspects of communication call for a
detailed delimitation. It is not uncommon to encounter interpretations
that extend the notion of language to all communicative or sign sys
tems, and sometimes even to the so-called genetic code in which infor
mation is encoded in genes. This is not appropriate, though. The notion
of language should be reserved for systems of communicative means (or
rather for their basic component, as will be shown later). Communica
tion of information by the genetic code lacks one essential feature of
communication, i. e. reciprocity, the possibility to reverse the flow of
information, to switch the parts of the communicators. Apart from the
language of words, i. e. a verbal language (besides natural verbal
languages there are artificial ones as well), there are other languages
such as the language of gestures, special signalling codes, etc. Place of
pride3 amongst languages is taken by natural verbal languages of ethnic
groups, today primarily national languages (although some may be
used by several nations, e. g. German). So, by verbal communication we
mean communication which uses the means of a verbal language (in the
following we will consider only natural "national" languages). This is
not to say, however, that communication of this kind is restricted only
to those means which are traditionally dubbed as linguistic and which
are treated by linguistics within the usual extent.
2
To understand the nature and position of style in this sphere, which
is the main objective of our further discussion, it is of key importance
to take stock of all the different kinds of "building material" (as seen
from the point of view of the intention/aim of the communicated
content and that of its communicative, information effect), i. e. the
different means4 that take part in the construction of communications
described as linguistic or verbal.
(1) The basic ones are linguistic means proper (ranging from
phonological to morphological and from lexical to syntactic); in view
STYLE IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION 53
of the following we may call them lingual means. It is particularly these

means that, from the point of view of information value, are the bearers
of the basic category of meanings, notional, conceptual-factual mean
ings. These meanings provide the corner stones for the constitution of
the "factual content" of a communication.5
(2) Parallel to lingual means there are always paralingual means as
well, taking part in the construction of verbal communications (they
include phonic features, such as speech tempo, voice timbre, or graphic
features, such as different letter types, their colour, etc.). Although they
are of a secondary, auxiliary or sometimes substitutive nature, they may
quite often be important carriers of information for the overall meaning
of a communication. Thus, the timbre of voice may stand in stark
contrast to the "factual content" of the message and, in cases like this,
it is the information which is more difficult to control consciously by the
speaker (here, timbre of the voice) that is regarded as determining.
Paralingual means play a significant part in stylistic composition too.
(3) Furthermore, the structure of a communication involves the
matic means. They are "carried" by linguistic means, constitute a higher
level of the semantic structure of a communication, but do not neces
sarily depend on some particular linguistic means. For example, the
motive of sharing grief, which is an essential component of a letter or
telegram of condolence, may be expressed by various linguistic means,
some of which have become firmly established. Similarly, the motive of
Death in a letter or a lyrical poem may be expressed by a primary direct
denomination or by customary, euphemistic, symbolic expressions or,
on the contrary, in quite novel terms such as Nejatá (The Uncaptured),
Teskná (The Sorrowful) in the lines of the poet O. Březina: V tvych
zracích, Nejatá, jsem marne dusi koupal (Vĕzen, Tajemné dálky) (transl.
"In thy eyes, the Uncaptured, I bathed my soul in vain", the Prisoner,
from the collection Mysterious Distances), Svuj zal jsem polozil na stul
tvuj obetní, ó Teskná, v záři hvĕzd a svĕtel vpísni ranni (Svuj zal..., ibid.)
(transl. "I put my grief on thy sacrificial table, oh Sorrowful, in the
glitter of stars and lights in a morning song", My Grief, from the same
collection).
Thematic means fall outside the competence of linguistics. Each
sphere of communicative contact, however, has at its (and the com
municators') disposal a stock of certain thematic units6 and broader
complexes. We may see this not only in commercial correspondence or
54 KAREL HAUSENBLAS
political propaganda, but also in normal everyday conversation. Quite

a large portion of it draws on the ready-made stock of "thematic
blocks", and some of its components have even developed their set
linguistic expression.
(4) The repertory of means participating in the structure of verbal
communications is by no means exhausted by the previous communica
tive means: the grammatical and lexical devices are supplemented by
others which serve to combine parts of discourse into a whole, its
articulation, development of its content, etc. They include, for instance,
the functional sentence perspective, i. e. theme-rheme structure. They
are specific structural means of the highest level of discourse as a whole.
We might briefly, though somewhat inaccurately, call them textual
means.
(5) Construction of a communication also makes use of another
kind of means which form the communication in a specific way (and
modify its meanings). These are, for example, repetition, gradation, a
shift in meaning, hyperperbole, and so on. So far as they are recognized
as actual means in technical literature, they are sometimes described as
compositional, sometimes as stylistic. Previously, rhetorics and poetics
dealt with many of these under the heading of tropes and figures, but
not in sufficiently general terms. It is indisputable, however, that they
are in the nature of means, i. ., formations used for a certain purpose.
They are mostly attached to linguistic means (repetition of sounds,
words, syntactic constructions, metaphoric shift in the meaning of
words) or to thematic means (repetition of motifs, represented situa
tions, allegoric or some other indirect meaning of a thematic complex).
To call these means compositional is too narrow - many of them
are related to selection, choice or both choice and composition. Thus
oxymoron, as in the title of Březina's collection of poems Svítání na
západĕ (Dawn in the West) or in the commonly used expression vy-
mluvné mlcení (eloquent silence), is not only a combination of the
uncombinable, but also a combination of the uncombinable - in other
words, it represents both the selection of components and their com
position. I have proposed to call the construction of a discourse - seen
dynamically in its gradual implementation, the growth of a whole (which
is not identical with the actual act of its genesis!) - tectonics and the
individual means of this construction as tectonic (K. Hausenblas, 1968).
The nature and particular use of tectonic means under certain communica-
tive conditions play a decisive role in the formation of the style of a

communication. Means of this kind are used not just in literary works
of art (more widely in literature and rhetoric), but everywhere else,
although in a different way and with different results as to the informa
tion effect of the communication. Treatment of verbal communications,
especially of their style, cannot do without them.
Although the basic categories of such means are affected by the
nature of the material into which verbal (spoken and written) com
munication is translated and by the nature of the verbal signs, these
means in their essence transcend the sphere of verbal communication -
they just as much belong to other achievements and creations of man
in actualitate et in potentia. For example, gradation or contrastive
constellation is used in music, visual arts, etc. All the same, this does not
release the study of (the structure of) a communication (whose develop
ment within the study of communication we regard as necessary) from
the obligation to deal with them. On the contrary. We believe that the
treatment of their modifications in verbal communication constitutes
the nucleus of study in this field.
(6) But neither has this exhausted the repertory of means: Com
municators have at their disposal means of considerable complexity,
namely complete schemata of a communication as a whole. They are
given various names: genre forms (in the sphere of literature); and
stylistic modes of expression, stylistic forms (in linguistic stylistics). The
construction of communications as whole texts does not display many
general features, differentiation between particular kinds of com
munication shows strong variations of a stylistic nature. Finally, even
interpersonal styles (see later) may assume the character of means due
to established communicative practice and their function as stylistic
norms.
(7) When we think of what speakers use as ready-made elements
from a common stock at hand and what they newly construct in the act
of communication, we cannot overlook the fact that the memory of user
of a natural language retains not only units of the given language and
further partial means, but also shorter or longer extracts of whole
discourses, and sometimes even whole finished discourses. These have
become more or less established through collective usage - for instance,
texts of various discourses required by social conventions, congratula
tions, pieces of folklore and non-folklore tradition, especially univers-
56 KAREL HAUSENBLAS
ally known verses of poetry, lyrics to songs, pop-hits, arias, anthems,

famous quotations, maxims or adages, etc., but also discourses, created
ad hoc, either of our own or someone else's such as declarations of love,
funeral speeches, and so on. Even this store of discourses and their parts
is used by the speaker of language when he constructs new discourses
(he incorporates them either as quotations or without such an introduc
tion; the receiver may or may not identify these ready-made parts or
whole discourses as such).
Once again, seen from a purely linguistic point of view (but not so
from a stylistic one), this issue may seem insignificant.
3
From what has been said it is clear that our conception of style is
much broader than is usual in linguistic and stylistic literature. In our
view, one of the main shortcomings besetting stylistic treatment of
verbal communication is a too narrow understanding of style.
First of all, linguistic works, and, as a rule, even those of literary
science almost invariably restrict style only to the manner in which
linguistic means (proper) are used. This leads to the determination of the
properties of style, seen as one of the main construction principle in the
basic "linguistic" layers of the structure of a communication. At the
same time, it is either assumed that the construction principles has thus
been described in toto or, probably more often, it is believed that the
determination of such a principle at the "thematic" level of construc
tion is another matter, pertaining to the "composition" of a com
munication. Its treatment is presumably not within the competence of
linguistics but of literary science (which, however, can be true only of
works of literature, but hardly of verbal communications of other
kinds). True, the term style was coined - in the classical Roman period
- from observation of the properties of verbal communications from the
point of view of language, and it was used in this sense throughout the
Middle Ages. But once the notion of style was later extended to the
properties of other, nonverbal structures, first to works of visual art,
including architecture, in the 18th century and subsequently to man's
achievements and creations in other fields (falling both within and
outside the bounds of art), a revision of how this phenomenon was to
be understood in verbal communication should have followed. The
revision should have taken account of the fact that nowhere else is style
- as an integrative principle of the use, i. e. of choice (or even modification)

and composition, of formative elements - restricted solely to a certain
lower-level range of these means. On the contrary, style should have
been discovered as the integrative principle of constructing the whole.
However, many of those who limit the concept of style only to the layers
of language, or in some cases restrict it even more (see below), do search
for the constructive, building principle of a communication as a whole.
Then, of course, they have to create other concepts towards this end: for
example, J. Mukarovsky who also reduces style to the linguistic layers
of a work, developed the notion of a "semantic gesture" to cover this
constructive principle governing the whole and finding expression in
individual components. It was at the time when the semantic aspect of
a work (which he understood as a sign) had become the focus of his
attention (cf. J. Mukarovsky, 1938). Others speak, in less clear terms,
about "order" or use rather general labels like "shape", "form"
pregnantly, some resort to various figurative designations, often quite
vague, such as "facture", "handwriting", "disposition", "tone",
"rhythm", "atmosphere", and so forth.
There is another direction where style is narrowed down to a
principle specific to creations of one person, one author, i. e. to the
individual or personal style of the author. This conception, which used to
be quite wide-spread in stylistics in previous times, has retained some
of its influence even now. Some, especially Western, scholars carry the
conception of style as merely an individual matter of the author's
personality one step further by confining it to a range of phenomena -
within the author's works - which are due to his psychophysical disposi
tion. This highly restricted concept of "natural" style is, for example,
found in R. Barthes (1967). To account for other components in the
author's style (as well as in the higher generalization of stylistic
phenomena), i. ., those through which the author consciously imple
ments his creative intention, he adapts the term "handwriting". There
is no doubt that the individual style of an author (and style as such)
includes both these components, but also others such as those the
authors receive from the environment in which they have moved or
move. We should not forget, however, that as far as the impact, the
information effect, of a communication is concerned, it is difficult, or
even impossible, to distinguish the proportion of the intentional from
the fortuitous element in the author's style reliably.
58 KAREL HAUSENBLAS
Style, however, tends to be interpreted narrowly in other ways as

well. There is a rather wide-spread opinion according to which style is
to be found only in works of literature (cf. also Cherry, 1957, p. 106).
Some authors are ready to concede style only to works of art (literary
or nonliterary): e. g. A. Sokolov (1968), who sees style as an artistic law
and believes that language style and the style of art are two quite
different meanings of this word and that style outside art (and speech)
is only a metaphor.
Others, following in the footsteps of Ch. Bally7 and his stylistics
(focusing on the study of the affectional-emotional aspects of speech),
continue to restrict style to just this aspect even at the present time. This
is the way H. Seidler (1953, p. 61ff.)proceeds, for example, when he pits
style, based on emotionality (Gemüthaftigkeit) against the manner of
representation {Darstellungsweise), based on rationality and purposive-
ness.
Style is the focus of increased attention in a more recent British
linguistic literature (see the systematic survey by J. Ellis and J. N. Ure,
1969, p. 251 ff., and J. Spencer, 1969, p. 261 ff). The starting-point is the
differentiation of language according to (the groups of) users, i. .,
division into dialects down to idiolects, and according to usage, i. .,
differentiation between registers. For example, Halliday-Mclntosh-
Strevens (1965, p. 90 ff.) define style as one of the dimensions by which
to distinguish registers in a language; the remaining two dimensions are
the field of discourse which includes differences between functional
styles and languages (in terminology common in Praguian linguistics)
and the mode of discourse which includes differences between spoken
and written expression. According to this concept, style is the dimension
which refers to the relations between participants in the communicative
act. Basically, it differentiates between two poles: colloquial, and for
mal, polite. Apparently, style even here is understood very narrowly. In
addition, the authors distinguish individual style, which they define as
the "writer's idiolect within a certain register" (p. 97).
And so we could go on presenting different conceptions8 of style
that concentrate on various aspects of verbal communications. What
they have in common is that they highlight such aspects of the structure
of communications which do not follow from the general principles of
their construction but are the result of the operation of factors, ranging
from special to unique. This fact which links different conceptions of
both style and phenomena similar in nature, which figure in treatments

under different concepts and names, allows for certain conclusions. We
may feel entitled to maximum generalizations in understanding style in
the broadest possible way, while allowing for the whole gamut of its
forms in different stages of generalization. Starting from individual style
(i. ., of each given verbal communication) and along different lines of
this generalization, we may draw on various prominent properties of
communications and observe the impact of various style-forming fac-
tors9 that participate in the genesis of communications.
On the other hand, we do not subsume stylistic modifications of
language (a system of linguistic means) under the notion of style. What
our and other stylistics call "styles of language" in distinction from
"styles of speech" (cf. V. V. Vinogradov, 1963 - he even distinguishes a
third category, styles of literary works of art) are, in fact, "languages of
styles". Thus scientific language or journalese, etc., are systems of
linguistic means used in communications of scientific, journalistic, and
other styles.
4
Which component of the structure of a communication do we call
style? We give this name to one of the principles of its construction as
a whole that bears the stamp of an act of human behaviour, a product
of human activity. What we have just said includes three concepts that
must be explained in detail:
(1) Each communication can be understood and studied as a
product of human activity. Such products consist not only of fixed
written texts, but also of just oral dialogues, etc.: the latter are, however
shortly and incompletely, fixed, or rather, fixable in the receivers' mem
ory and can be fixed by sound or picture recording. In principle, fixed
and non-fixed communications may have the same structure (though, of
course, the fixation may be partial, abridged, etc.).
(2) By construction we mean the formation and formedness (in the
sense of the result of formation) of the whole out of the construction
means which are included in the set of communicative means available
to communicators and common to them to a decisive (minimally neces
sary) measure.10
The relation between the components of a communication and the
set of communicative means is of essential importance for structures of
60 KAREL HAUSENBLAS
this kind: only when the system of means and rules of their use is
known, may a communication be interpretable.11
When describing the structure of discourses, reference is
sometimes made to its internal complexity (both on the horizontal and
the vertical level) which is intensified by multiple re-evaluation of the
relationship between expression and content, means and function.
However, structural relevance characterizes not only mutual relations
between parts of the whole and relations of individual parts to the
whole, but also relations between parts of the whole and the set of
means whose paradigms these means pertain to. This property of the
structure of communications is of fundamental importance for the very
interpretation of their style. In connection with this, it is necessary to
show the structure of the communication in terms of its processual
construction out of the means of a particular systems (and its reflection
in the resultant product). The components of this construction are: a)
selection of means, b) their potential modification or neologization,
usually from the existing subunits, c) composition of the selected means.
Selection in the finished communication is represented as "select-
edness" (i. e. the relation of the selected to other possible choices), as
"modified mode" and "composedness". It should be stressed that, for
example, the selection concerns not only the lower, elementary and
fairly simple units, but also means of considerable complexity and even
whole schemata of communications (see 2.6 above).
(3) The way in which communications are constructed, the selec
tion and composition of their components in communicative practice
are unusually varied, as required by the needs and conditions of com
munication, especially the multiformity of the referential subject of
communication. This diversity, however, is not diffuse or fragmentary.
We may single out certain main principles which operate in the con
struction of communications. Of course, the picture is far from simple:
there is no rule or generally valid norm according to which we might
construct a communication on whatever subject. No such validity is,
e.g., found in the principles of grammatical structure. Grammar (in the
usual sense of the word) provides at best only paradigms of mor
phological-syntactic constructions for the production of particular ut
terances (moreover, some modes of conjunction, reference, etc. operat
ing beyond the boundaries of multiple-sentence units).
Although there does exist a completely general principle, a schema

which unites the variability of particular communications, it comprises
only very few properties of the communication which characterize it as
a temporal or spatio-temporal structure of a certain kind which is
developed by the addition of elements of expression in (essentially)
linear succession.12 It is a principle which, in horizontal structuration,
functions as a beginning-middle-end schema (and can undergo multiple
reiteration in particular parts-phases such as the beginning itself being
articulated into beginning-middle-end, etc.). In vertical structuration
the principle operates as the relation between expression and content
which is gradually transformed at the particular levels of construction.
The principle is further modified by the character of the phonic or
graphic (or other) material and by the physiological properties of its
articulation and perception. Hence the source esp. of its properties,
underlying the phenomenon called rhythm.
The general schema of the structure of a communication assumes
a great variety of forms depending on the different needs and conditions
of communication. The communication may fulfil a number of informa
tion aims and, above all, may have diverse factual content. The content
is expressed by grammatical-lexical means and means of discourse or
text production (these include, e. g., thematic-rhematic structuring as
one of the basic means of developing the factual-content component).
So far the basic construction rules of the grammatical-lexical structura
tion of the lower complexes have been described more systematically
than the principles operating in the higher complex units in the produc
tion of a communication as a whole. Especially the basic modes of
semantic structure of communications are still insufficiently described.
The verbal representation of referential subjects in a specific way reflects
the principles of human imagination, thought, etc. (the structure of
these mental processes is in turn dependent on the properties of verbal
speech in a certain specific way).
All this is not an accidental interplay of blind forces. Communica
tions are the result of man's purposely directed activity and his creative
potential: among these - mutatis mutandis just as in other products -
there always operates the ability to produce a whole (to give a whole a
specific form), although not always with equal strength or success. The
ability is not so much to impart form to an amorphous mass as to unite
multiform elements, to integrate components of sometimes consider-
62 KAREL HAUSENBLAS
able diversity13 into a whole of mutually complementary properties. It

means choosing from the existing elementary and complex means such
means and combining them in such a manner as to best suit the
communicative objective in the given constellation of the other factors.
Alternatively, it means adapting them or creating new ones, if necessary,
and thus helping to produce a structure whose information content
results in an entity which we call the sense (smysl) of a communication.
We call this integrative principle style. The important thing is that style
becomes apparent not only from the finished whole, but usually tends
to characterize the partial phases-parts of the communication. Quite
often it characterizes the very initial segment, however small (that's why
it is often possible to determine the basic properties of the style of a
communication from the first utterance),14 it affects all the layers of the
structure and controls means of all kinds. For the very reason that style
is a concept that should embody the integrative principle of the whole,
it is not suitable to limit style to the manner in which linguistic means
proper are used. It just as well concerns those which are carried in
discourse by linguistic means, such as thematic or other, quite nonver
bal, means which co-participate in producing the whole of a com
munication. The latter include, e. g., mimicry and gestures which ac
company linguistic spoken means or various nonverbal graphic means
used in written texts.
Hence style belongs to the sphere of the form or pattern (Gestalt)
of a communication (cf. . Svoboda, 1943, p. 5). If we say that style is
the principle of communication construction we have in mind not just
that it is a kind of skeleton, the frame of the form of the whole, but
something even more specific for wholes that are human products and
are understood as such. Style links the formedness of a whole with the
system of forming means, with other possibilities of formation and thus
with other particular communications (i. e. realization of these pos
sibilities). It also links it with the person of the author-producer, with
a group of authors marked by common features, with the "period", etc.
If we wish to view style as such an integrative principle in the first
place, then it is necessary to understand style in this sense as broadly as
possible in two respects: we are not going to perceive this principle only
in some component of the structure, e. g., only in the linguistic or
extraintellectual (emotional-affectional) layers and, secondly, as far as
the position on the particular-general axis is concerned, we shall not
confine style only to the sphere of a low degree of generalization (as is

the case when style is spoken of only in the sense of the personal style
of the author, common to a class of communications produced by one
author). For us, the field of occurrence of style implies the whole sphere
of the particular and the special (cf. P. Trost, 1955). Only if communica
tions as a whole were produced in one way only, according to a single
norm of the overall construction, we would not need to operate with the
notion of style. But since the mode of construction changes depending
on various special conditions of communication and their concurrence
in a particular communicative act, we do need to distinguish style at
various stages of generalization. In fact from zero generalization, i. e.
the pole of the particular (which, from the point of view of value, often
appears as "unique"), in other words from the style of one particular
communication, we proceed via generalizations of lower stages (re
presented esp. by individual, personal styles of particular authors) to
generalizations of higher orders such as complex "period" styles, or
functional styles. We arrive at the latter along a different line of
generalization, through focusing on one of the communicative con
ditions as the style-forming factor and leaving aside the others.
5
Styles at the higher level of generalization, where they assume the
nature of interpersonal norms of the overall production of communica
tions of course belong to the (complex) means (in the sense defined in
secton 2 above) available to communicators of a particular community
and so they also belong to the set of communicative means. Hence the
notion of style, as many other notions, runs across the axis "parole"
(broadly: communication) - "langue" (a system of communicative
means). There is nothing wrong about the notion that "parole" and
"langue" phenomena exist at all levels of the structure of a communica
tion, including the highest in the overall construction, sometimes called
the textual level.
The impact of style, however, goes as far as the sense of a com
munication. Sense is a content entity which consists not only of so-
called "factual content", i. e. information notionally and intellectually
interpretable, mediated by lexical-grammatical and thematic means,
but also of information of a different type.15 Its bearers also involve
other components of the communication, including the principle of
64 KAREL HAUSENBLAS
construction that we call style in this paper. Detailed examination of the

relation between style and sense could yield useful findings, e. g., from
the point of view of dynamics, the semantic structure of the whole.
Sense frequently assumes definite form as late as the final phases-parts
of the communication, whereas style, the formative integrative princi
ple, is normally apparent as early as the first phases-parts. So style often
(at least in some respects) portends the resultant sense of the com
munication.
However important it is to explain the place that style occupies in
the structure of a communication and in the system of communicative
means, we regard as equally important accounting for the structure of
style itself. This involves the breaking down of this complex
phenomenon into partial to elementary components. Components of
style are not linguistic or thematic means that make up a discourse, but
certain partial to elementary modes of their employment. The picture
of this matter that stylistics can offer is still not clear in many ways. For
example, there is a need to confront the knowledge of the so-called basic
tectonic means that we have mentioned above with the discussions of
the basic "style properties" or rather the basic "types of expression" (a
term introduced by Fr. Miko, 1969, who endeavours to systematize
them). This however goes beyond the subject of this paper. We may say
that stylistics finds itself at approximately the same stage of develop
ment as was the study of phonic means (just?) before the setting up of
phonology. Unfortunately, the difference is not only in the half-a-
century delay in the case of stylistics, but also in that the problem of
dealing with style and its elements is incomparably more difficult...
Our reflections on the position of style within verbal communica
tion suggest that the course which the study in this field should take to
achieve more comprehensive results lies not in mere confrontation of
the results and mutual cooperation of traditional disciplines such as
linguistics, literary science, psychology, sociology, etc., or in the sym
biotic conjunction of their contiguous areas (sociolinguistics, psycholin-
guistics). For linguistics usually understands the notion of style too
narrowly, literary science examines it in only one special area of occur
rence of verbal phenomena and more often than not persists in the older
philological conception of style, and neither psychology nor sociology
pay enough attention to it. In our view, the chances of success will be
much better with a more sweeping approach, a systematic development
of a discipline whose subject would consist of verbal communication as

a whole. However, this entails far more than moving some of the
milestones, this would call for a substantial re-evaluation of the com
plete terminological apparatus.16
Notes
1 Cf. the original meaning of the Latin communication "joint participation" (Pražák's
Latin-Czech Dictionary), communicare "to make st common" and "to share st
jointly".
2 C. Cherry in his book On Human Communication (1957) also deals with communica
tion only in the sense of impartation, making oneself understood, but (in Chapter 2
"What is communication") he arrives at its delimitation by narrowing its broad
sphere of use, cf. his formulation: "Communication means a sharing of elements of
behaviour, or modes of life, by the existence of sets of rules".
3 Although even the most widespread of them are mostly limited to certain ethnic and
geographic communities, for the users who have mastered them they are the most
universal means of communication. Even so their universality is not complete: the
very verbal character which offers them such wide possibilities as against other,
nonverbal systems determines the boundaries of these possibilities. These come to
light, e. g. in the comparison of speech with music or with representation by the
special means of geometry, etc. Not unexpectedly communications often combine the
means of verbal language with other means of representation, for instance, a lecture
complemented by diagrams on the blackboard, an article combined with photo
graphs, etc. The verbal component may not always dominate, sometimes it is only
secondary, or provides a framework or it can be strongly reduced, for instance in a
film of instruction, a picture-book for children, etc. In terms of participation of
verbal means there is a gradual transition from purely verbal communications to
communications entirely nonverbal.
4 On the notion of the "linguistic means" see Fr. Danes (1967).
5 Quite exceptionally, the factual content can completely recede into the background
or be annulled. This happens in some types of recent poetry. A communication then
does not have the function of factual representation.
6 "Topoi" in the terminology of E. R. Curtius (1954, p. 79).
7 Bally (1908), too, understood style narrowly, apparently only within the limits of
literary style and so style does not figure in Bally's conception of stylistics.
8 Even those who do not restrict style only to the sphere of verbal communication
often fail to conceive of it in full extent. Thus K. Svoboda (1943), who follows the
development of conceptions of style from the classical period, considers it appro
priate to speak of style only in works of art, literary and others, although he refers
to broader conceptions as well.
9 The notion of style-forming factors was first used in Czech literature by Fr. Trávnícek
(1953); 1 presented their systematic survey at the conference on style in Liblice
66 KAREL HAUSENBLAS
(. Hausenblas, 1955), this was followed up by publications of J. Mistrik (1970), A.

Jedlicka et al. (1970), and M. Jelinek in a collection of papers Kultur a ceského jazyka
(The Culture of the Czech Language), Libérée 1969, p. 73ff.
10 In fact, a communication may include even some means unknown to its receiver (e.g.,
loans from another communicative system or neologisms), some means can be used
in a meaning unusual so far, etc.
11 It follows that there can be no communication without a system of means. Even when
solving cryptographic problems, we must proceed at least from related structures and
the "presupposed" communication becomes real only step by step in the process of
discovering the system of means and the rules of their use. However, there may exist
a system of means without existing communications (cf., for example, a system newly
devised or a case when a grammar and a dictionary, etc., of an extinct language have
been preserved, written in another language, but no texts in the language itself).
12 The basic line in spoken discourse is accompanied by some suprasegmental
phenomena; the situation is more complicated in communication where mimicry,
gesticulation, etc. are relevant as well. It is also more complicated in written com
munications.
13 The absence of a unifying stylistic principle is rated as a serious drawback (when, e.g.,
in a theatre performance there is a disharmony between the staging and the actors'
conception of the characters, direction and music), yet stylistic diversity (even
heterogeneity) is sometimes desirable in some genre forms, e. g. newspapers, variety
shows, etc. There are even cases of structures based on stylistic contradiction, e. g.
parody, in which the choice of linguistic means and thematic means is often in stark
contrast (high-flown form becomes the medium of trivial content, etc.) and thus call
forth the comic effect. In recent artistic production we come across works with
structures as it were completely disunified, for example, when montage is used. Cf.
the text by B. Hrabal Legenda zahraná na strunách napjatych mezi kolébkou a rakví
(A Legend Played on Strings Stretched between a Cradle and a Coffin) in his book
Morytáty a legendy (Broadside Ballads and Legends), Praha, 1968. The author
himself writes of this book that it is a "mixed text put together according to Atribute
der Heiligen, Prague Secrets by Popelka Biliánová, Mysterium der Schachkunst,
court documents of criminal cases and street talks". Even here, however, the style of
the whole is evident, for example, in the limit to the extent of the passages, the rhythm
in which they alternate.
14 Cf. analyses of the beginnings of literary works of art; in Czech literature see esp. R.
Grebenícková (1963) and A. Skoumal (1970).
15 As a matter of form {Gestalt) in the first place and especially as its unifying principle,
style also has its esthetic aspect. But it is not only an esthetic phenomenon, nor is its
integrative function exhausted by esthetic motivation. It depends on how broadly we
understand the concept of the esthetic. We believe that a comprehensive account of
style could introduce useful distinctions into the matter. Oddly enough, esthetic
theory does not pay as much attention to the question of style as could be expected.
16 This paper was originally published in Czech as Postaveni stylu ve verbální
komunikaci (In: . Hausenblas, Vystavba jazykovych projevû a styl. Praha 1971,
pp. 11 -23).
References
BALLY, Ch. (1908), Traité de stylistique française. Paris.

BARTHES, R. (1953), Le degré zéro de l'écriture. Paris (Czech translation
Prague, 1967).
CHERRY, C. (1957), On Human Communication. New York.
CURTIUS, E. R. (1954), Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter.
Bern (2nd edition).
DANES, F. (1967),  pojmu jazykovy prostredek (On the Notion 'Means of
Language'). Slovo a slovesnost, 18, 341 - 349.
ELLIS, J. and J. N. URE (1969), Language Varieties: Register. In: Encyclopae
dia of Linguistics, Information and Control. Oxford, 251ff.
GREBENÍCKOVÁ, R. (1963),  otázce vstupních vet Gogolovy povídky 'Nos'
(On the Introductory Sentences in Gogol's Short Story 'Nos'). Ceskosloven-
ská rusistika, VII, 119ff.
HALLIDAY, M. A. K , McINTOSH, A. and P. STREVENS (1964), The
Linguistic Science and Language Teaching. London.
HAUSENBLAS, K. (1955), K základním pojmum jazykové stylistiky (On the
Basic Concepts of Linguistic Stylistics). Slovo a slovesnost, 16, 1 - 15.
HAUSENBLAS, K. (1968), Vystavba slovesnych komunikàtu a stylistika (The
Structure of Verbal Communications and Stylistics). In: Ceskoslovenské
přednášky pro VI. mezinárodní sjezd slavistu. Praha, 343ff.
JANOUŠEK, J. (1968), Sociální komunikace (Social Communication). Praha.
JEDLICKA, A., FORMÁNKOVÁ, V and M. REJMÁNKOVÁ (1970), Zä-
klady ceské stylistiky (An Outline of Czech Stylistics). Praha.
MIKO, F. (1969), Estetika vyrazu (The Esthetics of Expression). Bratislava.
MISTRÍK, J. (1970), Stylistika slovenského jazyka (Stylistics of the Slovak
Language). Bratislava.
MUKAŘOVSKY, J. (1938), Genetika smyslu v Màchovêpoesii (The Development
of Sense in Mádia's Poetry). In: Torso a tajemství Máchova díla. Praha, 13ff.
SEIDLER, H. (1953), Allgemeine Stilistik. Göttingen.
SKOUMAL, A. (1970), Překlad románového zacátku (Translating the Begin
ning of a Novel). Slovo a slovesnost, 31, 227ff.
SOKOLOV, A. N. (1968), Teorija stilja (Theory of Style). Moskva.
SPENCER, J. (1968), Language Varieties: Stylistics. In: Encyclopaedia of
Linguistics, Information and Control. Oxford, 259fi°.
SVOBODA, K. (1943),  literárním slohu (On Literary Style). Praha.
TRÁVNÍCEK, F. (1953), O jazykovém slohu (On Linguistic Style). Praha.
TROST, P. (1955),  obecnym otázkám stylu (On General Problems of Style).
Slovo a slovesnost, 16, 15ff.
VINOGRADOV, V V (1963), Stilistika, teorija poeticeskoj reci, poetika (Stylis
tics, Theory of Poetic Language, Poetics). Moskva.
Language Varieties and Styles in Communication
Jan Chloupek
1
Varieties of language are familiar to us not only by virtue of one
or more of the functions they perform, but also by their mode of
expression. Knowledge of the standard language is essential for any
national culture; dialects are studied partly as structures which develop
without restraint and partly as regional reflexes of the history of the
society. Attention has been focused more recently on a third variety of
language which, considering the relative stability of the language vari
eties mentioned above, occupies an intermediate position (in the Czech
Lands, Common Czech and Moravian interdialects). The more fre
quently and the more profoundly does the technical and professional
literature deal with these varieties of language, the more it is misled
about their purity and in fact even postulates this purity. For a lan
guage-user, a perfect command of the standard language is the ideal
goal which may be approximated, more or less, in spoken practice (a
fact which can easily be overlooked). The structure of traditional
dialects is seen today mostly in terms of spoken utterances which, in
many respects, even contradict this elaborately evolved structural
model. A situation is then reached where a dialect is mastered most
completely by an ardent linguist. If we consider the relationship be
tween a language-user and the choice of individual varieties of language,
then we are faced with rather a distinct dichotomy in which (1) the
marked element is the standard language, the variety of language based
on the authority of society, and on the other hand (2) the unmarked
element is provided by the remaining varieties of the national language
- since, under certain stylising factors, the standard language should be
both spoken and written strictly according to the codification, whereas
the remaining varieties of language are spoken without restraint, but less
frequently written. This antithesis is neutralised if the language-user
LANGUAGE VARIETIES AND STYLES IN COMMUNICATION 69
does not have the opportunity to choose between the varieties of language
or if, for various reasons, he deliberately overlooks this opportunity.
A reliable basis for forecasting the development of language is
afforded by an analysis of how varieties of language relate to com
munication. Our point of departure here is the opinion that the socially
obligatory form, i.e. the standard language, can only tolerate associa
tion with a region in transition periods of unsteady codification and
indeed generally throughout the spoken language. On the other hand,
as far as the remaining varieties of the national language (including
Common Czech) are concerned, their speech is territorially based and
differs from region to region.
Apart from the above-mentioned dichotomy in the structural
forms of Czech, a subject which is currently undergoing linguistic
research (although the latter was not always worded so unam
biguously), a further dichotomy is reflected in every act of communica
tion, i.e. that of the official nature (or public character) as opposed to
the intimate nature (the familiarity or intimacy) of speech. Let us
suppose that at one pole of this dichotomy in style, so characteristic of
our time, is diplomatic language and at the other the language of a
mother (to her child - we could also name other marginal communica
tive situations, since the corruption of language in a mother's speech
may go hand in hand with the rather exemplary standard nature of
language taught in schools). This outlined model of communication
may be complicated by the general content of what is being said, or by
other style- or language-creating factors (the way of speaking or writ
ing); we consider them, however, as a fundamental aid to communica
tion.
The conclusion is reached that, even if the "classical structure" of a
traditional territorial dialect undergoes by gradual disintegration, it does
not mean the end of territorially conditioned speech, for which there is a
need. But in saying that, we exceed previous interpretations which tradi
tionally link stylisation, style differentiation and the effect of stylising
factors with the standard language alone, as if the choice of stylising
means followed the choice of language variety, a choice which still takes
place outside the process of stylisation (in diglossia and triglossia). We
believe, that is, that today this stylising process includes the choice of
elements from a variety of the national language or even the choice of
which variety of the national language to use. The interpenetration of
70 JAN CHLOUPEK
the different varieties of language was taken into consideration by our

earlier proposition that the colloquial style of standard Czech (in short,
colloquial Czech) tolerates non-standard elements, a fact which is
indeed in keeping with its distinctive character. There is no need, then,
to associate the stylising process with the standard language alone, but
rather with the national language as the representative of all varieties
and means of language. Yet the standard language occupies a privileged
position in the stylising process, in that the standard language is the
richest source of expression. It is still true to say that the -standard
language alone is multistratified; in spite of this structural advantage, it
has hitherto not even come close to asserting itself as an instrument of
intimate communication, and even at a time when dialect structures are
dying out, there are no signs of any increase in the usage of standard
expression in intimate speech, nor is there any evidence of the success
of the campaign to propagate it.
The shortcomings in the structural purity of utterances made with
the intention of speaking or writing for the public, or for family and
friends, are amplified along with the fact of how inadequate our know
ledge of the standard language is, or, on the other hand, how the way
we speak, which is territorially conditioned, stems from traditional
territorial dialect. That cannot be changed; even those unintentional,
unstylistic departures from the standard or dialectal norm (or, when
viewed in light of the standard language, simply "mistakes") complicate
the way we communicate - if not for the author of the utterance, who
is perhaps not aware of them, then at least for the addressee or for a
linguistics analyst.
The dichotomy of public versus intimate speech (linked to which
are sets of means of expression) has a fundamental significance: it is
capable of performing the main function of a language - intercom
munication. In politically, economically and culturally advanced na
tions, two new areas of communication - fiction and publicist (current
affairs journalism) - have gradually evolved with a specific mission. As
far as means of expression are concerned, they both had recourse to the
fundamental dichotomy mentioned above, which they have disposed of
in different ways:
a) When considering belles-lettres (particularly fiction and drama),
this new situation may be comprehended as follows: the style of public
or intimate expression is formed by communication. If, however, we are
talking about communication in art, then it is individualised by its

creator so as to have, besides the function of communication, an aes
thetic effect. This is achieved by poeticisation which is, in part, to be
attributed to the artist's creative talent (to a certain extent and for a
certain time his "secret"), as well as his mastery of certain stylising
processes; so both the writer's genius and his craft make their presence
felt... The analyst is more likely to do justice to striking, obvious
poeticisation than that which is hidden or seemingly non-existent. It
should be further noted that coexistent with poeticisation is (the equally
intentional) depoeticisation (since after all, not only things of beauty
have an aesthetic effect).
b) As far as publicist style (i.e. the press, radio and television) is
concerned, the following applies: the source of the process of com
munication is again communication intended for the public, or less
frequently for a small group of people. If, however, we are talking about
publicist communication, it is formulated as a rule so as not only to
provide information but also to win over its readers, listeners or viewers
by intense campaigning and in the long term to make them more aware.
This specific function of publicist style is performed with the help, above
all, of repeated argumentation and the complex (and not only rational)
effect on the perceiver (also common to art). The specific nature of
expression in publicist style lies in the fact that certain language means
become established (given the repetition of similar situations) and
automated (e.g. so that solidarity is shown with the common conscious
ness of the time), so publicist language is inevitably under threat of
becoming stereotyped, which would again weaken the complex effect on
the perceiver. This is therefore removed by various means of stylistic
innovation. Subsequently the new means of expression spreads and the
feeling of innovation wanes. As a whole, the substance of publicist style
is the stabilisation of the erratic and the disruption of the stable (cf. the
paper on Publicist Style, this volume).
When seen in the light of the style of fiction or publicist style,
communication acquires a specific function which is performed, in
principle, by standard expression; and to the neutral stratum of this
standard expression, which is intended for every kind of utterance, are
joined stylistically active language means. At the same time, the form
ally significant boundary between standard and non-standard means is
frequently obscured. Today, any language situation may be reflected in
72 JAN CHLOUPEK
a work of art, for the times have passed when fiction was by convention
exclusively written, in keeping with the afore-mentioned dichotomy, as
a text composed in a lofty style and intended for the public. The way
in which literature was written (connected to the strict standard nature
of language) has ceased to be the basic stylising factor in art. Further
more, fiction has lost the capacity to be the ultimate guide in matters
concerning the codification of standard Czech. After all, it is very
difficult to image fiction devoid of any emotionally involved language,
and that does not correspond to style used for the public, or at least not
as a rule.
Similar, too, is the stylistic activation of a publicist text, where
stylistically active elements often exceed the limits of "standardness".
So, for example, technical jargon - including its non-standard elements
- should bring us closer to the working environment which is under
discussion (tusimická dvojka Tusimice reactor no. 2, přibližovat kmeny
to transport logs). Slang elements have, in part, the same function, but
they also bring the text to life and if need be, endow it with emotional
colour (lavice hanby sin-bin, starej the chief, "the old"). Dialect ele
ments (mostly lexical) localise the action {chachan the dialect name
given to men in Ostrava), or add emotional colour (ti, co skemrají od
cizejch to scrounge off strangers). The use of inverted commas in
publicist texts is proof of the metalingual thinking of the writer: the
reader's attention should be drawn to the expression in inverted com
mas, for it indicates that that expression is raised from the context
(dĕdecek byl "metr", babicka "generálka"; granddad was a "stickler",
grandmother a "strict woman"). In spoken reports, inverted commas
are "replaced" in similar cases by expressions such as "as is said", "as
it were", "as they themselves call it", "as X., Y. said", "spoken in
inverted commas". It has never been common practice to seek out the
models nor the stimulus of codification in publicist style itself: after all,
its significance for the codification and development of the national
language has increased with its advancement and the resolute effort to
make its effect in society uniform, since the concentration and repetition
of argumentation do not leave behind perceptible traces in the act of
informing the perceiver about the political aims of society alone, but
also in his use of language. Only special campaigning or the efforts of
publicist writing itself can remove the language means which has be
come firmly rooted in it.
The social solidarity of language-users is reflected in individual

acts of communication, particularly:
1. In their choice of language variety. The use of the standard
language is bound up with the public, official environment. Resorting
to dialect is again a sign of the awareness of one's membership of a
family, a community or a particular area; being able to choose slang or
technical jargon strengthens the solidarity of a working unit or an
interest group; the language-user "acknowledges that he is a member".
2. In their choice of a functional style. This choice is governed by
the needs of a linguistic culture, which have developed during long
stages of the economic, political and cultural evolution of society. In
this category belongs, for example, the tolerance of non-standard ele
ments in Czech colloquial style; this then leads to their infiltration into
the written language.
3. In their choice of a language means. Under issue here is, above
all, the preservation of terminology as it was accepted and established
by convention; then follows respect for our national traditions (cf., e.g.
the use in publicist style of the vivid figures of speech drawn from folk
life, expressions quoted from the Classical Age and its mythology,
partly still in reappraised form, quotations from Biblical texts or from
celebrated works of the best-known authors); also under issue is confor
mity with the political orientation of society (cf. the attempts to Czechi-
size, in particular, the numerous technical expressions of civilisation
from Western languages), and how the directives and the demands of
society are satisfied (cf. the stylising of certain personal documents
according to the given model), and lastly, psycholiguistic factors (how
appropriate the text is in both quality and quantity).
There is no need to examine cases of the misunderstanding of
social solidarity in more detail, cf., for example, the attempts to establ
ish the use of dialect in all functions, to overestimate the role of
Common Czech in fiction, the use of trite, stylish expression, the jar-
gonisation of speech, the efforts to make a group of workers exclusive
- i.e. the rejection of Czech terms when working with new technology,
the unproductive application of a familiar model of expression - which
is well-known from publicist writing, the usage of vulgar expressions
outside the vulgar milieu, the intentional obscuring of the meaning of
speech and so on.
74 JAN CHLOUPEK
2
It is pleasing to note that the function of integration of standard
Czech is fully acknowledged by every Czech, so that nowhere do we find
it opposed by a demand for regional individuality as an element of
disintegration. However, standard Czech is unavoidable, in the main, for
speech which may be written, official (in ceremonial speeches nothing
else may be used), intellectual (cf. all types of scholarly papers), but all
of which is clearly modelled, and the partner (partners) in communica
tion perceives this standard Czech in fact beyond the boundary of
communication within the family and, more often than not, at work
(this also applies to smaller collectives of workers) - in a similar way he,
at a higher level, uses an international language (sometimes simplified)
or an artificial language as a medium for communication.
The high prestige of standard Czech is determined by the language-
user's intention in using it where, for reasons accepted by cultural and
political convention, it cannot be substituted by any other variety of the
national language. None the less, there is usually still a long way to go
from the good intentions of the speaker or writer, or from school text
books of Czech, to an active command of the standard language.
Furthermore, standard utterances are permeated by features which are
territorially conditioned, i.e. non-standard features, features of dialect
origin. Sometimes, true, they are used deliberately as elements meant to
activate the style of official language. Which dialect elements have
already died out and which, on the other hand, have been preserved?
And why? Moreover, in spite of the fact that during the process of
re-structuring currently taking place in our society, the 1000 year long
territorial differentiation of Czech (which has been gradually dying out
since the 16th century) is finally drawing to a close, dialect still functions
as one of the varieties of the national language in certain communica
tive situations and certain speakers. What is its position today - on the
one hand within the national language, and on the other in concrete
communication? Let us try and answer these questions. It is, however,
exceedingly difficult to talk about dialect merely in general terms, i.e.
about dialect generally in different periods and in different places. We
must distinguish between what is universally accepted and what is
applicable only to the national language or to a particular dialect. First,
however, three explanatory observations:
- A variety of language is the term applied to a language structure
with one distinct function or with several functions. But due to the
influence of a former, less distinct function of varieties of language, the

territorial factor is still asserted where in principle we postulate the
uniformity of the norm (as, for example, in regional varieties of the
standard language). Generally, however, it is the functional factor that
is reinforced during the evolution of a language, so that a pronounced
functional differentiation is reached, on the one hand between the
different varieties, and on the other within one of them, i.e. within the
standard language which differs stylistically.
- The term dialect means, in general, a structural variety in relation
to another structural variety, or one particular form in relation to the
whole; the dialect of a particular national language is a territorial
variety which stands in certain relation to other territorial varieties and,
furthermore, to the language spoken by the whole nation - from which
it differs in its more limited function (in its restriction to the functional
spoken norm only).
- A dialect must be created by the same idiolects. If that condition
is not fulfilled, then the dialect in question must be a different, neigh
bouring dialect. We can say the same about each of these dialects as
about every language structure. The question of how one is related to
the other, or what territorial variants prevent them from being identical,
does not apply to how their systems function during communication.
Otherwise, even that dialect which is incomprehensible to the speaker
of the first dialect can be considered to be a different dialect. Once the
standard language had started to evolve, dialect served as a local variety
of the national language, particularly for the rural population, as a
common means of spoken communication. For everyday usage, dialect
was the only form used; its norm was rigid, relatively stable and lacked
more expressive stylistic variability. In the language consciousness of
the speaker of the national language, dialects seemed to be satellite
forms bound to the standard language. However, the range of the area
of communication of the standard language and dialect has made
mutual influence very difficult: all previous historical ties between them
have been pushed into the background. A dialect is spoken spon
taneously and without restraint; the standard language is spoken and
written with decisive intent. It is worth reminding ourselves, that dialect
is still denied the function of serving as a means of identifying a
language. We can only talk about language in terms of the standard
language alone. Moreover, field study results show that obvious interest
76 JAN CHLOUPEK
in dialect and in popular speech arouses in informants smiles and

astonishment, whereas an interest in material culture (e.g. in building,
folk costumes, traditional farming) is considered completely natural.
Dialects are gradually becoming extinct owing to the fact that vital
concerns are levelling out between the urban population and blue-collar
workers on the one hand and the rural population and farmers on the
other. This, however, is not yet fully accomplished. If in conversation
the distant past is being discussed - for example, if a man is talking
about his youth - then the use of dialect increases and dialect is revived.
That alone does not explain the stubborn resistance of dialects: the
decisive factor is that the existence of a dialect is based on a function
in which it is irreplaceable. It functions as a mark of social solidarity
within the family, with friends, acquaintances and colleagues - in a
different environment, a similar function is performed by technical
jargon or slang. This function that dialect performs is all the more
important since it is a process which concerns whole generations of
speakers of a dialect, a recurrent and continuous process. Moreover, it
leads to the preservation of marked, "conscious" language means, so
that the dialect survives in its entirety (that is to say, involuntary,
"unconscious" phenomena seldom die out).
Whilst we are on this subject, we should say a few words about the
social prestige of dialect. The opinion held by American sociolinguists,
that dialect is preserved only in the speech of those of lower standing,
both in society and at work, or even those who simply have a lower
income, may apply only to a particular social community; it is not
generally accepted. So, for example, as a result of feudal fragmentation,
Moravia (mainly Central and East) was permeated by numerous iso-
glosses and many dialects came into existence which are still spoken
today under certain favourable conditions. The rural population has
essentially also inhabited Moravian towns, but no social pressure has
developed there opposed to dialect; in speech, in fact, it is the most
preferable model of communication, whilst the standard language itself
performs a different, a higher function of communication in which
dialect presents no competition.
Interdialects may originate, under various circumstances, both
outside dialects and outside the standard language; they stand function
ally between both those foundations of any language situation - resem
bling, more or less, first one and then the other, and forming an
antithesis to one or the other where they appear, as the lower element
in the dichotomy (with respect to the standard language) or the upper
element (with respect to dialect).
As an interdialect develops, so the regional and functional effect of
a territorial dialect spreads and at one moment its structure loses its
stability, at the next, in an endeavour to restabilize itself, it seeks this
stability again, but for a short period of development only rarely with
complete success. The position of an interdialect in the hierarchy of
territorial varieties of the national language is ascertained by the extent
of its geographical distribution - which seems to be a vital psychologi
cal factor in the growth of the functional capabilities of an interdialect:
for its ties with the locality (but not with territory) cease to be felt.
When a vernacular, or koiné, in the Czech Republic Common
Czech (see further on), comes into existence, then territorial restrictions
no longer apply and the structure of the variety evolves with intensity
towards a new and relative stability. The functional restriction on the
spoken form still remains, but with the gradual stabilization of the
structure and the increasing growth of social prestige of the new variety,
rationalistically conditoned attempts begin to be made at eliminating
the difference in structure that has arisen between the standard lan
guage, traditionally bound to the written functional form, and the
vernacular based on everyday speech.
In Czech speaking areas, the role of "third standard" is occupied,
in the main, by Common Czech - i.e. in the whole of Bohemia and
Western Moravia; the Haná-interdialect reaches as far as Central Mora
via and East Moravia has its own East Moravian interdialect. (In
Ostrava-region alone, the classic dichotomy of communication between
standard language and dialect is observed). Unlike interdialects, Com
mon Czech is peculiar in that, in modern drama, it has principally come
to represent a living language used in daily speech; it even appears in
fiction, not only in the direct speech of the characters but also in the
author's comment as a means of poeticisation. The appearance of
Common Czech in fiction testifies quite eloquently to the fact that it is
becoming a national, non-standard variety and is, in this function,
finally breaking away from its interdialectal basis. Outside these higher
cultural functions, Common Czech, in its various territorial forms,
remains bound to the territorial (dialectal) basis of speech.
78 JAN CHLOUPEK
The hundred-years or more tradition of dialectological research

gradually led to an increasing awareness of the existence of territorially
conditioned varieties of the national language (which first appeared in
Czech society in the forms we know today around the 14th to 16th
centuries, i.e. after marked changes had come about - or not, as the case
may be - in the vocalic system, and after the system's reorganisation).
This awareness indeed resulted from an analysis of phonology, in
particular, since it was in phonology that the specific nature of dialects
was revealed. This specific nature was, of course, also visible in mor
phology, since phonetic changes could be observed not only in the bases
of words but also in their inflected forms. However, if we take morphol
ogy as a system of relationships serving the purposes of syntax, and not
simply as a complex of paradigmatic forms, then dialect is left with very
few specific morphological features. After a change of direction in
research into the syntax of dialects, those structural features contingent
on a particular territory receded in importance for researchers - i.e. the
overlapping of sentence and syntagmatic types from one cognate lan
guage to another especially in border areas, or how extensively they are
"invaded" by vocabulary; what took precedence in their research was
the functioning of a dialect as a spoken language, or more precisely, the
functioning of dialect as a possible structural content of the current
spoken language which stands in contrast to the written language.
Territorially conditioned phenomena are rare in the syntax of a dialect,
yet abundant are those phenomena which are peculiar to any spoken
language, for example the parataxis of utterances in a compound
sentence which shows dependence on the current situation (syntactic
linearity), the focusing of sentence members, the improvised nature of
the organisation of the sentence, the use of intonation and sentence
stress as a means of functional sentence perspective and, related to that,
the lower regard for word order, the anomalous principles of word
order, the greater degree of emotional involvement which is achieved by
syntactic signals and so on. It is not usually possible to determine how
far similar phenomena are "dialectal" since they are far from restricted
to dialect alone.
The concept of the structural and in addition the speech com
ponent in the syntax of a dialect (of which, of course, only the first is
conditioned territorially) began to be asserted more than 20 years ago.
More recent research focused on word formation - although in what can
the specific character of a dialect be perceived? We often hear about

borrowings from the standard language, less so that a word belongs to
a loftier style, and so on. We should proceed from the understanding
that a large area of vocabulary is common to both dialects and the
standard language; but during research, it seems more useful to give
priority to the vocabulary of a dialect, but not to confine oneself to that
alone. It is very interesting then to note how specific the character of a
dialect is in terms of the various forms of word-formation: generally
speaking, it is more often verbs which are conspicuous by their very
specificity; amongst nouns it is groups according to suffixes, for exam
ple -ák in nouns of bearers of qualities (nomina attributiva). In some
places, however, what is really in question are borrowings from the
standard language, even directly from its terminology, cf. nouns like
tankista (member of a tank corps), levicák (left-winger), kozenka (sham
leather); elsewhere, dialect is concerned with a phenomenon due to
recent development of speech, e.g. srandista (joker), vinapitel (wine-
drinker). We have already referred to the fact that dialect is less inclined
towards univerbalisation: synonym doublets, such as nabjerák - nab-
jeracka (scoop - ladle), amongst the names of instruments of action,
again arouse speculation on the extent of a dialect's capacity for creat
ing terminology (evidently greater in the second member). But when
considering typical designatory procedures and types, dialect seems
different, so we still need to refine our conceptions of the specificity of
word-formation in a dialect.
The situation has furthermore been complicated by questions the
dialectologist could not not help but ask himself:
1. Are there still any speakers of a pure dialect left today?
2. If there are, then does each speaker use dialect exclusively in
every situation?
3. How is the choice of dialect for communication purposes con
nected with factors of style? Here we should ignore the question of
whether the speaker decides first which variety of language to use and
only then considers style, or vice-versa. We would have more success if
we sought the answer to the question formulated as follows:
4. Apart from our efforts to understand the entire, old, so-called
"ideal" norm of dialect, should we not also concentrate current scholar
ly attention on how dialect functions in a concrete act of communica
tion?
80 JAN CHLOUPEK
It is indeed that which we propose to attempt at least to comment

on. What also leads us to this are the dialectics of the relationship
between dialect (i.e. its structure), which as a variety of language sui
generis is gradually dying out, and dialectal expression as a fairly
productive and frequent content of everyday spoken language.
The thesis regarding the character of dialect as a variety of lan
guage intended for intimate communication, and which is in addition an
expression of social solidarity, may be after all somewhat complicated
by the various circumstances connected with the constituents of com
munication. It's true that in our society there are people who speak only
dialect; they are not diglottal in our sense of the word. In their case, the
antithesis of intimate and public expression is neutralised. This fact
need not always be received positively by those to whom the utterance
is addressed. It equally depends on the nature of communication, on the
general subject of the conversation. If, for example, when analysing how
the inhabitants of a rural town speak, we talk to informants about their
cultural life, about a television programme, or buying a car, we will
reach the conclusion that the standard language is spoken prevalently
in towns. Carrying out an objective analysis on the basis of a general
or typical topic of conversation, or perhaps one of "average" interest,
is an exceedingly difficult task. In each case, we must allow for the fact
that both the topic, as well as the professional and social standing of the
speakers, has a significant effect on how standard, or how non-standard,
the language used will be.
The national language is for us a collection of varieties of language
which are used by the members of one nation for communication
purposes, presuming they all speak their native tongue. Moreover, the
individual varieties are structurally close to one another (a substantial
number of features are common to them all, although these common
features may occupy a different position in each system and their
relations within the system may differ), they have a mutual effect on one
another and are subject to the same tendencies of development. Thus
the national language is in fact a historical concept, a concept of
evolution, even if it also exists quite clearly as an outcome of the present
times. The concept of the diasystem is regarded as being epistemologic-
ally expedient, yet construed by abstracting analysis. The core of the
national language is considered to be the standard language (in its
everyday form, with no archaic, bookish nor other strictly stylistic
features). The standard language is at the very least a language which

we try to use in public communication; it is a form which is in fact
becoming the core of crystallisation of the national language; in princi
ple it directs the evolution of the remaining structural varieties and
represents a common area of means of expression and of common rules.
The varieties of the national language do not exist in isolation.
Their mutual effectivity is shown generally and by some kind of media
tion, e.g. in the overall levelling process typical of the development of
dialects today, and conditioned by the need for greater functionality of
communicative means. Otherwise, the standard language influences the
development of dialect, a process which would in other respects be
paradoxical in a language variety which is gradually dying out. The
effectivity of the standard language is seen, in particular, in the tendency
to maintain a certain consistency between dialect and standard forms;
yet all that exists to testify to the direct influence of the standard
language on dialect are isolated cases., especially from border areas
where the problems of two related national languages arise. In the case
of how much influence the standard language exerts on dialect, the
thesis of functional linguistics is still valid, which states "the system of
language does not accept any outside interference which would be at
variance with its structural requirements" (Vachek). Not even here,
however, in the relationship between dialect and standard language in
their interpenetrating of concrete features, does the situation arise
where structural elements are organically fused, nor where the struc
tures are balanced out, nor, as the case may be, a new structure comes
into existence. As far as the influence of dialect on standard language
is concerned, we can only point out from current usage that, when
choosing between codified doublets or variants, the speaker dismisses
the form which corresponds to dialect and chooses a form "distinctly
standard". The influence of the territorial basis of speech on a single
standard utterance is naturally not infrequent, yet, being unconscious,
it cannot influence the codification of the standard language.
A language system comes into and continues its existence and is
consolidated in the potential application of the relations created be
tween the content and form of expression to other continually new facts,
in the potential repetition of relations which are already automated in
the newly forming reality. Such relations are also firmly constituted and
automated in the dialect system. But human experience tells the lan-
82 JAN CHLOUPEK
guage-user that other language systems exist which are more suitable
for potential application to modern reality, since the language-user,
when shaping his thoughts, does not have to adhere totally to one
system; he has various systems at his disposal, most of the time two,
which leads to what we might call diglossia within the one national
language, a phenomenon which is conditioned by the diverse function
of a concrete utterance. The situation is even more complicated than
Rousselot supposed when he described the language spoken by one
family The modern language-user is served not only by various styles
of expression, but also by several varieties of the national language. The
first choice of style is considered natural; the second (in fact the switch
ing from one code to another, dissimilar yet related) is, however, con
sidered rather as a violation of the pure, ideal, implicit system of
language, as an intermingling of heterogeneous - even if related -
systems. Yet if such a pure system of language - let us say an ideal norm
- is not evident in concrete speech, that does not mean that it no longer
exists (in the case of interdialectal development, that it is not yet in
existence), it merely reveals that it is not exclusive to the user. Man
today is no longer a speaker of a traditional, territorial dialect, nor the
user of a "correct" standard language, nor a consistent programmer of
the "third standard", no matter how ambitious the latter might be: he
has at his disposal various means of expression which allow him to
speak sophisticatedly, in a way which suits the function of the utterance,
i.e. in a cultivated way. The traditional territorial dialect has and will
also continue to have a sizeable and creditable share in that.
3
Our daily experience of language informs us that in current com
munication, the author of the utterance, of the act of communication,
may use language means which have a varied formal character. In other
words, an intrinsic set of means of expression is formed, a more or less
distinctive idiolect which deliberately oversteps the boundary of the
varieties of language and simply does not respect them; it does not
coincide with our image of a language structure.
It would seem that an interpretation of this situation may be found
on a more stylistic level. Yet stylistic differentiation has always been
linked, by and large, with the standard language alone, for that is
certainly the most articulate and multistratified. We can even say that
its all-round diversity marks it off as a language variety (e.g. unlike

dialect; likewise the concept of stylistic strata is rooted in the standard
language). Furthermore, so far acknowledged is the basic significance of
the choice of expression according to factors which shape either spoken
or written speech, factors which are more than just "style-forming". A
similar "speech-forming" factor appears both in the preparatory stage
and in the stage of realisation and perception. However, in communica
tion in which today's educated man takes part - and in his education
undoubtedly lies the hope for social evolution - it is difficult to find, in
his usual diglossia, the pure, unadulterated source of his experience of
communicated speech, i.e. whether its source is an original spoken or
written text, and how consistently he abides by it. As far as colloquial
style is concerned, it represents a set of language means which is
intended sometimes for intimate, sometimes for public speech; if its
function in communication is ambiguous, it may at the same time seem
obscured.
An advanced society at the end of the 20th century does not require
language merely for everyday communicative interaction, in which the
contents of the human consciousness are confronted or in which lan
guage expresses simple contact between people. Not even sufficient is
the more strictly socially regulated communication assuming the func
tion of the expression of concept and operation (F. Miko). Even before
the beginnings of typography a style of fiction was already developing;
then for hundreds of years the main concern of the authors of fiction
was to stress the "standardness" of the language (Hrabák), which was
to be displayed above all in the writer's choice of vocabulary and style.
There was an overriding tendency towards the "grandeur" of fiction
and this feature has survived in works of fiction and is fortunately not
receding, rather coexisting with other features. Anachronistic, in our
view, is however the attitude of those who willingly and persistently
classify the former means of expression of fiction as bookish, archaic,
exclusive, even deformative, and so on, and that is not only a widely-
held opinion today but also the view of the language-user of the time.
Not until the interwar years did a more universally creative line
begin to come to the fore, and this, with the transformation of fiction
into the daily sustenance of the democratic citizen, also drew the style
of fiction nearer to the day-to-day expression of the average man: it
turned away from the festive nature of literature and brought fiction
84 JAN CHLOUPEK
closer to everyday speech, particularly - and more actively - in those

genres where the author intended to convey an immediate picture of life
(e.g. in contemporary drama). However, it would be misleading to try
and specify chronologically when this new creative line appeared: whilst
the main works of B. Nĕmcová lack the literary character of style, we
are surprised to still find this feature (particularly in the dialogues) in
the works of the contemporary authoress, M. Pujmanová. But we
certainly do not intend to start discussing the merits of literary masters;
nonetheless, our theses are eloquently confirmed by those second-rate,
modern authors whose artistic style is based on the use of Common
Czech, which they enliven with teenage slang or elements of technical
jargon: their conception of stylisation according to current ways of
speech is indeed very simple.
The acute discrepancy between progressive young authors of the
interwar period and the officiai, purist orientation of linguistics at the
time was brought about by the one-sided effort of theoreticians to
preserve, in particular, the sublime literary nature of the written word,
and the latter's dependence on the codification of the standard language
in that period; it was caused by a reluctance to acknowledge newly
discovered aesthetic values. On the other hand, it is necessary, even
today to reject creative processes which are too simplicistic: the use of
both standard language and Common Czech or, for that matter, of
dialects, is governed by complicated sociological laws (between them
and the accepted principles of literary schools) and by the deep (perhaps
not always fully realised by the writer) understanding of the structural
qualities of the one or the other variety of language. If we allow the
artist creative freedom in his choice of vocabulary and style so that he
can better express his artistic intention, then we in no way make his task
any easier. Indeed, quite the reverse.
It is not surprising that, in the present situation of two basic
language-creating directions in the style of Czech fiction, fiction has
gradually lost its function as arbiter in matters of standard language
codification, although it still has a significant function in matters re
garding the language culture of society in general. We may however
doubt the fact, and perhaps justifiably, that in functioning as a heteroge
neous language, fiction could produce models, patterns of expression
and that only the artist would be left to decide.
With the appearance of the periodic press, a new area of com

munication arose - publicist. Its essential function has become to inform
and at the same time to mould the public and make them more aware
- and here we mean readers, then later on radio listeners and last of all
television viewers, which meant that the territory of the standard lan
guage was extended. It is necessary to point out that the role of
informing, although used in the wider sense of the word, is one - apart
from a few negligible exceptions - performed by every language utter
ance; there is no need, therefore, to stress this function too much even
when talking about publicist communication.
As far as the second function of publicist communication is con
cerned, i.e. the function of making people more aware, it would be
worth emphasising the following: it is certainly not publicist com
munication alone that moulds the modern man. But, for example, art
- in the literary sphere of which the functional style of fiction has its
domain - functions on an individual level, even the choice of means of
poeticisation remains individual; even a school of poetry cannot be
easily compared with publicist writing. Publicist style has evolved from
technical style, since even the language it uses is intended for the public
and not at all for the intimate side of life, although the latter may of
course be its rationally conceived subject matter. Yet unlike technical
style, the means of expression of publicist style should have a complex
effect on the addressee, i.e. a rational and emotional effect; it will
otherwise fail to win over the addressee. This is where publicist style and
artistic style are contiguous: the latter however achieves its complex
effect by poeticisation and by the complete opposite, deliberate depoe-
ticisation, whereas publicist style achieves it by the automation of
expression and by a means that is dialectally parallel to that or as a
consequence its opposite - actualisation.
In Czechoslovakia, publicist style has become the style of standard
Czech which - as the heir to the firm, "legislative" position occupied by
artistic style - gives the strongest impulse to developmental changes
(whether welcome or not), since it has the most intensive effect on the
public; it has the necessary social authority to do that.
4
After the appearance in this century of modern linguistic trends
(e.g. the Prague School of Linguistics), system began to be regularly
stressed in scientific analyses of language. Modern linguistics still stands
86 JAN CHLOUPEK
by this principle of identification. At the same time, however, it reverts

to analyses of language utterances, distinguishing features from the
centre and from the periphery of the system, then in addition describes
the features which are linked to the realisation of the utterance and to
the whole language situation of the utterance.
New approaches in methodology and concept have appeared in
areal linguistics - in dialectology. The first phase saw the recognition of
the ideal character of the pure structure of a traditional territorial
dialect; researchers then tried to give a true picture of it and began to
take a deeper interest in the dynamism of dialect structure, in which the
tendencies towards integration were implemented by asserting super-
regional, national and social phenomena. Apart from those traditional
foundations of the language situation - the standard language and
traditional dialect - attention is finally being paid to the "third variety"
of the national language, even if the vernacular or interdialects occupy
a higher position in the hierarchy (those lower down are considered
rather as representatives of a new stage of development in the tradition
al dialect). This attempt to capture dialects not only statically but
during their development and in various sociological situations (village,
small town, suburbs of a city; locality, region, the territory of the
national language, newly settled territory) can also be observed in the
work on the Czech Linguistic Atlas.
The second phase called for a break with the old tradition, so that
research would no longer be limited to phonetics and morphology but
rather extended to the analysis of syntax as well. Local and regional
differences receded into the background, for as far as syntax is con
cerned, dialects do not differ greatly - thereby, the earlier concentration
on specific phenomena both phonetic and morphological, characteristic
of the local differentiation of the national language, can be justified.
However, rules of the syntax of the common spoken language have been
established on a dialectological basis, and these rules differ to a large
extent from the ideas about the traditional concept of the syntax of the
standard language, which is based on an analysis of the written lan
guage. Individual dialects already appear as representatives of the
spoken language irrespective of their degree of differentiation outside
the area of syntax.
Finally, the third phase is only just being tackled and the first
analyses may be of a pioneering nature; that is to say, we may find that
a certain analysis disregards the phonetic and morphological features of

speech, that not even the syntax of dialects is being researched, but that
the sources of style in the way we speak today are being sought. The
result of this will be research into vocabulary and phraseology.
Even on this score, some information is beyond doubt: to begin with,
it is obvious that the strongest influence on the way we speak comes from
the concentrated effect of publicist style. Whereas in the case of the style
of fiction we are concerned with creative work which is, by and large,
individual, in the case of publicist style sustained and recurrent impulses
assert themselves - and periodically at that. It is difficult not to agree that
no literary school can use language to mould its readers in the same way
professional editorial boards are able by inundating the reader with new
details. It is also psychologically obvious that individual creative expres
sion is consciously left to the artist, whilst we accept without serious
resistance the model of expression which surrounds us. In the case of
technical style, we are talking particularly about sets of terminology, by
means of which a "common language" is now frequently being sought in
scholarship. These sets do not however increase their influence on com
mon expression since they exist beyond its boundaries and will not even
achieve general recognition.
Publicist style in fact endows expression with the greatest number
of elements which are conditioned by time. First there are terms which
express solidarity with the social consciousness of the age. (Some are
"decreed"directly for language use). Examples:
extenzívní rozvoj (extensive development), intenzita vyroby (the
intensity of production), vládní úkol (government project), zlep-
sovatelské hnutí (innovation movement), racionalizacni komise (ratio
nalisation committee), bilance v mléce (balance in milk), vysoká pfi-
pravenost (extreme readiness), uvaleni vazby (taking into custody).
Sometimes automation also concerns lexical elements of a nonter-
minological character:
neustály rust... (continuous growth...), praktická opatfení (practical
measures), odpovëdny přistup (responsible approach), spolecenská an-
gazovanost (social commitment), plnení volebního programu (the imple
mentation of the electoral programme).
Argumentation, even in current speech, is frequently well-founded
metalinguistically ("speech about speech"):
on to nemyslel doslova (he did not mean it literally); mluvi o prospe
ctive spolecnosti v uvozovkách, ale má na mysli vlastní prospëch (he talks
88 JAN CHLOUPEK
about the prosperity of society in quotes, but he has in mind his own
prosperity); a to byla tecka za vsím, abych tak řekl (and that was his last
word, as it were).
From publicist communication also comes the transfer of images
from one area of communication to another:
ve finisi (at the finish) we find not only runners but also factory
workers fulfilling their plan, teachers and children at school, the en
gaged couple in preparation for their wedding. Štafeta se predava - the
baton is passed - just as often. Quotation words consistently find their
way into current speech: sborná (the Russian national team in any
sports event), kolchoz (collective farm), bundesliga (the Bundesliga),
bigbít (big beat), džíny (jeans).
Current speech is full of slang from publicist style:
lavice hanby (sin bin) in sport, zametac (sweeper), fachman (pro),
fizl (cop), melouch (moonlighting job), fetování (doping). Technical
terms also make a frequent appearance in current speech (again often
from the same source): junta (junta), bytová jednotka (housing unit),
telefonái (telephone call), saponái (detergent), antibiotikum (antibiotic),
dieselagregát (diesel machinery), koncentrát (concentrate), dechlorace
(dechlorination).
Current speech is full of entire clichés which are constantly repeat
ed in different situations:
Tento úkol pomûze vyřešit stávajicí problémy. Mobilizovali za tím
úcelem všechny vesnické orgány, vytycili Jim zásadní úkoly, aby se v
podmínkách obce vypofádali se svymi problémy. (This project will help
solve the present problems. For that purpose, all village organs were
mobilised; they were all set basic tasks so that within the conditions in
the community they might come to grips with their problems.)
Certain clichés are unavoidable in current usage, for they are
repeated just as the situation they reflect is repeated:
uskutecnilo se zasedání (the meeting took place), probêhla beseda
(there was a discussion), konalo se zasedání (the conference was held),
sesli se delegati (the delegates convened), aby zhodnotili... (to assess...),
přijali zprávu (they received the news), predali vyznamenání (they con
ferred the distinction...), přivitali, pozdravili, seznámili přítomné (they
welcomed, greeted, introduced those present), přednesl referát (he de
livered a paper), provedl závĕr (he reached the conclusion), vyzvedl
úlohu, podíl, vliv (he underlined the task, the share, the influence),
hovofil o historii (he spoke about history), poukázal na zkušenosti (he

pointed out the experience), vyslovil přesvĕdceni (he voiced his convic
tion), vzal na vĕdomi (he took due note), na závĕr vystoupil (the conclud
ing speech was made by...), shrnul... (he summed up), otevrel, zahájil
diskusi (he opened, inaugurated the discussion), bojovat za (to fight for),
prohlubovat (to elaborate on), upevnit (to consolidate).
The processes of word-formation, so typical of today's expression,
have given us one-word terms which have been brought into existence
by univerbalisation. They are reflected against the background of com
pounds which are by and large standard:
tranzistor (-ovy přijimac) (transistor radio), uherák (Hungarian
salami), nádrazák (railwayman), vlecñák (vlecny clun) (tug-boat), mi-
nerálka (mineral water), betonka (concrete factory), traktorka (tractor
factory), fáracky (miners' overalls), fyzicka (physical condition).
Amplified, too, is the usage of those adjectives and adverbs whose
original meaning is one of great intensity but which is gradually losing
that intensity:
ten zapad slunce je úzasny (that sunset is amazing), jen silene rychlá
jizda mohla jim jestë pfinést vítĕzství (only a terribly fast drive could
bring them to victory), to dësné horko nás primo pronásleduje (that awful
heat is really giving us a bad time), moje smula je strasná (my bad luck
is appalling), stĕsti primo ohromné (downright amazing luck).
Many turns of phrase have their origin in folk speech, yet their
metaphorical effectiveness is greatly impaired:
fantazii meze nekladli (they set no bounds to their imagination),
dostalijsme se do siepe ulicky (we were cornered), do posledniho puntiku
se pfipravil (he prepared right down to the last detail), poznali to na
vlastni kuzi (they found it out for themselves), otevrel nám své srdce (he
poured his heart out to us), spadl nam kamen ze srdce (it was a great
weight off our minds), Jachtklub byl, co by kamenem dohodil (the yacht
club was a stone's throw away), nenechali nás na holickách (they did not
leave us in the lurch), nebyl  udrzení (there was no holding him), zacal
od Adama (he started from scratch).
Further similar turns of phrase have their source in slang:
umyl mu hlavu (he ticked him off), uzjsme se do konce nechytli (by
the end, we were no longer following it), a ted'slape pofadnë (it's running
okay now), v té vĕci mam okno (my mind's gone a blank), na to on nema
(he's got no head for that), kachny  nedostatku bramborsíríjen zlí lidé
(only nasty people spread canards about the potato shortage).
90 JAN CHLOUPEK
Current speech has been pervaded by the fashionable compound

"mini" which is from the field of technical style:
minipfehlidka (mini-show), minirozhovor (a short conversation),
minibába (a tiny woman).
From the more intimate environment of work, expressions such as
the following are on the increase:
nase JZD plni nad plán vejce i hovĕzí maso, v snizování zmetkû si
udrzujeme pfedni misto, ze státních statku vederne si nejlépe v mléce my
(our co-operative has over-reached the target for egg and beef produc
tion, we are maintaining a prominent position by reducing waste; our
milk production is the highest out of all the state farms).
Thanks to such expressions, quotations from books and a shift in
the interests of the people towards problems of technology and civilisa
tion, further integration within the national language is reached as well
as gradual extinction of specificity of expression linked to territory. In
utterances under the above-mentioned influences, there no longer exists
any difference between town and rural areas. It would however be
desirable if the natural obsolescence of a certain mode of expression
went hand in hand with its renewal, if the stereotype of expression were
reserved only for recurring situations and if the awareness of social
solidarity were governed by real social laws and not only by fashion,
since the latter does not lead, in the main, to refined and appropriate
speech, which is the aim of our language education.1
Notes
1 This paper was originally published in Czech as Jazykové útvary a styly při komu-
nikacnim aktu (In: J. Chloupek, Dichotomie spisovnosti a nespisovnosti. Brno 1986,
pp. 19 - 34). Slightly adapted.
References
GREPL, M. (1962),  podstatë a povaze rozdilu mezi projevy mluvenymi a

psanymi (On the Essence and Character of the Differences between Spoken
and Written Utterances). In: Otázky slovanské syntaxe, I. Brno, 342 - 345.
HAVRÁNEK, . (1934), Nářecí ceská (Czech Dialects). In: Ceskoslovenská
vlastivëda, III (Jazyk). Praha, 8 4 - 2 1 8 .
KRCMOVÁ, M. (1979), Jazyk mládeze na Moravĕ (The Language of the

Moravian Youth). In: Aktuální otázky jazykové kultury v socialistické
spolecnosti. Praha, 233 - 237.
MICHÁLKOVÁ, V. (1968),  interferenci jazykovych útvarü v soucasnosti (On
the Interference of Language Varieties of the Present). Slovo a slovesnost, 29,
369 - 379.
NEKVAPIL, J. and J. CHLOUPEK, (1986), Introduction: On Czech Linguistics
and Socio Unguis tics. In: Reader in Czech Sociolinguistics. Ed. by J. Chloupek
and J. Nekvapil. Praha, 7 - 1 8 .
UTËSENY, S. (1979), O ústupu príznakovych moravskych jevù v bëzném úzu
(The Decline of Marked Moravian Features in Current Use). Nase řee, 62,
234 - 240.
On the Beginnings of Modern Standard Czech
Alexandr Stich
The widespread opinion according to which the 18th century was

a period of decay not only of the functional range of Standard Czech,
but also of its (then allegedly destabilized) lexical, morphological and
phonological norms, has one of its sources in Dobrovsky's (1792)
chapter on "The Decay of the Czech Language". However, this chapter
deals with phenomena concerning the decay in the development of
Czech literature rather than that of language; although Pohl's and
Simek's language handbooks are criticized here, the actual language use
is not mentioned. Starting with Jungmann, the opinion that before the
National Revival the Czech language was in decay (invaded by dialect-
isms, inappropriate neologisms, overwhelming loans from German, and
so on) then spread with the increasingly negative attitude to the ideolo
gical content and artistic values of the Baroque literature, on the basis
of the anti-Habsburg evaluation of the political development of Bohe
mia after 1620.
The thesis on the decay of the Czech language in Baroque times is
repeatedly documented just by facts concerning the Baroque publica
tions on language (especially Rosa's work is rejected). The knowledge
of language use itself in this epoch was practically lacking not only as
regards W. W. Tomek and T. G. Masaryk, who spoke about the cultural
decay of the end of the 18th century, but also in the case of those who
extrapolated these remarks to the domain of language, even linguists
such as V. Flajshans (1924), who, in fact, illustrates the "destruction of
the Standard language" by such neologism as mordié, dalamánek, man-
žety, tyátr, komedie, mašírovat, execírovat, etc., all of which continue to
live in Modern Czech, greatly widening its stylistic potential.
A reversion in the evaluation of Baroque Czech can be found in
Havránek's (1936) statement that the restrictions and difficulties Czech
BEGINNINGS OF MODERN STANDARD CZECH 93
encountered in the 17th and 18th centuries consisted in an external,

rather than internal, factor, viz. in the possibilities of its social assertion,
in its functional range (compared with the 15th and 16th centuries). The
neologizing lexical activity of the Baroque was described and also
evaluated by Havránek: Rosa's neologisms amazed the author by their
"mechanical" character; Havránek recalled that some of them, especi
ally grammatical terms (pád, přislovce, spojka, dvojhláska) have found
their way into Modern Czech (though this concerns a minor part of
them), and he stated that "the language of the literary production of
that time was altogether untouched by lexical neologizing, and as for its
lexical means, it lives completely on the previous periods". This state
ment was of crucial importance, since covertly it led to an evaluation of
Baroque Czech according to the state of language use itself, of practice,
rather than of theory (just as the language of the 14th century is not
evaluated according to Klaret's neologisms, or that of the National
Revival according to the hundreds, or even thousands of unsuccessful
neologisms coined by Jungmann, but rather according to the actual use,
found in the texts). Only one illustration of the language "in full decay"
was presented by Havránek: a segment from a decision of the Moravian
Assembly, dating from 1769 (i. e. relatively late) and taken from the
administrative style, already affected by the absolutistic centralism of
the Enlightenment period.
Morphology and phonology are merely described, but not evaluat
ed by Havránek. He records the spread of -ej- into the old positions of
í (y) and that of / (y) in the place of e, as well as that of ou- and vo
rn the beginning of the word; in morphology he describes the ending
-ami as getting used in Instr. PL, -é in Nom. -Ace. Pl. Neut. Adj., the
mixing of-/ and -eji with all the paradigms of the 4th class of verbs, the
use of transgressive forms without any difference; at the same time
Havránek appreciates the aesthetic qualities of the stylistic level of
Baroque poetry (pp. 64 - 76).
Certainly, Havránek's viewpoints oa the Baroque language were
connected with the scientific and journalistic activities aimed at a
reintegration of the Baroque literature into the cultural tradition of the
Czech nation.
Although - for internal as well as external reasons - Havránek's
(1936) book became a kind of Bible for the Czech linguistics after 1945,
being quoted again and again, on all appropriate and inappropriate
94 ALEXANDR STICH
occasions, his penetrating and substantial insights into and findings on

the language of the Baroque literature remained practically unex-
ploited.
The language of the 17th and 18th centuries was studied, after
1945, especially with respect to its individual syntactic and syntactic-
morphological phenomena. It is the monograph by Hausenblas (1958)
that deserves to be mentioned here as outstanding in both its content
and its methodology. As for the evaluation of the Standard Czech of the
17th and 18th centuries, Hausenblas' monograph suffers from an inner
discrepancy: On the one hand, the analysis of the material has shown
that - as far as the syntactic phenomenon in question, i. e. the objective
genitive, is concerned - this period is one of the integral parts of the
development of the Czech language, that there are even such tendencies
of development which found their start here and then passed over to the
Revival period, where they developed more fully, and, moreover, that
the Baroque Standard use corroborated these tendencies by being open
to systemic innovation processes then taking place in non-Standard
language. On the other hand, probably under the influence of the older
evaluative tradition,1 Hausenblas claims that by about 1700 (with
Beckovsky and others) the tradition of the Standard Czech had already
been interrupted and that the older Standard language was in decay by
then.
Bĕlic (1958) concludes, without an analysis of new material, that in
the Baroque literature a lack of linguistic tradition manifested itself in
a growing breakdown of the older norm, the cause of this breakdown
being seen here in the authors' lack of good knowledge of the older
Standard norm, which enhanced the influence of their native dialects,
and hence the unsteadiness and the lack of unity.2
Besides Bëlic's explication by means of the "lack of knowledge"
there also existed another explication, reckoning on a conscious activity
of the authors of Baroque literature. However, their aims were generally
rejected; Havránek speaks here about an extreme case of an effort
aiming at providing the language with a more popular character (op.
cit., 71). It can be stated that with some of the Baroque authors the
older Standard norm is consciously backgrounded and the concern
with the untrained consumer of the literary production, rather than lack
of knowledge of the older norm, led some authors to change their
language use in certain points.
A detailed examination of journalistic texts from the 18th century

was carried out by Kamis, who concludes that the language of the
journals "does not differ in general from the contemporary norm of the
Standard language", thus recognizing that there was such a norm
(without a breakdown), and, moreover, noting that some of the
phenomena concerned were acknowledged by the grammars and the
language use of the Revival period. It is astonishing how small is the
amount of the phenomena subject to change, and thus supposedly
responsible for a decay or even "agony" of the Standard norm: besides
-ej-, vo- and the other phenomena quoted above, this concerns those
illustrated by the following examples: břehách, do pastĕ, námĕstka Kris-
tového, mužu, táhnul, and proper names left undeclined, on the other
hand it is important that most of these phenomena were highly fre
quent. None of them can be understood as purely dialectal, practically
all of them are nowadays typical of the Common Czech, the vernacular
of the major part of the Czech linguistic territory.
If other kinds of texts are examined, too, it is possible to find just
two phenomena which may be assumed to be of dialectal origin: (i)
nektery, nekdo, nejak with Bilovsky and also with other authors, and (ii)
dablove, hřichove, not to speak about individual deviations (e. g. krádef
or řetelnice instead of zfi- with Tucek).
It is possible to characterize the language of religious and his-
toriographical literature in the mid-18th century as a textually material
ized code continuing the older Standard language of the Humanistic
period, with a certain amount of innovation elements. However, a
majority of these elements, especially in phonemics, also have their
roots in the language from before 1620.
All the innovations are determined by a tendency to bring the
Standard norm closer to non-Standard usage, viz. to that version that
was not oriented towards any strictly locally delimited dialectal basis
(but, rather, towards what later became the majority code of Common
Czech). The phonemic innovations are mostly restricted to specific
lexical units, with corresponding semantic properties, as was the case
already in the Humanistic period, only their frequency rose.
A conscious effort of the authors can also be seen in the fact that
the older and recent shapes of words římského ... svy, etc.) often
co-occur within a single clause (to avoid each of the two extremes, as
regards the stylistic effect).
96 ALEXANDR STICH
It is often claimed that Dobrovsky's codification of the Standard

norm corresponded to the "needs" of the epoch (without specifying,
mostly, what is meant by these "needs" and how they were later
identified by research); the "needs" seem to concern both the social,
cultural, etc., circumstances, and also the linguistic situation, and it is
assumed that Dobrovsky's solution was the single possibility: there was
no other solution, as inner linguistic factors were decisive then. How
ever, in our opinion, this is a conclusio existimatioque ex eventu, which
can often be found in historiographic writings, although it is highly
dangerous and misleading. It appears that there was also another
possible solution, avoided by the first generation of the National Re
vival, whose turning to the older, Humanistic norm was determined by
the pressure of linguistically external and non-linguistic factors (those
of sociolinguistics, culture, ideology, prestige, and so on). The other
possibility can be illustrated by the personality of V. Thám, who was
attracted, even fascinated by the Baroque literature; with his fine artistic
and linguistic taste he evaluated its qualities by introducing his 1785
Almanac with Kadlinsky's Zdoroslavicek. This was an act demonstrat
ing that Thám and his circle, who wanted to create a new, living,
valuable and great contemporary poetry, had found a predecessor, alive
both in the literary and linguistic sense, precisely in a Baroque poet.
Ideologically Thám decidedly departed from him in reshaping his work,
relieving it of its religious character.
As an adherent of the Enlightenment, Dobrovsky could not accept
as the basis for his codification the linguistic type represented e. g. by
Pitr, although the latter was Dobrovsky's otherwise respected predeces
sor in historiography. The Baroque literature existed, for Dobrovsky,
merely as an ideological phenomenon, helping to make Czechs into
"supercatholics". Moreover, coming back to the Humanistic norm was
an act of a symbolic nature: it recalled the epoch of a sophisticated
culture of the word, including the high degrees of culture, the epoch in
which Czech was spoken by kings, the aristocracy, patricians, rather
than being only a language of "stable boys and servant girls", as the
Germans claimed later. A third factor, which fully showed its effect only
after Dobrovsky, consisted in problems connected with Slovakia. The
changes that took place in Baroque Czech distanced the Czech norm
farther from Slovak dialects, from the Slovak cultural koiné, and also
from the Czech Bible language that had existed in Slovakia as a Stan-
dard norm. Also for Moravia it was important not to accept into the
new Standard the recent forms frequent in Bohemia. Thus the Hu
manistic norm was felt as the most reassuring link between the different
territories.
If Dobrovsky's codification and its continuation is seen from the
viewpoint of internal linguistic factors, then, however, its qualities are
not entirely indisputable. This was already felt by Jungmann's genera
tion, and, as shown by recent discussions, it has caused difficulties even
for the linguistic situation of today, since questions of the codification
of the Standard norm are still complicated by the fact that Modern
Standard Czech in its morphology (and, partly, in its phonology) came
into being as an "artificial" code (see Mathesius, 1932, 26). Today,
young speakers of Czech follow the codification in writing (as far as they
are able to) and in the most officially anchored spoken communication,
but they use the quoted non-Standard phenomena - mostly quite clearly
being conscious of this - when speaking Czech under other conditions.3
Notes
1 Cf. also Bëlic's (1950) refusal - partly operating with non-linguistic arguments - of
Kopecny's (1949) assumption that the continuity of the development of Czech was
not interrupted and that this was ignored in the Revival, which gave rise to difficulties
in constituting Modern Standard Czech.
2 Hausenblas' analysis of the development of the objective genitive, quoted above, has
shown that oscillation or variation could - at least in specific cases - result in a new
stage of systematic patterning.
3 This paper was originally published in Explizite Beschreibung der Sprache und
automatische Textbearbeitung, XIV (Probleme und Perspektiven der Satz- und Text
forschung). Praha, UK, 1987, 121-128. Slightly adapted.
References
BËLIC, J. (1950), K otázce vzniku nové spisovné cestiny (On the Question of the
Beginnings of Modern Standard Czech). Slovo a slovesnost, 12, 9ff.
BËLIC, J. (1958), Sedm kapitol o cesane (Seven Chapters on Czech), Praha.
DOBROVSKY, J. (1792), Geschichte der böhmischen Sprache und Literatur.
Praha.
FLAJSHANS, V. (1924), Nás jazyk matershy (Our Mother Tongue). Praha.
98 ALEXANDR STICH
HAUSENBLAS, . (1958), Vyvoj předmĕĕvtového genitivu v cestirĕ (Develop

ment of the Objective Genitive in Czech). Praha.
HAVRANEK, B. (1936), Vyvoj spisovného jazyka ceského (Development of
Standard Czech Language). Cs. vlastivĕda, 2nd Series, Praha.
KAMIS, A. (1974), Slovni zásoba ceské publicistiky 18. stol. (The Lexicon of
Czech Journalistic Texts from the 18th Century). Universita Karlova, Praha.
KOPECNY, F. (1949), Spisovny jazyk a jeho forma hovorová (The Standard
Language and Its Colloquial Form). Nase ree, 33, 14fï.
MATHESIUS, V. (1932), O pozadavku stability ve spisovném jazyce (On the
Requirement of Stability in Standard Language). In: Spisovná cestina a
jazyková kultura. Ed. by B. Havránek and M. Weingart. Praha, 14-31.
Slang and Some Related Problems in Czech
Linguistics
Jiří Nekvapil
In this paper I would like to elucidate the genesis of research into

slang in Czechoslovakia and how the concept of slang came to be
accepted into the conceptual system of Czech linguistics. I shall attempt
to explain why 'slang' came to be understood as it is today and further,
to show that there could have been some other alternative, and find the
reasons why this alternative failed to take root in the past and still, on
the whole, does not do so today. The deliberations I present here are
based on many years' study of slang and its problems, an idea of which
can be gathered from (Nekvapil, 1986; Nekvapil, 1987), and which stem
from the scholarly climate of which Hubácek (1980) wrote in Voprosy
jazykoznanija.
This study was undertaken in the light of the popularity of slang
as a subject of study in contemporary Czech linguistics; a continually
growing number of scholars are attracted to it. This popularity has been
underlined by four recent conferences devoted to questions of slang and
argot,1 the first of which was held in 1977. For the reader not conversant
with the contemporary state of Czech linguistics, it is important to bear
in mind some of the existing definitions of slang formulated by some
Czech scholars. My choice here is Jaroslav Hubácek, author of several
works on Czech slang, whose concept of slang is well known and widely
accepted in Czechoslovakia today: "Slang is an integral part of the
national language in the form of a substandard stratum of specific
naming units (underlined by J. Nekvapil) and is adopted in day-to-day
(most often in semi-official and unofficial) communication among
people limited to the same working environment or to the same sphere
of interest; it serves partly the specific needs of language communica
tion, and partly as a means of expressing affiliation to a certain social
environment"(Hubácek, 1979, p. 17f.). I must point out before going
100 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
further that it is primarily the defining feature underlined above which

will be of interest to us here. Compare also Jan Chloupek's formulation
that "slang represents special lexical and sometimes even phraseologi
cal strata".
1. Historical facts
If I am not mistaken, the term 'slang' and its concept was in
troduced into Czech linguistics through the works of the Danish scholar
of English, Otto Jespersen, through his books Language: its nature,
development and origin (London, 1922) and Mankind, nation and in
dividualfrom a linguistic point of view (Oslo, 1925). In Czech specialized
literature the term 'slang' appeared, as far as I have been able to
discover, in the journal Nase řec (vol. 8, 1924, p. 59) in an article - or
more precisely, in a note, by Václav Ertl - referring to the first of
Jespersen's above-mentioned books. This remark was then taken up by
Frantisek Oberpfalcer in his extensive review of Eugen Rippl's work
Zum Wortschatz des tschechischen Rotwelsch (cf. Nase řec, 11, 1927, p.
179). Later, Frantisek Oberpfalcer correlated the idea of slang with
other linguistic concepts contained in his broadly-based compendium
Jazykozpyt (Oberpfalcer, 1932). Then he, and this is more important,
formed from his treatise Argot a slangy (Oberpfalcer, 1934) a model for
a detailed study of the subject. It is precisely this treatise that has to a
large extent prepared the ground for the interest in slang in Czech
linguistics; it is still relevant to contemporary research in this field.
But let us return to Otto Jespersen. He understood slang as "a form
of speech which actually owes its origin to a desire to break away from
the commonplaces of the language imposed on us by the community"
(Jespersen, 1925, p. 149) which Trost (1935) fittingly paraphrased: slang
is "speech expressing subjective emancipation from an objective lan
guage order". Jespersen also distinguished slang from what he termed
'professional shop', that is, a set of special technical terms and expres
sions from different occupations. According to him argot,"the conceal
ment-language of thieves and beggars"(p. 199), should also be distin
guished from slang. The function of slang is mainly associated with
some social groups, so that slang, then, can also be differentiated
socially. Jespersen speaks in particular of the slang used among students
"SLANG" IN CZECH LINGUISTICS 101
and soldiers. In looking at Jespersen's material, it appears that the

examples he gives from his analysis represent, in a large majority, purely
lexical units.
We will turn now to Frantisek Oberpfalcer. Let us first look at his
book Jazykozpyt (Oberpfalcer, 1932), partly so as to appreciate that he
formulated his opinions against a background of a broad and general
linguo-scientific context, and partly because this book still remains the
most comprehensive introduction to linguistics published in this coun
try. Suprisingly, too, it is one of the few attempts of its kind made in
Czech linguistics in the period between the two world wars. For this
reason Oberpfalcer's book was bound to exercise a remarkable impact
at that time and is, as a matter of fact, still read with interest today. It
reflects the most important linguistic works of the first third of the
twentieth century, written, above all, in English, French and German. In
presenting a work of such a conception and broadness, the author, of
course, did not avoid eclecticism. This is apparent even in the theme we
are discussing.
Most relevant to our considerations is the chapter Slang and argot
(Oberpfalcer, 1932, p. 26-31). His starting point here is the concept of
'stavovská mluva' (professional speech), probably because it was close
to the Czech reader (its synonym 'special language' is immediately, of
course, introduced here; this is according to the German 'Son
dersprache' and the French 'langue spéciale'). Oberpfalcer himself al
ready claims that the concept of 'professional speech' embodies
phenomena of remarkable variety and writes: "Expressions of in
dividual scientific disciplines such as philosophy, mathematics, linguis
tics and others, belong to this category. Manifest, for instance, is the
speech of lawyers who are so concerned with the punctiliousness and
unambiguity of words. Compare the expressions for example, misde
meanour, crime, felony". Further, Oberpfalcer speaks of the speech of
officialdom, that of fishing, hunting, typography, mining, silk-making
and of those employed in commerce. But 'professional speech' also
includes - albeit as a special group - the speech of the military and the
navy, students, sportsmen and the acting profession.2 Now there comes
the suprising (from the contemporary point of view) formulation:
"Professional speech is referred to by the collective name of slang (...)".
Obviously, different function of the means of expression we are examin
ing are overlooked here. Slang here is limited to a group, or more
102 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
exactly, to a professional affiliation. Though this distinguishes Oberp-

falcer's from Jespersen's stand, the approach to the analysis of the
subject matter is the same in both; both Oberpfalcer and Jespersen
confine themselves to lexical units.
I shall now turn to Oberpfalcer's treatise Argot and slang (Oberp
falcer, 1934). The effect made by this work was obviously in part due to
its being published in the highly respected volume Ceskoslovenská
vlastivëda. Oberpfalcer has already modified his ideas here. The reason
for this surely lies in the fact that his treatise was obliged to concur, at
least relatively, with the other studies in this issue of Ceskoslovenská
vlastivëda - particularly in respect to Bohuslav Havránek's study of
Czech dialects (Havránek, 1934). We should also take into considera
tion that this issue came out two years after the important collective
volume of the Prague Linguistic Circle Spisovná cestina a jazyková
kultura (this had been published in 1932) and there had therefore been
time to react to it. Oberpfalcer, in any case, had already realized the
special status of occupational terminology and had applied it to his
concept of slang. This, and other things, are supported, in my opinion,
by the key dictum:"Even if we do not take into account purely occupa
tional terminology, there still remains in the vocabulary and grammar
of social strata so much that is typical, that the term'slang'of students,
the military, sportsmen and so on, is warranted. Differentiating the
national language according to social groups results, then, in the term
slang. By slang is understood socially differentiated spoken language.
Written language is also characterized strikingly by the specific function
the language is intended to perform. The language of officialdom, for
instance, or that of law, has numerous features distinct from the lan
guage of literary works of art. But questions concerning these differen
ces belong to the field of the characteristics of the standard Czech and
Slovak languages"(Oberpfalcer, 1934, p. 31 1f.). By this citation and
several other passages in Oberpfalcer's Jazykozpyt, we can attempt to
reconstruct the principal factors of his conception of the differentiations
in the Czech language. Basic to it is the division of the common national
language into spoken and written forms (in regard to this, see, for
instance, Oberpfalcer, 1932, p. 44). Another basic feature is his iden
tification, in principle, of the written form with the standard language
(see above and also Oberpfalcer, 1932, p. 39). The spoken form of the
common national language is called the colloquial language; it is "the
form of the common spoken language which is unaffected by any

professional or regional variety"(Oberpfalcer, 1932, p. 43). The collo
quial language is the "usual basis for slang and argot" (Oberpfalcer,
1932, p. 44). We must add further that according to him slang and argot
are not the only forms of language the speaker uses, but "that besides
them he always expresses himself with the use of the common language
or regional dialect"(Oberpfalcer, 1934, p. 311; compare also p. 312).
So far we can summarize:
1. While Jespersen characterized slang above all from a functional
point of view and while for him the more closely-defined notion of slang
as coincident with individual social groups (those of students, soldiers,
and so on) was secondary, Oberpfalcer puts emphasis mostly on the
incidence of its use in the group and on its spoken form. For him slang
is, in fact, the spoken language of a particular group. And because, in
principle, he equates the written with the standard language, various
types of slang appear to him to be analogues of so-called 'functional
languages': the forms of the standard language which accord with the
specific functions the standard language is intended to perform. (Oberp
falcer, however, sheds little light on the functions of spoken group
language; implicitly, such language represents in the most general way
a means serving spoken communication in certain social groups; ex
plicitly and more specifically, Oberpfalcer speaks only of some sort of
"language sport" operating not only in slang but also in argot, quite
apart from its purpose of secrecy.)
2. Slang for Oberpfalcer represents a complete linguistic system in
the sense that it suffices to form a communicative text. Apart from the
above citation giving the key to his attitude, this can also be supported
by his illustrations in the relevant chapters (Oberpfalcer, 1934). For
instance, the continuous texts in argot (p. 324f.) and in student slang
(one of these, p. 350, is presented to us as "two students talking together
in slang").
Thisfindingis, no doubt, surprising, all the more so in face of my claim
at the beginning of this account that Oberpfalcer's study of argot and slang
had been decisive for the understanding of slang in Czechoslovakia for
many decades and, in the main, remains so (compare, for instance, Hubá-
cek's definition of slang cited above). This paradox is put straight if we look
more closely not only at Oberpfalcer's conception of slang but also at his
method of studying it and his presentation of the study.
104 JIRÍ NEKVAPIL
A lot is discovered if we give our attention to Oberpfalcer's exam

ples in the form of continuous texts. I cite one of them here (Oberp
falcer, 1934, p. 325):
"Zamotej jezuitovi sisku (lži u vysetujiciho soudce)! Nedej (ne-
fikej), ze přisla se mnou liska (zlato) a nástrce (prsteny)! Pust na nĕj for
(namluv mu), ze hyeny (detektivové) tĕ vzali do mláticky (nutili bitím,
abys mluvil), nebo nejdem z vily (nebudem propustëni z Pankráce) a
budem v Kartáci dĕlat moulu (v Kartouzích uvëznëni). Chápes!"3
English translation:
Confuse the Jesuit's mind (lie to the presiding judge)! Don't give
(don't tell) that the fox (gold) and bits (rings) came with me! Let go the
waggery at him (persuade him), that the hyenas (detectives) stuck you in
the thresher (beat you to make you talk), or well never get out of the villa
(we shan't get out of jail) and we'll sit like mugs in Kartac (in Kartouz
prison). Get it!
As can be seen, Oberpfalcer wrote the argot text in italics, and in
brackets he enclosed his own standard Czech formulations explaining
the meaning of the individual argot expressions to the reader. It is
essential that only some of the expressions occurring in the text are
elucidated and the rest is left to the reader, for Oberpfalcer assumes that
the phonetic, morphological and syntactic structures of argot (or slang)
and those of the language of the reader will be basically identical and,
to a certain extent, there might be even the same words as those in the
reader's own language (Oberpfalcer, 1934, p.311). This is the principal
factor in Oberpfalcer's interpretative strategy, as he points out im
mediately on the second page of his study (Oberpfalcer, 1934, p. 312):
"The linguistic characterology of these special forms of spoken Czech
(i. ., slang and argot; inserted by J. Nekvapil) must take into considera
tion those aspects which differ from the common language (and from
dialect). Territorial differences in the language (i. e. dialects) may be
marked by typical features of the phonetic and morphological systems.
But it is not in the word form or in the sound changes that the social
differences of the language are reflected, but in the lexical items and
their meanings where the innovative language usage of a particular
social stratum appears to be most obvious. It is, therefore, necessary to
present a picture of Czech slang and Czech argot from a lexical and
semantic viewpoint. Some typical features are also to be found in the
grammatical structure". We may assume that by these features Oberp-
falcer means the word-formative resources, substantivization of adjec

tives, the use in the accusative singular of the animate masculine instead
of the inanimate (e. g. dej mi couda - the final -a being the suffix
indicating masculine animate = give me a drag), and the so-called
radiation of synonyms. Looking through his treatise it can indeed be
seen that his material comprises numerous lexical units and corres
ponding word-formative means - the same as in Jespersen's work. This
already corresponds to the general idea of slang in contemporary Czech
linguistics. It should be emphasized, though, that this is not due to
Oberpfalcer's conception of slang but to his approach to the study of
it and his presentation of the study.
2. The unused alternative solution

We must now ask whether there was not some alternative to the
approach taken by Oberpfalcer and whether he and his followers could
not have drawn their inspiration from the structural-functional works
of the Prague School of Linguistics. We have already touched upon the
question above that if Oberpfalcer understood slang as the result of
social differences in the spoken language and more or less identified the
written language with the standard language, then there was a possibil
ity for him to turn for his source of inspiration to research done on
differentiation in the standard language. Havránek's 'functional lan
guages', however, were not able to provide a complete parallel with
slang - if only for the reason that the primary criterion for their distinc
tion was functional, not social. It must be remembered, too, that Hav-
ránek did not characterize functional languages in their systemic entir
ety, but concentrated more on the word-stock (cf. Havránek, 1932). But
in 1934 (i. e. in the same year as the 'Ceskoslovenská vlastivëda III') 
noteworthy work was published, today more or less forgotten, which,
however, has much to contribute to our theme. With its integration of
functional and social aspects, it stands somewhere between Oberp
falcer's conception of slang and Havránek's of functional language.
This was the work of Zdenĕk Vancura, Hospodárská lingvistika (Eco
nomic Linguistics).
Apart from the impressively comprehensive analysis of works of
the linguistics of that time (e. g. de Saussure, Jespersen, Gardiner and
106 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
others), this work represents an attempt - virtually the first - at applying

structural-functional methodology (especially in regard to Havránek's
interpretation) in dealing with verbal phenomena used by those in
volved in commerce. Apart from the actual analysis, Vancura was
mostly concerned with a definition of the language of commerce (Wirt
schaftssprache). He shows (in agreement with Havránek) that three
functions of the standard language may apply to this language: mainly
the practical-specialist function and also the theoretical-specialist and
communicative functions; therefore the criteria for the delimitation of
the language of commerce must be sought elsewhere than in its func
tionality - viz. in a homogenous social environment providing a uniform
"thematic basis, that which is being said in this or that language"
(Vancura, 1934, p. 48). Even though I consider this integration of the
functional and social aspects as inspired (it was later employed, in
differentiating between the so-called expressive and professional strata
of a particular slang), I think the importance of his work lies elsewhere:
he scrutinizes the concept of economic linguistics (Wirtschaftslinguistik)
accepted at that time and which had so far dealt with only lexical units
and reflects: "If the language of commerce is supposed to be only a
matter of terminology and phraseology, are we justified in calling it a
language at all, and are there grounds for establishing economic linguis
tics?" (Vancura, 1934, p. 34). He answers this by saying that it is
imperative to start from complete texts from the sphere of commerce,
for these are the manifestation of the language of commerce. From this
it ensues that the language of commerce cannot be formed on the basis
of terms and phrases alone, but that there must be other factors contri
buting to the emergence of a functioning language. It is true, of course,
that in such texts there will be some elements more prominent than
others in signalling the economic function, and that they are indeed
terms and phrases. These Vancura calls constant elements. But it is
necessary to find the combining factor between these and other func
tioning elements; these Vancura named potential elements, because they
may be present in other texts than those with an economic function. It
is only through this definition of combinability of the constant and
potential elements that we can get an overall picture of the language of
commerce.4
This shows that Vancura's approach could have been - and still can
be - a source of inspiration even for the investigation of slang, for
between the language of commerce and a type of slang some fitting

parallels can be found; the language of commerce represents a standard
group language, that is, formal (in the sense of "formal behavior"),
while slang represents a substandard (informal) group language. In
short, it can be said that Vancura in his Economic Linguistics put
forward a noteworthy conception of the study of group language.
However, he concluded his work by saying that his intention had been
to concentrate mainly on the lexical items; his theoretical novum,
therefore, remained more or less only a desideratum on his part for, in
the end, his position corresponded to that of Oberpfalcer.
I shall now attempt to show why this was and still is so today.
3. Explanation: Differential as opposed to complex analysis

of text
No-one will dispute the fact that students, soldiers and those
employed in commerce also communicate in text form and, therefore,
must have at their disposal a sufficiently rich and structurally complete
language system. The analysis of a corpus of texts on the subject could
reveal this complete structural system and, as a result, we might be able
to construct a comprehensive grammar of student, military or economic
language, i. ., a description of a "fully-developed" language variety.
Why is this approach not employed? I see the answer to this in the
advantages and disadvantages of differential and complex analyses of
texts and the way in which they are presented. Today's Czech linguistic
concept of slang can clearly be accepted only on the assumption that the
national language has not been too differentiated.On that assumption, we
can state that it is not worthwhile constructing grammars for individual
social groups (hobby, occupation, age) because in content they would be
bound to overlap. Authors holding this point of view usually do so due
to their intuitive knowledge of that which the "grammars" of social
groups have in common, and they attribute the same knowledge to the
readers of their works. They therefore concentrate only (or mainly) on
differential phenomena. This approach has a different, and methodolog
ically purer, variant: it is possible to undertake a complex analysis of texts
and to present only certain differential results (from the point of view of
common grammatical features in different social groups).
108 JIRÍ NEKVAPIL
The advantages and disadvantages of complex and differential

analyses of texts and the manner of their presentation are, on the whole,
evident. Such a complex analysis (and of course its presentation) is very
laborious but more exact, more academic. A differential analysis is less
laborious but intuitive, more practical (lexicons and their users, for
instance, translators depend on it), it gets to the core of things, as it
were, more directly, without academic circumlocution.
4. Addendum: Differentiation of the national language

This will be an attempt to advance one step further in these
deliberations. The legitimacy of this may be justified in that no theory
of slang can get along, in the final instance, without a theory of
differentiation in the national language in general. This differentiation
is characterized, in various national languages, by the enumeration of
heterogenous language structures, or existence forms of the language,
so-called varieties. I maintain that these structures, forms, or varieties
are to a certain extent the constructs of linguists. Then, of course, the
question arises as to why priority should be given to this or that
particular construct. One of the criteria might be to satisfy a social need
of some kind. Such a need could be, for instance, in language teaching,
where a certain elementary level has been reached, in teaching foreign
ers, for example.
In identifying with this point of view, I assume that today it is
appropriate to understand the basic differentiation in the national
language as formal and informal language or expression. The advantage
of these concepts, in my opinion, lies in the fact that they can be
illustratively included in the general theory of behavior, action, or
activity, that their application is not limited to only verbal action. Let
us take as an example the statements "he expresses himself formally"
and "he behaves formally". A fundamental point then is that the
distinction formal - informal may be employed and "experienced"
during various types of action.
Both formal and informal language may be further divided accord
ing to their social applicability into common language and group
language. For the purpose of teaching the language it would be neces
sary to characterize the common language in a complex way (i. e. both
formal and informal) and group language (again formal and informal)
differentially, for the common language serves as the basis for group
language.
It is perhaps not necessary to emphasize that this is a matter only
of elementary polarization; for instance, it is obvious that there is no
clear borderline between formal and informal. The decisive question in
confirming or invalidating the capacity of the given constructs surely
remains which language resources constitute formal and informal lan
guage, and what is the possibility of determining these.
The above interpretation may be graphically illustrated as follows:
military
group formal language — miners'
common formal language
complex characterization differential characterization
military
group informal language — miners'
common informal language
complex characterization differential characterization
As can be seen, it is, in principle, a matter of the concepts in

troduced above (the formal pole was principally represented by Zdenëk
Vancura and the informal pole by Frantisek Oberpfalcer).5
Notes
1 There is no fundamental difference between 'argot' and 'slang' in the conceptual

system of Czech linguistics. Argot is considered, in principle, to be simply one type
of slang (compare Oberpfalcer as already as 1934).
2 Oberpfalcer employs de Saussure's dichotomy 'langue' (language) and 'parole' (speech).
He justifies the use of terms such as 'student' or 'military speech' by saying: "In a
transferred sense we also speak of the speech of students, the speech of women and
110 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
children, and so on, because the individual means of expression appear here far more
often than in the common, national language" (Oberpfalcer, 1932, p. 9). We could
argue against this but it should be admitted that it suggests a special dynamic
oscillation between 'langue' and 'parole'.
3 This deals with the so-called "kite" (a letter sent secretly from prison), that is, a
written text. I have chosen it because, in contrast to Oberpfalcer's other examples,
this one is obviously authentic. Its written form is not relevant here.
4 See also Vancura (1936). A short review of Vancura's opinions is given in the
noteworthy, but quite forgotten, work of Cejp (1947) based on the structural-func
tional concept of language and Czech semiotic theory. Compare also Pytelka (1972).
5 This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the Fourth Conference on
Argot and Slang in Plzen in 1988 (cf. Sborník přednásek ze IK konference o slangu
a argotu. Ed. L. Klimes. Plzeñ, Pedagogická fakulta v Plzni, 1989, 33 - 48).
References
CEJP, L. (1947), Struktur alni rysy anglické obchodni korespondence (Structural

Aspects of the English Business Correspondence). Praha.
CHLOUPEK, J. (1988),  social'noj i territorial'noj differenciacii cesskogo
jazyka (On the Social and Territorial Differentiation in Czech). In: Novoe v
zarubeznoj lingvistike XX. Moskva, 158 - 172.
Ceskoslovenská vlastivëda (Life and Institutions in Czechoslovakia). (1934). Vol.
III (Jazyk (Language)). Praha.
ERTL, V. (1924), Z nasich casopisu (From Our Journals). Nase řec, 8, 5 8 - 6 1 .
HAVRANEK, . (1932), Úkoly spisovného jazyka a jeho kultura (The Tasks of
Standard Language and Its Cultivation). In: Spisovná cestina a jazyková
kultura. Praha, 32 - 84.
HAVRANEK, B. (1934), Nâřecï ceská (Czech Dialects). In: Ceskoslovenská
vlastivëda III (Jazyk). Praha, 8 4 - 2 1 8 .
HUBÁCEK, J. (1979), O ceskych slanzích (On Czech Slang). Ostrava (2nd
edition 1981).
HUBÁCEK, J. (1980),  tradicii v izucenii slenga v cesskom jazyke (On the
Tradition of the Study of Slang in the Czech Language). Voprosy jazykoz-
nanija, N o 2, 127 - 135.
JESPERSEN, O. (1922), Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. Lon
don.
JESPERSEN, O. (1925), Mankind, Nation and Individual from a Linguistic Point
of View. Oslo.
NEKVAPIL, J. (1986), On the Communicative Approach to the Study of Slang.
In: Reader in Czech Sociolinguistics. Ed. by Chloupek J. and J. Nekvapil.
Prague, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, 195 - 205.
NEKVAPIL, J. (1987),  nekotorych aspektach sopostavitel'nogo izucenija

slenga (Some Aspects of Contrastive Study in the Sphere of Slang). In:
Sopostavitel'noe izucenie slovoobrazovanija slavjanskich jazykov. Ed. by G.
P. Nescimenko. Moskva, 174 - 178.
OBERPFALCER, F. (1927), Review of Eugen Rippl, Zum Wortschatz des tsche
chischen Rotwelsch. Nase řec, 11, 176 - 186.
OBERPFALCER, F. (1932), Jazykozpyt (Linguistics). Praha.
OBERPFALCER, F. (1934), Argot a slangy (Argot and Slang). In: Ceskosloven-
ská vlastivëda III (Jazyk). Praha, 311 - 375.
PYTELKA, J. (1972), The Prague School and Studies in the Language of
Commerce. In: The Prague School of Linguistics and Language Teaching.
Ed. by V. Fried. London, 211 - 223.
Spisovná ceština a jazyková kul tura (Standard Czech and Language Culture).
(1932), Praha.
TROST, P. (1935), Argot a slang (Argot and Slang). Slovo a slovesnost, 1, 240
-242.
VANCURA, Z. (1934), Hospodárská lingvistika (Economic Linguistics). Praha.
VANCURA, Z. (1936), The Study of the Language of Commerce. Travaux du
Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 6, 159 - 164.
Publicist Style
Jan Chloupek
1. The position of publicist style amongst

functional styles
Ever since the inter-war period, Czech linguistics has been con
cerned with functional styles, i. e. with relatively established sets of
means of expression intended for the basic function of communication.
(1) Colloquial style appears to be connected to the context of the
situation, tolerant of non-standard expression, as far as the standard
norm is concerned; it seems heterogeneous and uninhibited, i. e. a style
whose stylistic norm need not be considered as an overriding objective
of scholarship. (2) For hundreds of years, technical style crystallised
mainly on the basis of the conceptual subject matter of utterances from
its area of communication and its specific set of means of expression
became established. Both of these styles may be considered as fun-
damental since they both clearly reflect the suprastylistic antithesis of
speech both written and spoken; moreover in the case of technical style,
we are concerned with a set of means of expression which was created
at a later date on a higher level of social consciousness. (3) The style of
fiction, however, may employ the means of expression of both these
fundamental styles, since they both provide the indisputable function of
communication of the language in fiction. Creative stylisation, however,
according to the strict intention of the artist, employs those means
particularised by poeticisation which is supposed to produce an origi
nal, aesthetic effect on the reader, viewer and so on.
(4) The position of publicist style is in a sense similar: publicist style
draws from the means of expression of both fundamental styles - which
once again both provide the function of communication of publicist
PUBLICIST STYLE 113
speech (e. g. in simple publicist information), although their established,

mechanised and expected (at least by the reader, listener etc) stylisation
is meant to make the public aware (permanently) and win them over (for
the present). Publicist style has, then, an informatory and propagatory
function, inseparable from the function of communication, both from
the point of view of the publicist's aims and from that of means of
expression.1
The effect of this flood of information and arguments on the
reader, listener and viewer results not only in the informing and ideolo
gical moulding of the public, but also in the informing (e. g. in literary
contributions of so-called "language columns" - on the radio, television
and in the newspapers) and the systematic moulding as far as the
language is concerned. The results of this effect of language on the
public are not governed by intentions to rationalise nor by interference
by linguists (who can, by and large, maintain a critical stance and not
consider publicist style as a pure stream of codification of the standard
language), but rather by the degree of intensity with which society
follows or may follow publicist communication of its time (either
agreeing with it or not), and further by the unity and concentration of
that effect.
Within the standard language, the genetic hierarchy of individual
functional styles is reflected only vaguely. Technical style began to
develop along with the rise of technical literature (the pioneer of Czech
technical style is considered to be Tomás Stítny, whilst Jan Hus is
regarded - with certain anachrony - as the pioneer of the technical style
of popularisation, for many of his works involve the style-creating
factor of address); the style of fiction began to develop with the rise of
poetry and the narrative art in particular (first of all in the oral tradition
and then in literature), and publicist style after newspapers first came
into existence. Moreover, it is beyond doubt that these functional styles
gradually began to detach themselves from basic colloquial style, from
the "language used for common communication". During their evolu
tion and over the centuries of their stabilisation, they crystallised as
loftier written styles; in this century, they became fully evolved, but the
purity and regularity of their means and processes of stylisation, which
consisted predominantly in the way they were written, began to be
obscured - according to the law of constant change of the living lan
guage. This came about as a consequence of new requirements and in
114 JAN CHLOUPEK
particular the tendency towards non-stylised linguistic fact (with the

result that new, modern stylisation arises). In the style of fiction, writing
has ceased to be singled out by its quality; after a short, unproductive
introduction where speech was "bound to the native soil", dialogues are
now written, first and foremost, in the living speech of the day (from
syntactic features, which are still purely of a standard colloquial style,
down to the means of Common Czech, the domain of which is morphol
ogy and phonology). Finally, these non-standard elements are not
limited to dialogues alone, they also find their way into narration (see
Ota Pavel) or into poetry (see Josef Kainar); here they represent the
kind of more or less overt poeticisation which is no longer based on
mere everyday speech.
Accordingly, written works gradually cease to represent the style of
fiction - i. e. fiction ceases to be the model for "correct" standard Czech
and a fundamental source of codification, as Vaclav Ertl still considered
them; they become distanced from the Czech standard language. The
more this happens, the more consistently the structure of standard
Czech continues to conform to its codified form.
Along with the crystallisation of styles, with regard to function and
expression, so continues, dialectically, the process where the latter are
mixed, a process brought about above all by the heterogeneity of the
style and speech models for various situations of communication. It is
made possible by the increasingly more distinctive, more expressive
stylistic value of expression (F. Miko), which leads to the unmarked,
"indistinct" or marked, striking effect of expression in a particular
context. Expressions which lack the distinct stylistic value of familiarity,
technicality, poeticality, effectivity and so on, are today, by and large, in
the minority and serve rather as a means of comicality of language (e. g.
Rudolf je velmi dobré povahy - Rudolf has a very good character, in
comparison with examples which are determined by style, e. g. Zevrubné
analyzepodrobil tento jev madarsky badatel... - the Hungarian research
er subjected this phenomenon to detailed analysis - or Bohousku, to
bych tedy neriskoval! - Bohousek, I really wouldn't risk that!); on the
other hand, current practice does not respect the demand to consistent
ly differentiate between the style process of discussion and reasoning,
and the style of factual literature is certainly mixed.
The most vivid example of the heterogeneous nature of function
and expression is considered, in fact, to be publicist style. This is un-
PUBLICIST STYLE 115
derstandable, given the wealth of political, social and natural situations

which publicist communication is supposed to reflect. It does not,
however, relieve us of the duty to do justice to those features which
differentiate publicist style from other functional features, features
which are characteristic of it. Obviously we should start with its func
tion: this can be characterized as intending to inform, disseminate,
propagate, and is, in fact, a function which is performed with greater
intensity by publicist writing than by political literature, which is like an
utterance of technical style intended primarily for communication itself.
On the other hand, publicist style merely "aids" the performing of the
function of instructing and educating (and broadening the public's
horizons), and the function of aesthetic effect and special informing -
although these should not be disregarded either. As far as the function
of informing is concerned,- which is emphasised frequently in connec
tion with publicist communication - I consider it to be linked to the
function of the absolute majority of language utterances, as has already
been mentioned; on the same level, the function "of putting into opera
tion", i. e. operational, also has an effect. The instruments of publicist
style are not news bulletins nor the correspondents themselves; they do
not inform by being directed at mere communication itself - that is only
a means of effect on the reader. An important factor is the mere choice
of information. The function of informing of a language utterance
should not be linked only to a certain area of communication: after all,
almost all communication serves to offset the opinions, positions,
knowledge, purposeful activities or property of the author and receiver
of the language utterance.
The striking heterogeneity of publicist genres should not surprise
us too much, given that it is really a comprehensive means of actualising
their contents. After all, all publicist genres in current use which have
as a characteristic the particular poeticisation of the text - i. e. feuilleton,
column, so-called column in italics, essay, "reflections on..." and so on
- affect the consumer of the publicist utterance at the very least in the
sense that he more willingly accepts the argumentation in the text,
whatever means are used, or else the argumentation is conducted by
means of poeticisation (cf. short stories with the theme of war, produc
tion or of social relevance). The main purpose of the occasional column
on medical, gardening, motoring and popular linguistic subjects is to
make the subject matter more publicistically diverse, to make it topical
116 JAN CHLOUPEK
and so, in a round-about way, to win over the addressee. They are all
linked to publicist style, but their concrete aim is the popularisation of
the results of academic and technical activity. Advertising also repre
sents a permanent concomitant of publicist style; it has, without doubt,
a purely informatory function, that is to say unspecified, suitable for all
utterances. We are therefore justified in taking facts and their evaluation
from the fields of production, politics, economics, culture and finally
from sport as the basis of publicist communication. In accordance with
this is its division into the fields of political economics, culture and sport
- all of which create the substance of each means of publicist effect.
When talking about argumentation and how it is conducted, we
should point out that as publicist communication has developed, so it
has changed. Thus, when the worker's press was just beginning, argu
mentation was founded mainly on its effect on the emotions: as if the
arguments proclaimed at large meetings of the people were transferred
into print. In contrast to that, however, it retained elements which
displayed the rare, grand and bookish nature of the standard language.
In the years following the Second World War, expressions were used
which had at their core a fairly established image (mohutny hlas pracu-
jícího lidu the mighty voice of the working masses); these expressions
were applied repeatedly to new situations, which has meant that the
cogency of argumentation has gradually weakened.
2. THE MEANS OF EXPRESSION OF PUBLICIST STYLE
The most striking feature of publicist style is its periodicity, which

regularly leads to the automation of the publicist text. Automation also
occurs in technical style - in particular in administrative style - but here
it in no way has any influence. However, the task of the author of a
publicist text is to win over the reader, work on him and make him
permanently aware. Moreover, the publicist's most important function
is not to relay the news alone; if he does not formulate his text right
down to the last detail, then he at least sets it into a wider context for
he is concerned with how it sounds. On the whole, he remains a literary
creator in an editorial team of creators similar to himself. Publicist
writing is, as far as the language is concerned, conscious, whether the
publicist adheres to automated models or seeks expressions which are
PUBLICIST STYLE 117
stylistically active, new, vivid, unclichéd, effective. Nonetheless, the

more effective each creative language act made by the publicist is, the
more easily it will find an imitator not only amongst colleagues on
editorial boards, but also amongst the public which is the regular
consumer of publicist writing even from the language point of view. We
are, then, witnesses of a continual cycle of language means which are
new, obscolescent, clichéd, then renewed and so on. Moreover, every
reader evaluates differently (naturally not consciously) the one or the
other publicist means according to his own experience of life: some have
an idea how newspapers are written, others definitely know it and a
third group may never have noticed. So even opinions on the standard
of the language used in publicist writing vary, as does the extent of the
demands made of it; how well-read the readers are and how ambitious
the editorial boards may be also varies, and there are many the anach
ronisms relating to the practice of expression in the consciousness of the
public and maintained even amongst publicists. Yet despite everything,
we can doubtless say that publicist communication moulds us not only
from a political viewpoint but also from the point of view of language,
for we cannot live amongst people and yet remain untouched by the
daily flood of information, of analyses, challenges and reminders which
are a result of the concentrated effect of the mass media.
Figures of speech remain the basic means of activating style in
publicist writing. They are used not so much to create an aesthetic effect
- that is rather an additional feature - but to graphically round-off an
image, to arouse agreement, protest or astonishment and interest on the
part of the reader. Thus we may read about the pestrá paleta zbozí (wide
spectrum of goods), bohatá paleta uplatnënych názoru (the rich spec
trum of opinions expressed), nepřeberná paleta Mistrova umení (the
inexhaustible spectrum of the Master's craft - and this refers to a
writer), paleta vyskytnuvsích se problémù (the spectrum of problems
which have emerged), or paleta jeho mladych lásek (the range of his
young loves). We also find the armáda nezamëstnanych (the army of
unemployed); at the end of the year we read about the finis ve vyrobních
závodech (the finish in factories), in spring the finis v hokejovém marató-
nu (the finish in the hockey marathon); figures of speech alternate
between the fields of communication in sport, the military, production
and politics. Sometimes, it is possible to put a date on the start of the
growing use of figures of speech (nezastupitelná úloha ucitele the irre-
118 JAN CHLOUPEK
placeable task of the teacher, pocítají s cínskou kartou they are reckoning
on a Chinese card, muzstvo se trápilo the team worried - all of these
expressions came into use about 20 years ago). Figures of speech were
used with great intensity in the worker's paper, especially where emotion
was concerned, e. g. Leninuv Sturm proti nebi (Lenin's invective against the
skies). In the 1950's, figures of speech were so widespread in political
publicist communication that they ousted rational argumentation, and in
the excessive distribution of images many true ideas sounded indeed like
empty phrases. Today, on the other hand, the symbolic nature of some
figures of speech has decreased, cf. in politics: Plány salvadorské junty
ztroskotaly (the plans of the Salvadoran Junta have fallen through), or in
sport: Odesel po zásluze na lavici hanby (he went by rights to the sin-bin).
The majority of figures of speech are formed on the basis of folk expres
sion, though the Bible and Classical culture are the source of some of the
bestknown; more frequent, however, are the reminders of well-known
expressions from cultural practice (shánel si "misto nahofe" he sought a
place at the top) and metalinguistic expressions have spread (individuální
agitace - tu nelze jen ve vsech pádech skloñovat individual propagandism
cannot be declined here in all cases).
Expectedly, contiguous semantic fields arise as a result of connota
tion and are concerned, in particular, with those areas of social life
which share the common features of dynamism. Sources of figurative
expression are as follows (the first example is from 1925, the second
from 1975):
Inanimate nature: korupcni bahno (a quagmire of corruption);
klima pro rozvoj kritiky (a climate for the development of criticism).
Animate nature: zivit cerva neduvery (to feed the worm of mistrust);
fasismus se zahnízdnil (Fascism has taken roots).
Anatomy and physiology: zakrnení sociálního vedomí (the stunting
of social consciousness); chronicky nemocny systèm kapitalismu (the
chronically sick system of capitalism).
The working process in general: jednotlivé sociálne demokratické
strany se mohou navzájem natírat (the different social democratic parties
can fight among themselves); formovat mladé lidi (to mould young
people).
Industrial production: trockismus vynikne ostreji, kdyz jej kalíme v
ohni leninismu (Trotskyism will stand out more sharply if we indurate
it in the fire of Leninism); svazek kovany za války (a union wrought
during the war).
PUBLICIST STYLE 119
The construction industry: stavi vsude hráz fasistické rozpínavosti

(they are raising a barrier of resistance against Fascist expansionism);
piliř spolecnosti (a pillar of society).
Agriculture: ovoce svĕtové války (the fruit of the world war);
vstĕpovat myslenky (to implant thoughts).
The relations of goods and money: vlada ještë neobdrzela podpisu na
nevyplnënou smĕnku (the government has not yet got the signatures for
a blank Bill of Exchange); draze zaplatili za vítezství ve voice (they paid
dearly for their victory in the war).
Ocean transport: veplout úplne do vod mĕstackého parlamentarismu
(to sail right out into the waters of bourgeois parliamentarianism);
taktika Washingtonu musí ztroskotat (the tactics of Washington must
run aground).
The military: stratégové generálního stábu vykofist'ovatelu (the stra
tegists of the General Staff of exploiters); armáda nezamëstnanych (the
army of unemployed).
The theatre: Baia se Švehlou zahráli si s krvavou komikou se stárnimi
zamëstnanci (Bat'a and Svelila toyed with the state employees with
bloody humour); loutková úloha ceské delegace (the puppet function of
the Czech delegation).
Music: stvaní je dirigováno primo z policejního ředitelství (the heck
ling is conducted straight from the police headquarters); ton udala
zpráva (the news set the tone).
Painting: bolsevizovati neznamená malovati vse jednou barvou (bol-
shevising does not mean painting everything in one colour); pestrá
paleta akcí (the wide spectrum of actions).
Religion: francouzsky proletariát byl rozpjat na krizi, aby vykoupil
hřichy... (the French proletariat was hung on the cross to atone for its
sins); peklo války (the hell of war).
Sport: dostihy ve zbrojení (arms races); cválající inflace (galloping
inflation).
Figurative expression in publicist style regularly loses the character
of creative action and becomes commonplace. It creates the basis of
publicist style.
A syntactic means of style activisation used solely in publicist
writing is the implicit congruent attribute, which replaces the explicit
attribute, be it congruent or incongruent. Given the polysemy of suf
fixes, some types of implicit attributive expressions have become com-
120 JAN CHLOUPEK
mon and do not have a particularly striking effect: kanadsky úspĕch

(Canadian success) "success achieved during the trip to Canada";
televizni penalta (television penalty) "a penalty broadcast on tele
vision"; sportovni veda (sports science) "science dealing with sport";
reprezentacní přestávka (a special break) "a break in the championships
due to a special match"; in the above cases, it is not the basic meaning
which is elided, but the transitive element. If one feature of the basic
meaning is omitted, the activation of style still continues to be inconspi
cuous: miada próza (young prose) "prose by young authors"; historicky
skutek (an historic achievement) "an achievement of historic signifi
cance"; an example like vázny skladatel (a serious composer) "a com
poser of serious music", creates a transition to non-automated exam
ples; akademicky basketbal (academic basketball) "basketball played by
teams of university students"; televizni Evropa (TV Europe) in the
context of "TV workers from the whole of Europe". Examples where
more than one feature of the basic meaning is omitted, act like expres
sive style activation and are not fully understandable out of context:
studené jubileum (cold jubilee) "the Jubilee race of the hardy in cold
water"; chladná pozornost (cold attention) "attention shown towards
women, and expressed by ice-cream"; zensky cyklus (female cycle) "a
cycle of films by female producers"; chilsky obránce (Chilean defender)
"the Czech defender during the Chilean World Championships";
spanile góly (graceful goals) "results of the women's football league".
Sometimes, a "short circuit" of this kind gives an expression an
unintended meaning, e. g. loutková armáda (puppet army) "the army of
a puppet government". On the whole, however, the oscillation of mean
ing between the surmised original explicit expression and the stylistic
ally more active implicit expression has a fresh and unclichéd effect, for
it gradually becomes more and more bound to the context according to
the extent of ellipsis.
One means of publicist style which is often applied is the non-
specification of a proposition, e. g. odpovĕdná mista prohlásila (reliable
sources have announced), ve washingtonsh kruzich se proslechlo
(rumour from Washington circles has it that), zastupitelské orgány
rozhodly (the representative organs determined), veřejnost byla udivena
(the public was astonished) and so on. So a strictly individualised
expression is substituted by a word which contains a wider significance.
PUBLICIST STYLE 121
A proverb, as we know, is an example of extremely rigid, petrified

and thus automated expression. It has a creative nature only when its
content is applied to a specific situation. For example, the Czech pro
verb Kdyz ptácka lapají, pĕknë mu zpívají (lit: when you want to catch
a bird, sing sweetly to it - i. e. good bait catches fine fish) is clear in its
meaning: it expresses the conditions under which a person is won over
or talked around to something. The publicist may however use the first
part of the proverb {Kdyz ptácka lapají - when you want to catch a bird)
as the heading for a report about the autumn shooting of partridges -
as if he had removed the proverb from the area of its significance and
returned it to an area of very concrete denotation. This activation of
proverbs, which has such a strong emotional effect, could in time also
become a mode of expression and thus clichéd.
The cliché is also typical of publicist style. Such a characteristic of
expression is justified only on the basis of an understanding of the age,
of the frequency of use and proof of the loss of the productive, concrete
significance of the expression, or proof that it is untrue (on the whole,
a cliché which is generally acknowledged always reflects the truth). A
cliché is constituted by figures of speech which are rarely original. This
then leads to the automation of expression in publicist style, cf. six daily
papers carried the following headline: Otevfely se brány veletrhu (the
gates of the trade-fair were opened).
When talking about various clichés, we should not look upon them
with contempt where their use has been necessitated again and again by
the recurrence of a situation (e. g. up-to-date news in the so-called crime
and accident columns of the daily press, reports from sports meetings
and so on).
3. A metalinguistic evaluation of expression in publicist style
L. N. Tolstoy maintains that the art of the poet consists in the poet
finding the only possible position for the only possible word he can use.
This rather striking idea by a classic author of Russian literature may
by supplemented in the sense that in a work of fiction, each expression
acquires its "right of domicile": if it is well-selected, it becomes an
indispensible and irreplaceable constituent in the formation of a work
122 JAN CHLOUPEK
of art. A man of letters fends off his critics by pointing out that the
expression has been selected in line with the creative intention of the
writer. Linguistic criticism remains justified, however, if it can prove the
gratuitous incongruity of an expression with the background about
which the autor is writing. The use of historicisms, archaisms, dialect
expressions, vulgarisms, euphemisms, elements of slang, jargon, techni
cal jargon and of publicist expressions may be justified in a literary text
if they are in keeping with the idea behind the work of art; they are
"firmly established" in the text.
On the other hand, the reader, listener and viewer of publicist
utterances expects from the editor - the originator of the utterance -
standard expression, or more strictly, expression which belongs to the
neutral stratum of style of the standard language. A publicist, however,
cannot fulfil this requirement for he aims to have a complex effect on
the reader etc, both on his reason and on his emotions; furthermore, it
is often his intention to maintain the suitability of an expression for the
situation being referred to. In reports and spoken publicist style, the
social demand for the pure "immediacy" of an utterance generally
pushes its way through to the detriment of the pure standard way of
writing. Any emotional involvement potentially reflected in publicist
utterances constitutes, however, a connotation secondary to the basic
rational idea of communication: behind every publicist utterance there
lies more or less distinctly a clear political, social and generally instruc
tional message; this is, on the other hand, what fiction lacks.
There is another peculiarity of publicist style which is worth con
sidering. Whereas in fiction we talk about the two-way relationship
between the author and the reader (in the theatre with the spectator),
in the case of publicist writing, it is rather a question of - to use a
publicist phrase - "a broad exchange of opinions" and their integration
into the newly arisen article. The reasoning of the publicist is as a rule
enriched by statements made by political figures, by idioms depicting
the wisdom of the people, by reminiscences from the Classics or the
Bible, by direct or loose quotes from the cultural heritage of mankind
and in the publicist writing of a socialist country, by the legacy of the
classics of Marxism. Indeed, this diversity of sources of cognition is
reflected in publicist style; it contributes to its multistratification and
intensifies the immediate "didactic" function of publicist writing men
tioned above.
PUBLICIST STYLE 123
The complicated nature of political, economic, cultural and sports

matters, which form the obligatory basis for publicist reporting and
commentary or, as the case may be, evaluation, and on the other hand,
the permanent task of having a complex effect on the consumer of the
utterance, i. e. both rational and emotional, leads the publicist regularly
to metalinguistic thought. He still respects the neutral stratum of stan
dard expression, but for reasons mentioned above, he also bears in mind
other means of expression which his native language affords him ac
cording to his intention. At the same time, he draws our attention to
their stylistic activation by the use of inverted commas, to make the
reader aware of his deliberate use of the particular expression which
stands out from the text. Their metalinguistic significance is manifold;
this classification according to the originator of the metalinguistic
evaluation also corresponds to explicit expression in spoken publicist
utterances. Moreover, in the latter, we can also use the paraphrase
receno v uvozovkách (spoken in inverted commas):
1) In the sense of "as it were"; e. g. americká flotila "zabloudila"
v prulivu (the American fleet "got lost" in the Gulf); Zehuñsky rybník...
"oslavuje" letos své 475. narozeniny (Zehuñsky lake ... is "celebrating"
its 475th birthday this year); přístroj "dychá za clovëka" (the machine
"breathes for people").
In the above cases, the publicist sought his expression and marked
it out in the text by using inverted commas. This group of metalinguistic
evaluation also includes authorial innovation, either real or presumed.
2) In the sense of "as the saying (in some places) goes". Expressions
in inverted commas in this group belong mainly to the strata of lan
guage outside the neutral layer, i. e. to the stratum of technical jargon
("v porcelánu" se bude sortiment mënit the assortment "in porcelain" is
going to change), to slang or jargon, to a terriorial dialect or to Com
mon Czech; within standard expression, we find elements which are
vulgar, excessively emotionally involved, extremely technical, pathetic
or elevated. Here, inverted commas really indicate a quotation from
expression used in certain working environments or by particular in
terest groups, by young people, specialists, people both vulgar and
refined (in the case of the use of euphemisms). By using such expres
sions, the author of the publicist utterance makes it clear that he is
acquainted with the working or interest environment described, that the
statements quoted are authentic or at least the most apposite and fitting
124 JAN CHLOUPEK
for the nature of the environment described due to their non-standard

character.
Even more frequent is the use of inverted commas in more or less
familiar expressions from the neutral strata, which also belong to a
particular environment, for example: delegáti prijali "dvojusneseni"
přednostnë "dozbrojovat a potom jednat" (the delegates accepted the
"double resolution" with preference "to finish arming and then to
discuss"), or Sjezd bylpropagován jako "dialog s kritickou mládezí" (the
Conference was propagated as a "dialogue with critical young people").
Since, in all of these cases, we are talking predominantly about a
reference to somebody else's mode of expression, what is visible here is
mostly the shade of meaning of the detachment of the publicist from the
truthfulness of the statement. This is obvious, for example, in the
headline "Japonské zájmy" a zájmy Japoncù ("Japanese interests" and
the interests of the Japanese), or the expression přání egyptského prezi-
denta, tohoto blízkovychodního "andĕla míru" (the wishes of the Egyp
tian President, the "Angel of Peace" in the Middle East), or the fre
quent accounts of 'zemë neomezenych moznosti" ("the land of un
bounded opportunities"). The significance of inverted commas in such
cases was explicitly characterised by a publicist statement that tisk CDU
dávno uz nepíse mírové hnutí v uvozovkách (the CDU press has long since
stopped writing peace movement in inverted commas). From here there
is a smooth transition to longer or even to full quotations from foreign
sources.
3) The meaning of "as the saying goes". The creator of the
publicist text seems, in such cases, to be apologising for drawing on a
"tried and tested", wide-spread saying, on idioms from folk expression
or from the Bible and Classical culture, and sometimes he modifies
them to fit in with his intentions, for example: "bílá mista" v okrese
("white places" in the district), "blyskání na casy" ye vyrobê.,. ("sheet
lightning" in production...), "dum na klíe" ("ready-to-rent house"),
"pátá kolona" (the "Fifth Column"), "rozbĕhly se" sportovní soutĕže
(the sports competitions "got under way"). Very often, inverted com
mas also indicate the characteristically publicist type of the so-called
implicit congruent attribute, e. g. "soutëznï" pocity ("competition"
feelings), "mladé"parkety ("young" dance floors) (both of which refer
to the junior dance competition), "svátecní expres" ("holiday express"
- which travels on a public holiday).
PUBLICIST STYLE 125
4) The meaning of "as X., Y. says". The originator of the quoted

expression is not stated but should be apparent (otherwise the signifi
cance of the use of inverted commas would remain unclear). For exam
ple: v zivotnim dile "herecky lidové prostoty"... (in the life-work of the
"actress of folk simplicity" ...), "zpusob tohoto léta zdá se byt nest'ast-
nym", ("the summer seemed to be unhappy"), "patrnëomylem volajícím
ke vsem svatym na vysostech", ("obviously by mistake, calling out to all
the saints on high" - from literary critisism), zapas "o misto nahoře" (the
battle for the "place on top"). This method of using inverted commas
comes closest to their function as quotation marks.
On the whole then, inverted commas introduce into the publicist
text expressions or whole idioms and they draw attention to the active
stylistic effect of an expression by highlighting it in the text. Apart from
the usual choice of standard expression, they allow language means
from the whole of the national language to be inserted into the text.
Moreover, they help to stylistically activate expression in publicist
writing automated by indicating a modification in the original automat
ed text {nepfisli "s troskou do mlyna', ale s tunami obili they did not
come "with their little bit to say" but rather with tons of cereals). They
act as evidence of the metalinguistic thinking of the publicist, the
intentionality of the choice of language and they also reflect the con
tinual exchange in the stream of information.
All of these examples have explicit counterparts in spoken publicist
utterances, most often in the form of parentheses, e. g. bylo to vitezstvi,
jak se Hká, "o prsa" (it was a victory "by a hair's breadth", as the saying
goes), do její "kuchynë", obraznĕ receno, jsme nahlédli (figuratively
speaking, we looked into her "cuisine"), takřikajíc "u konce s dechem",
("breathless", as it were), máme-li hovořit mluvou mladych, tedy "pĕkny
koumák", (to use the language of the young, a "real dabhand"). 2
Notes
1 Fifty years ago, the rather one-sided effect on the emotions was typical of the press.
This was achieved above all by figurative expression: Udenti na pravou strunu jest
pravy talisman úspechu revolucní cinnosti (striking the right chord is the real talisman
for the success of revolutionary activity); Postavení zeny podobá se ptáku ve zlaté kleci
(woman's situation is like that of a bird in a golden cage). From the daily paper
Rovnost, 1925.
126 JAN CHLOUPEEK
2 The present paper is based on the Czech version published in J. Chloupek (1986),
Dichotomie spisovnosti a nespisovnosti. Brno, pp. 35-44, under the title Publicis-
ticky styl.
References
, J. V. (1973), Jazyk a styl novin (The Language and Style of News
papers). Praha.
CURIN, E (1958),  jazyce novin (On Journalistic Language). Naše řec, 41,
224 - 228.
CURÍN, E and J. NOVOTNY, (1974), Vyvojové tendence soucasné spisovné
cestiny a kultura jazyka (Developmental Tendencies of Modern Standard
Czech and the Culture of Language). Praha.
JELÍNEK, M. (1957),  jazyku a stylu novin (On Journalistic Language and
Style). Praha.
KOSTOMAROV, V. G. and B. S. SYARCKOPF, (1966), Ob izucenii otnosenija
govorjascich  jazyku (The Study of the Relationship of Language Speakers
to Language). In: Voprosy kul'tury reci, VII. Moskva, 23 - 36.
MINÁROVÁ, E. and J. CHLOUPEK, (1983), Vyrazy v publicistickém textu
oznacené uvozovkami (Expressions in Inverted Commas in a Publicist Text).
Nase řec, 66, 14 - 22.
MINÁROVÁ, E. (1980), Jazyk a styl soucasnépolitieképublicistiky (The Lan
guage and Style of Modern Political Publicist Writing). Diss. Brno.
VÁHALA, E et al. (1966), Zurnalistika. Jazyk a styl (Journalism. Language and
Style). Sesity novináře, 1, No 4. Praha.
Semantic Contexts in a Poetical Work
Karel Hausenblas
1
The theoretical aspect of semantic structure of poetical works has
received much less attention than, e. g., the rhythmic and sound struc
ture of verse. This is connected with a lack of research into some
important questions of semantics as the theory of meaning in general.
Linguistic, literary-scientific, esthetic, logical and even general1 seman
tics have so far been largely concerned only with a partial sphere of
semantic phenomena, mainly the meaning of words (or naming units,
expressions): the meaning of sentences, for instance, has been studied to
a much lesser extent from the general point of view.
As can be seen from the most recent survey of the problems of
(logical) semantics published in Czechoslovakia (Tondi, 1966), in
sufficient attention is paid to phenomena both in the "downward"
direction, i. e. semantic elements smaller than words (denominations),
and in the "upward" direction: the principles of semantic structure of
higher units, including complete communications, are entirely left aside,
obviously owing to their great complexity. These points must be given
more consideration in linguistic and literary-scientific studies. There are
many analyses and interpretations on the level of particular texts, but
theoretical treatment is still rather incomplete and unsystematic.
It is the interpretation of semantic structure of a communication (a
text) that we intend to contribute to by finding out what (kind of)
semantic contexts are constituted in a poetical work and what are the
possibilities and means of their constitution.
2
Before proceeding to this point, however, it is necessary to discuss
briefly what is meant by the concept "the meaning (sense) of a com-
munication (discourse)". It is understood differently according to wheth-
128 KAREL HAUSENBLAS
er (a) it includes what is involved in the connection of the discourse with

its environment (verbal or situational) or merely what is due to the
structure proper of the discourse; accordingly we can make a terminolo
gical distinction between situational and structural meaning (sense); (b)
whether consideration is also given to semantic components other than
those constituted by the essential meaning-carrying elements, i. e. the
lexical and grammatical means of sentence structure according to the
rules of the particular language.
The environment2 in which a text is placed often considerably
modifies or even quite alters the sense of the discourse "by itself'. This
applies not only to literary works of art (cf. allegories) but essentially
to language discourse in general. However, what is "the meaning of a
discourse by itself"? Is it possible to strictly separate a text and its
overall meaning from the influence of its environment? Only in a certain
sense. Even though it is most often possible to separate the (set of)
elements realizing a text both from the verbal and the nonverbal en
vironment,3 this cannot be said of the formal and semantic structure of
the text. Every communication as a component of the semiological
process is inherently connected with the repertory of devices from
which some have been selected to construct it and with the system of
conventions, norms and rules of employing these means. The choice
(selection) is not merely a matter of the genesis of the text: the result of
the choice, what is selected, is a constituent feature of the text. Similarly
composition does not involve only composing but also composedness.
Hence in what forms the environment of a communication a
distinction must be made between the components with which the
communication is inherently connected and which must be taken into
account in its interpretation and other parts of the environment which
are less relevant. However, drawing a distinction between these two
kinds of components is no easy matter: it is difficult to determine the
entire range of devices used to construct a communication, in our case
language discourse. It is not sufficient to include the linguistic devices
proper, i. e. phonic, grammatical, lexical and paralinguistic, but we must
also include those of composition, which are more generally termed
tectonic, as well as the general schemata of the genre forms, since these
are not created in a particular text, but common schemata are modified,
combined, etc., in a different measure, and finally even thematic means
(current motifs and even entire thematic patterns, e. g. of the sujet).
SEMANTIC CONTEXTS IN A POETICAL WORK 129
Especially elaborated and differentiated is the system of the special

formal devices of the structure of verse: naturally it also includes the
semantic function and stylistic value of its individual elements.
All this and a number of other points must be taken into account
when considering how to conceive the structural meaning of a text as
against its situational meaning. For example, the symbolic or a similar
meaning (which is secondary with respect to the primary structural
meaning but from the viewpoint of the communication goal may be
regarded as more important, as the "sense proper") frequently reflects
certain norms of the period or represents a distinctive feature of certain
literary trends; cf. e. g. the allegoric character of medieval poetry or the
symbolic meaning of the poetry called symbolism according to this
feature.
But even in works of these types the structural meaning remains
the axis of semantic interpretation. Constructionally, structural mean
ing is always the core of the structure of a work, and however obviously
the weight of the communicative orientation may be shifted to a sym
bolic or another sense, it is the oscillation between the two fields that
remains the source of the specific effect, e. g. even in the most hackneyed
fable the semantic sphere given by a theme from the animal world is not
obscured or blurred by the fact that the moral is intended to apply to
people. Saying that animals in a fable act like people means precisely
that they do not behave like animals: not only the relation to the world
of humans but also to the world of animals is relevant.
The meaning of a text is moreover understood differently accord
ing to the inclusion or noninclusion in the semantic sphere of (a) the
extraintellectual or partly (not fully) intellectual component and (b) the
not fully realized (unawareness) component.
The range of semantic phenomena should not be determined only
according to the basic lexical, grammatical and thematic elements that
carry meaning: the starting point should be a broader conception of
semantic information that can be carried by the devices of all levels of
the text structure.
The semantic structure of a text is also affected by the not fully
intellectualized and the not fully realized4 component. Their special
semantic load, however, is as a rule less clearcut than in the case of
components of the other type and for this reason it is hard to ascertain
and to express in the fully intellectualized and explicit technical lan-
guage. Therefore writers often resort to periphrasis and nonterminolo-

gical or semiterminological figurative forms of expression, using terms
like "atmosphere", "tenor", "musical character" and the like.
The area of nonintellectual meanings will be left aside here; we shall
concentrate on meanings (of units of higher entities) which are not fully
realized (of which the recipient/the author of the text is not fully aware).
It should be noted that in language expression in general we have
to do not only with clearcut and fully realized meanings. As regards
lexical means, their use in a certain meaning, immediately fitting in a
context, is accompanied by connotations of other meanings which often
remain below the threshold of full awareness. They emerge above it,
however, if they e. g. get into a major conflict with the basic meaning
of the context; they operate then as an incongruous element or they
have a comical effect, or more frequently, a generally esthetic effect. The
same essentially also applies to obscured motivating allusions of
naming units, even to such as are not greatly obscured. As for gram
matical meanings, some of them are characterized not only by a high
degree of generalization, but also by difficult identification of their
semantic content; thus e. g. the aspectual forms of verbs (perfective and
imperfective) are used quite safely by speakers of languages possessing
these forms, but explicit identification of the semantic distinction be
tween the members of the aspectual opposition causes, as is well known,
great difficulties even to specialists, the interpretations proposed by
different authors being different (perfective aspect is described as ex
pressing "completion", "complexity", "verbal action from the out
side", etc.). In poetry, however, language devices often utilize any of
their semantic qualities, including grammatical meanings (Jakobson,
1968).
Specific semantics, realized and clearcut in a different measure, is
also characteristic of specific forms of verse, cf. the types of verse
according to rhythmical organization, but also according to length, etc.
(Levy, 1966; Cervenka, 1966; Trost, 1968).
However, even entire semantic contexts incorporated in a work
may remain below the threshold of awareness (see below).
"The meaning of a text, a communication" is a very complicated
structure. "Above" the basic linear sequence, together with semantic
accumulation of semantic elements, are built semantic entities of dif
ferent types and formed in different ways. Together they make up a
whole, which can be denoted as the total, overall meaning. However,

how is it to be understood? If the total of the meaning forms, as is said,
a unity, what kind of unity is it and to what extent is it a unit? Or should
the overall meaning of a work be understood only as a semantic core
constituted by the most important components? But by what criteria
shall we measure "the importance" of the separate semantic com
ponents? Is it not true that a detail can be equal in its impact to a large
complex? The sense of a work is often presented as a condensed
interpretation, as its "shortened content", including some aspects re
garded by the interpreter as the most important: sometimes it is the core
of the sujet structure, sometimes the essence of the ideological content,
expression of the attitude to the basic philosophical questions and the
like.
I presume that one of the principal tasks of the semantics of
poetical literary works - also as a starting point for further, e. g.
philosophical interpretation - is to describe and explain the principles
of the structure of the semantic complex which we have called the
structural meaning. It is constituted by separate semantic elements,
often in a very complicated way,5 which gives rise to a number of partial
semantic entities.
3
Hence we proceed to the principal task of the present reflections:
what semantic connections and what partial semantic entities arise be-
tween the meaning-carrying elements of a text? For the concept of a
semantic entity arisen through semantic connection between parts of a
text, let us employ the term "semantic context".6
Thus the concept of semantic context is restricted neither by extent
(it may pervade the entire text, but it can also be constituted by two
words only), nor by complexity, nor by the degree of distinctiveness of
the semantic relations and the degree to which the reader is aware of it.
Partial semantic contexts in a work are e. g. the different semantic
complexes constituting the higher unit called the sujet of (an epic) work:
its components are usually sought in the context of the environment,
the context of the characters and the context of the plot (Vodicka,
1948).
But, sujet, sujet context, defined in this way does not cover the
entire area of thematic semantics of an epic work: closely connected
with the sujet context, but in some respect essentially differing from it,
is the fabula context, fabula. Fabula is not something outside the work:
it contains a selection of the same thematic elements as sujet, but in a
different temporal sequence. In some poems fabula and sujet are hardly
differentiated at all, e. g. in J. W. Goethe's ballad Der Erlkönig; but as
a rule they differ at least in some points of the temporal arrangement
of elements and the text usually contains enough semantic indicators
signalling the order of thematic elements as they appear in fabula;
however, there are also texts in which the order of events in fabula is
intentionally obscured, as in Hrubín's Romance pro křídlovku (A Ro
mance for a Bugle).
Furthermore, there is the context of the narrator, "the author's
image" (Vinogradov, 1959). Sometimes the narrator is presented as a
special "character" or he manifests himself in the subjective commen
tary on the events, etc.; often, however, he remains "hidden" behind
"objective" narration. This is well-known; these components interest us
here from the general point of view because they in fact represent
special kinds of semantic contexts built "above" the linear sentence
context; in this way semantic connection arises not only between the
meanings of successive segments but also "at a distance", between
segments that do not adjoin each other.
In some texts, of relevance are semantic connections of yet another
kind, due to such textual features as are not usually regarded as devices
of semantic structure.
I have in mind semantic connections due to the distribution of the
meaning-carrying elements in the text on the basis of the frequency of
occurrence of expressions and their collocations. An obvious point for
investigation is the ascertainment of semantic contacts between the
words ranking at the top of the frequency scale. Their importance for
the text has naturally been noticed, but attention was turned to isolated
words which are called the key words etc. (Guiraud, 1954). The set of
these words, however, is not evaluated as the carrier of a partial entity
in the semantic structure of the text, even though their high frequency
sufficiently distinguishes them from low-frequency expressions (expres
sions immediately following each other on the scale usually display only
slight differences in their frequency of occurrence) and thus connects
them.
This fact is presumably due to the circumstance that in poetical

works frequency counts are usually made from whole volumes, whose
semantic unity is considerably looser than in the continuous text of one
poem. In the evaluation of semantic connections we thus regard as more
appropriate to start from a sufficiently long text of a particular poetical
work. - Now the following question maty be raised: what entitles us to
speak of semantic connection of a semantic context sui generis in a set
of expressions connected by their high frequency of occurrence within
the vocabulary of a text? The answer is that we must regard them
primarily as components of the given text, i. e. not only as occurring in
x instances in the text but as being reiterated x-times. What is the
relation between frequency and reiteration in general? Reiteration has
two aspects: on the one hand it involves absolute recurrence of a
particular expression in a text - in this sense it is a synonym of "higher
frequency than 1"; on the other hand reiteration operates as a tectonic
device where an expression occurs (conspicuously) oftener than is its
probable frequency of occurrence in the given genre etc. and than is
usual in regard to the given theme (sujet). Moreover, of importance is
also the character of the place in the text where the reiterated expression
occurs: cf. the "strong" initial and final position (even in partial text
segments) and the much weaker medial position (disregarding of course
e. g. the culmination point of semantic structure, the point and the like);
a role is also played by the distance between the two nearest occurren
ces; unless in strong position, reiteration affects awareness only at
shorter distances. Special studies of phenomena of this kind are lacking.
Words with a higher frequency, i. e. words that are most frequently
reiterated in a text, establish a semantic contact, forming a specific
semantic context, which of course does not come into the foreground
in an interpretation of a text orientated to the basic level of its semantic
structure. It should not therefore be judged according to the features of
the semantic context of the sujet; rather, it is close to the character of
the rhyme context (discussed below).
The semantic entity due to the meaning of the most frequent words
in an epic poem can be closely connected with the context of the plot
but it may also differ from its core.
In another study (Hausenblas, 1971) I followed up the role of the
most frequent words in Mácha's Máj (May) in the interpretation of the
depiction of space in this poem.
As regards the lexical parts of speech, the frequency scale is headed

by the following words: byti (be) (45), hora (mountain) (32), vezeñ
(prisoner) (30), jezero (lake) (28), cas (time) (28). The word vĕzeñ
(prisoner) is most closely connected with the context of plot, the others,
seen from the viewpoint of the plot structure, depict the spatial situa
tion: hora (mountain), jezero (lake); the remaining expressions have
quite general function: byti (be), cas (time).
In this study, I show on the basis of a comprehensive analysis how
important the role of depicting space is in this poem. Space does not
figure here only as a background to the description of nature and a
framework for situating the plot, but together with time, the human
subject and some essential attributes of his existence it forms a con
figuration of a specific layer of semantic structure of the poem, a layer
not found directly on the surface. Transformed into the connection of
the sentence context - let us note, however, that the specific nature of the
non-sentence context constituted by the most frequent words is thereby
bound to be distorted - there is the human subject, represented in its
innermost conflict of freedom and captivity by the prisoner, experienc
ing the astonishment at and the anxiety about his being, placed in time
and the depicted space between its centre (the lake) and the horizon (the
mountains).
We can argue about the degree of relevance of this specific context
with respect to the degree of awareness of the semantic connections
involved, but it would definitely not be right to relegate such phenome
na to the sphere of subjective interpretation of a text: they represent a
component inherent in the structural composition of the text.
Then there is the question of the so-called subtext. As I have shown
elsewhere, this feature is not in fact a "sub-text" - the text remains only
one and the same - but a "sub-sense", a semantic or content structure
"hidden" "under" (but we could also say "over" or "behind") the sense
that more immediately follows from the structure of the text (or its
parts).
Presumably several types are to be distinguished: (a) sense based
on established symbols, allegory or another kind of established sub
stitution of the meaning of certain expression complexes such as reli
gious or sexual symbols;
(b) sense inferred from the so-called "allusions" scattered in the
text (an allusion is an intentionally incomplete suggestion of semantic
connections, especially with a content complex that is otherwise unex

pressed in the text);
(c) sense due (exclusively) to incorporation of a text in a particular
verbal or situational environment, which requires familiarity with that
environment on the part of the interpreter: this is usually the case of
allegoric texts. The three types are often combined.
As can be seen, it is often impossible to draw a sufficiently distinct
borderline between the sense of a text, which is due to its structural
semantics, and the sense derived from the location of the text in its
environment. This does not mean, however, that these aspects should
not be generally differentiated and that we should not investigate the
role of either aspect in the interpretation of particular texts.
4
The types of semantic contexts discussed so far might be denoted
as macrocontexts, since they apply to the entire text or at least its
essential part. In addition, especially in poetical texts in verse, there are
different other semantic connections constituting minor or even quite
minute contexts; in the extreme but very common case these contexts
are formed only by two semantic units. These microcontexts arise
primarily through rhyme. Rhyme, according to literature, has not only
euphonic and rhythmical, but also semantic function. The semantic role
of rhyme is sometimes seen in linking whole verses semantically. This is
indeed often the case, but it is primarily the rhymed words that are
invariably linked by rhyme (sometimes even "against" the meaning of
the sentence contexts of the verses), thus forming a special semantic
microcontext.
However, the nature of the rhyme context is not to be measured by
the features of semantic context of sentences (grammatical-lexical con
text): rhyme does not give rise to utterances, it does not make a state
ment or produce another similar ideational structure. This does not
mean that the semantic connection involved is indistinct and unimpor
tant fot the semantic structure of the poem. On the contrary, many of
such rhyme contexts are very distinctive and even impressive - already
by being implemented in an uncommon way, viz by a fresh selection and
different organization of the units constituting the primary sentence
context - and they are of considerable significance for the semantic
structure of the poem.
The words forming a rhyme context sometimes reinforce each

other semantically; the effect then consists in the fact that the similarity
of the sound shape is accompanied by semantic affinity or close seman
tic connection (which does not usually happen in the case of derivation-
ally unrelated words). Such a relation may accord with the meaning of
the sentence context of the particular verses, e. g. in Mácha's verses kol
a kolem zelezná je mříže / v obejmutí vëcném  sobé víze (Mnich) (all
around and around are iron bars / in an eternal embrace they bind one
(The Monk)).7 However, it may also exceed the sentence context, cf. the
relation between "svírá" (wringing) and "mrize" (iron bars) in
Vrchlicky's verses a divá holest srdce svírá mi / ty tmavé rûzejsou tak plny
smutku I a dívají se na mne mřřízemi ( Vpoledne, Rok najihu) (a wild pain
wrings my heart / those dark roses are so full of sadness / and look at
me through bars (At noon, Year in the South)), or Hora's vřzeni lásky,
zazdĕné / do tmy z níz nic jen ozyvá se, / plác kořisti, pad kamene, / jenz
roz tristi se v case (Máchovské variace) (the prison of love, walled up
/ in darkness from which only nothing echoes, / the cry of captured prey,
the fall of a stone, / which smashes in time (Variations on Macha)), or
it may operate even against the sentence context, such as the rhyme
connection between the words smrt (death) and zdrtit (smash) in Neru-
da: a nez se lidstva pouta zdrti ¡je třeba jestë velkych smrtí (Ukolébavka
vánocní, Zpëvy pátecní) (and before mankind's shackles can be smashed
/ there must come great deaths (Christmas lullaby, Friday Songs)).
Semantic rhyme connections which are at variance with the sentence
context of the verses can be one of the sources of semantic tension in
the text of a poem.
It often happens that the rhyme contains a confrontation of an-
tonymous meanings: Invektiv sykot hlavou leti / a nestálych versù vztekly
vir,/jenz silu nevdechne v tvé snëti / a tvoji dusi nedá mir (Toman, Pisen
cizí bolesti, Melancholická pout) (Invectives' hissing through the head
flies / and unsteady verses' furious whirl, / which does not breathe
strength into your sprigs / and to your soul does not bring peace (The
song of alien pain, Melancholic pilgrimage)). Every language contains
a number of such pairs of words, cf. pisen - tíseñ (song - distress), skáce
- place (he jumps - he weeps).
It is not the aim of the present study to make a consistent analysis
of the semantic structure of particular texts; what we are concerned
with is only the repertory of its possibilities, but let us illustrate at least
by one example in what way the rhyme contexts are integrated within
the structure of the whole poem. A complicated interplay of the rhyme
contexts with the semantic context of sentences is found, e. g., in the
following poem by K. Toman:
Vzpomínka z mostu
Ve vzduchu chvĕl se sametovy trpyt
a po zemi hra stinu
a my zasedli zlaté vino pít
u otcû kapucínû.
Den hrisnë kvet' a smál se askesi
az ve klásterní ticho
a páter Nĕmec vzdychl: 'Poesie!',
sñupal a hladil břicho.
Rim, Wicklef, Hus a pfisni papeži
ustoupili brzo vínu.
Nu, na morálce málo zálezí
u otcû kapucinû.
A páter Wolfgang septal o ženách
famosní historie.
Já ovsem cítil v tvári horky nach,
coz oficielní je.
Mûj vlasaty druh reformoval svët
(hrál dynamit v torn roli)
a kácel truny. Páter Wolfgang bled:
"Svët potřebuje soli."
Den hřisnë kvet' a mnë táh' hlavou sen:
 zmlklá, sedís u mne,
paprsek slunce padá roztřistën
na tvoje celo dumné
a svetelná hra, kterou vzplál tvuj vlas,
dostací, drahá, zcela,
by pokrytecká ctnost a asketicky mráz
i tato krcma-cela
poznaly pysnou slávu zivota
a blaho slunnych vysí.
 vzdálená, nez sen mûj ztroskotá,
bud' zdráva! Jestë císi!
( Melancholická pout')
The semantic structure of this poem (A memory from the bridge) can be presented
in the following way: (1) On a beautiful day I sat down in the monastery wine cellar with
some monks to drink wine. (2) The beauty of nature outside contrasted with the ascetic
background of the monastery, with the talk of the non-poetic monks about poetry, (3)
with repeated reminders of Wycliffe and Hus arguing against the popes. However these
thoughts were soon dispelled from the monks' minds by wine, since ethics do not interest
them; (4) the talk then turned to piquant stories about women, of the kind that made me
blush, as was proper. (5) Similarly, with no reserve on our part already drunk, there
followed rebellious talk of an anarchist nature. (6) And then, on that beautiful day the
memory of you arose, my beloved, like a dream, you were sitting beside me; (7) (8) the
contours of your winsome figure were enough to show where and in what life's glory and
bliss consist. Before this dream vanishes again I toast to you, my love!
The semantic context of the rhymes suggests at several places what

later appears explicitly in the sentence context: thus the rhyme sen
(dream) - roztristĕn (shattered) in the sixth strophe anticipates the
utterance nez mùj sen ztroskotá (before my dream is wrecked) in the
eighth strophe; the identification contained in the appositional com
pound krcma-cela (tavern-cell) in the seventh strophe is in fact included
in the third strophe in the rhymed pair vinu - kapucinu (wine - Capu
chins); the sentence na morálce ( mnichù) málo zálezí (ethics are of
little consequence to monks) is connected by rhyme with the expression
papezi (the popes), which is thus incorporated in two contradictory
contexts. And the semantic confrontation of the rhyme askesi - poesie
(with German pronunciation /-zi:/) (ascetics - poetry) in the second
strophe, semantically indistinct, includes a semantic opposition which
belongs to the semantic core of the poem: in the last strophe it is further
developed without explicit disclosure. Even this is evidence that in a
poem no type of semantic context has a priori primacy.
However, the rhyme contexts are connected with the semantic
structure of this poem in yet another way. Thus in the last strophe the
position of the phrase pysná sláva zivota (the proud glory of life) is
"undermined" by rhyme connection with the expression ztroskotá (is
wrecked). Of semantic relevance is also the mirror of the word nach
(purple) in the form o zenách (about women), and further the contrast
vzplál tvûj vlas - mráz (made your hair glow - frost) and the confronta
tion klásterní ticho - bficho (monastic silence - the belly).
In poems where the verses are largely rhymed and rhyme positions
are occupied by semantically (or thematically) important words there
arises a sort of independent context level proceeding (literally, if the
written text is referred to) across the basic level of the sentence structure
of the verses. Such examples abound in Brezina's poems, e. g. mlceni -
bez odpovĕdí - ze snení - hledí (silence - without answer - from dreams
- gazes); stateti - z nekonecna - rozpeti - vĕcna (centuries - from infinity
- the span - eternity); Mas - späten - jas - vzdálen (voice - burnt -

brightness - remote); pasát - táh '- nasát - v mrákotách (trade-wind - drew
- suck in - swoon). In the poem Umĕni (Art) the rhyme positions of four
strophes are occupied by the following sets of words: chléb - kryje -
modliteb - relikvie (bread - /it/ covers - of prayers - relics); pal - na sníh
- zal - v básních (scorching - on the snow - grief - in poems); var - nastru
- tvar - v alabastru (boiling - I shall spread out - shape - in alabaster);
do nebes - ke snu - knĕz - klesnu (to heaven - to a dream - priest -I shall
drop). (As can be seen, there may arise a pseudosentence continuous
context: mlcení bez odpovëdi ze snĕni hledí (silence without answer from
dreams gazes); chléb kryje modliteb relikvie (bread covers the prayers'
relics).
To a large extent, such semantic sequences are due to the fact that
in Březina's poems the rhyme positions are occupied by semantically
and thematically important words, even by words which lead the verse
to its highest point; but they are also due to the fact that the text of the
strophes is constituted by syntactically expanded sentence elements
(profuse modification of the sentence parts constituting the text of the
strophes) and to parallel sentence structure. Therefore, e. g., the se
quence of rhymed words (cizi) den - do oken - nezateh' - (ve svych)
úpalech ((alien) day - into the windows - did not lie down - (in its)
scorching heat)) constitutes a distinct semantic sequel, and is not ar
tificially taken out of the introductory poem of the volume Stavitelé
chràmu (Builders of Cathedrals) but is a sort of depleted (and little
changed) extract from the sentence context of the given strophe, which
reads in its entirety as follows:
V mlh jeho stínu éterném nás míjel cizí den,
jenz dosud privai rûzí svych nám navál do oken
a lásky srpnem bez konce na nase nivy nezaleh',
vsak za obzorem vinicím dal zráti ve svych úpalech.
(In the mists of his eternal shadow an alien day passed us by, which
has till then blown a torrent of roses into our windows and in the
endless August of love he did not lie down on our meadows but over the
horizon he let the vineyards ripen in his heat.)
In Brezina's poem Vonné soumraky (Tajemné dálky) (Fragrant
dusks, Mysterious Distances) the final strophe has the following se
quence of rhymed words: v snech - úsvitu - zeh - blankytu (in dreams -
of dawns - the glow - of blue skies). Now the question arises whether a
semantic connection of a "secondary level" can compete with the
connected continuous sentence context of the verses, at least insofar as
to make the perceiver aware of a sequence. In Brezina's poems the basic
sentence structure is usually quite fixed but it is so overburdened with
the semantic load of the sentence elements that even other semantic
relations can assert themselves, especially if they are evoked by the
operation of certain devices of the formal structure (tectonics). This is
the role of the rhytmic, euphonic and compositional structure of the
verse and strophe. An important part is also played by such important
devices as rhyme.
In the given strophe, however, the compositional distribution of the
words in the entire text is also influential, especially the marked parallel
ism in the distribution of the parts of speech which make a certain
"geometrical" figure: cf. the medial and final position of nouns (of all
nouns except the initial zpëv (song), which is bound by parallelism in the
structure of the strophes):
touhy v snech
strunách úsvitu
mori vûní sluncí žeh
kvëtem blanky tu
( of desire in dreams
in strings of dawns
the sea of fragrance the suns' radiance
by the blossom of the blue sky)
Leaving aside the first syllable of the verses (which is also the
position of the only finite verb plá (glows), semantically rather worn out
in poetry so that it does not appreciably affect the symmetrical balance
of the strophe), all other positions (with the sole exception in the third
verse) are occupied by adjectival forms: ... marné (futile) ... hlaholící
(resounding) ...; ... zlatych (golden) ... prístích (future) ...; ... novych
(new) ...; ... modrym (blue) ... novych (new) ...
We have deliberately refrained from presenting the entire text of
the strophe until now:
zpëv marné touhy hlaholící v snech
na zlatych strunách prístích úsvitu,
kde v mori vuní novych sluncí zeh
plá modrym kvëtem novych blankytu.
(the song of futile desire resounding in dreams

on the golden strings of future dawns
where in a sea of fragrance the new suns' radiance
glows with the blue blossom of new blue skies)
The inclusion of this entire strophe in an extensive complex sen

tence, comprising a number of strophes, is perceived only slightly. Like
the three preceding strophes with which it is syntactically coordinated,
even this last strophe of the poem is in fact an expanded component of
the multiple subject of the sentence Z ni vstane (usmĕv ..., den ..., deck
..., zpĕv ...) (From it arise a smile .... a day ... a breath ... a song). The
connection of all these strophes with the preceding ones is grammatic
ally implemented by reference of the pronominal form ní (it) to the
noun vùnë (fragrance) in the preceding verse, which in turn refers
further back by the pronoun jejich (their) - this grammatical connection
of course does not suffice to outbalance the independence of the loaded
semantic content of the individual strophes.
Laborious search for sentence connections of the text shows that
the syntactic structure of a poem (however firm) is only an underlayer
completely overshadowed by its partial components, which grow on it
and are filled with the loaded meaning of the individual verses and
strophes. Under such circumstances even other semantic links may
assert themselves, operating along other "dimensions" than the im
mediate connection of the sentence context of the verses.
We have treated at some length the rhyme contexts, but poems also
contain microcontexts of other kinds. (For some of them see Jakobson,
1960.)
5
We have dealt here with some kinds of semantic contexts that arise
in poetical works. In conclusion, let us enumerate the possibilities
available for the constitution of semantic connections, semantic con
texts, in the structure of a text.
(1) Semantic connection arises through the devices of grammatical
structure and functional sentence perspective: naming units (lexical units)
shaped morphologically (or syntactically) enter into the grammatical
constructions of sentences formed according to general (grammatical)
rules, and the elements of the utterance are organized (with respect to
the situation and the context) so as to express the theme - rheme

relation. This is the basic way of constituting semantic contexts in all
types of texts that work with linguistic meanings.8 In modern poetry,
however, grammatical relations are often weakened, markedly so e. g. in
futurism to make room for other semantic potentialities and to bring
out other effects. - Across the boundaries of sentence constructions
semantic connection is realized through reference by pronominal and
other expressions.
(2) Semantic connection is realized by specific naming of the rela-
tion, i. e. explicit, direct communication about the presence (or absence)
of the connection. This device is often resorted to by the narrator in an
epic work. Cf. the following passage from Puskin's Eugen Onëgin:
Ponechme Tánĕ úspĕch její / a sny, jez tesknë ozelí. / A nazpĕt  tomu,
 nĕmž pëji, / bychom nah nezapomnëli (7, 55, translation by J. Hora)
(Let us leave Tanya to her success / and dreams which she will sadly
lament. / And back to him about whom I sing / lest we should forget
about him).
(3) Semantic connection is realized through devices that we have
called tectonic. They are based on confronting the members of a syntag-
matic sequence (both of linguistic and of thematic devices), on revealing
the similarities and difference between them, etc. This role is played, e. g.,
by parallelism in the structure of certain segments of the text. Rhyme also
belongs here; it gives rise to specific semantic microcontexts, etc.
(4) The parts (e. g. expressions) between which semantic connection
arises are "marked" not only by similar phonemic structure (as in rhymed
sets of items) nor by corresponding position (as in parallel constructions),
but also in other ways, such as the foregrounding of certain expressions
due to their highest frequency of occurrence with respect to the other
expressions contained in the text. Semantic connection between the most
frequent words is generally neither sufficiently apparent, nor quite dis
tinct or clearcut, nevertheless for the overall semantic purport of the
poem it is of considerable importance, especially where it conspicuously
does not fit in the framework of the sujet context.
(5) Semantic connection is due to mere juxtapposition, placement
immediately next to each other (after each other), that is to vicinity in
the text. Juxtapposition is the most elementary device of text structure
and it preserves its role even besides the diverse special grammatical and
tectonic means forming semantic connections (even) at a greater dis-
tance. What adjoins each other in the text is also connected semantic-
ally (unless the non-connectedness of adjoining expressions is sig
nalized, which is usually entailed by the rules of the grammatical
structure of the sentence).
(6) A presupposition for semantic connection is also provided by
mere coexistence, co-occurrence of expressions in the same text. Verbal
communication is a field in which, speaking quite generally, not only
anything can be semantically connected with anything else in some of
the ways listed above, but the very selection and placement of certain
expressions in the same text separated from the environment brings
forth latent semantic connections. This is especially felt in a partial unit
of a poetical text, such as a verse: even if there were no other means
(grammatical, tectonic) of bringing items into mutual relations, yet
what is contained together in a verse constitutes a certain semantic
entity. This is less true of the poem as a whole.
(7) Has this enumeration covered all possibilities? If we aimed at
completeness we probably ought to mention instances in which the
semantic connection in the text is constituted on the basis of extratex-
tual relations: even if there is no connection in the text, we shall prob
ably connect what is closely connected "in reality" through the nature
of things or what is closely connected (paradigmatically) in the system
of linguistic devices or thematic literary elements, etc.
What has been said here about semantic contexts was primarily
intended to show what different types of semantic connections are
found in literary works and what is the repertory of their possibilities;
we were not primarily concerned with the realization of some or all of
them in particular poetical works.
I presume, however, that the disparity existing between innumer
able analyses, descriptions and interpretations of the semantic aspect of
individual literary works of art on the one hand and innumerable
semantic analyses of a general nature on the other hand urgently calls
at least for partial adjustment.9
Notes
1 General semantics in our conception is one of the basic components of general

semiotics, the theory of signs. Cf. Horálek, 1967, p. 79.
2 This environment or environment and the relation to it is usually called the context;
we avoid this common term only because we shall need to use it in the second of its
established meanings, current in our disciplines, viz "semantic entity composed of
the meaning of (two ... more ... all) partial units of a text", see below.
3 It should of course be determined which elements will be considered in the identifica
tion of a text and which will be left aside: both in spoken and in written communica
tion there is a range of "paralinguistic" features, which will be left out of account
here.
4 We have in mind the partial unawareness in perception and interpretation of a text,
but this may also apply to the production of a work: a text can - and often does -
contain "more" than the author has consciously put into it.
5 From another aspect the principal ways are analysed by Cervenka (1968).
6 This is the second meaning of the term context in our disciplines: apart from this
meaning it is used in the sense "the environment of a (particular) text" and as a rule
a further distinction is made according to whether by the "environment" is meant
the verbal textual environment, i. e. the text (immediately) preceding or (immediate
ly) following the given text, or whether the situational context is meant, i. e. the
situation in which the communicative act takes place; it is than advisable to distingu
ish verbal context and situational context. Since the term context is established in
both meanings, I do not opt for a new one.
7 The examples are provided with literal translations to give readers unfamiliar with
Czech an idea of the semantic structure involved.
8 To a large extent (rather than entirely) linguistic meanings are eliminated only in the
so-called artificial poetry and instances like nursery (counting-out) rhymes and the
like.
9 The present paper is based on the Czech version published in K. Hausenblas (1971),
Vystavba jazykovych projevu a styl. Praha, pp. 101 - 113, under the title Sémantiché
kontexty v básnickém dile.
References
CERVENKA, M. (1966),  sémantice metrického systému májovcû (On the

Semantics of the Metric System of the " M á j " Poetic School). In: Teorie verse
I. Brno, 161ff.
CERVENKA, M. (1968), Vyznamové kontexty (Semantic Contexts). Ceská
literatura, 16, 1ff.
DANES, F. (1968), Sémantická struktura vĕtného vzorce (The Semantic Struc
ture of Sentence Pattern). In: Otázky slovanské syntaxe II. Brno, 45ff.
G U I R A U D , P. (1954), Les caractères statistiques du vocabulaire. Paris.
HAUSENBLAS, K. (1971), Zobrazeni prostoru v Máchové Máji (The Depiction
of Space in Mácha's "Máj"). In: . Hausenblas, Vystavba jazykovych proje
vû a styl. Praha, 127 - 156.
HORÁLEK. K. (1967), Filosofie jazyka (The Philosophy of Language). Praha.
JAKOBSON, R. (1960), Stroka Machi o zove gorlicy (Mácha's Strophe Con

cerning Turtle-Dove's Calling). International Journal of Slavic Linguistics
and Poetics, 3, 89 - 108.
JAKOBSON, R. (1968), Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry. Lingua,
21, 597 - 609.
LEVY, J. (1966), Preliminaries to an Analysis of the Semantic Functions of Verse.
In: Teorie verse I. Brno, 127ff.
TONDL, L. (1966), Problémy sémantiky (Problems of Semantics). Praha.
TROST, P. (1968), Über die Eigenschaften langer Verse. In: Teorie verse IL Brno,
23ff.
VINOGRADOV, V. V (1959),  jazyke chudozestvennoj literatury (On the
Language of Literary Works of Art). Moskva.
VODICKA, F. (1948), Pocátky krásné prosy novoceské (The Beginnings of
Modern Czech Prose). Praha.
On the Stylistic Aspect of Coreferential Naming
Chains
František Daneš
1. Coreferential naming chains

1.1 Many, if not all, objects and other facts of the world may be
labeled by an immense number of names (naming units). E. g., one and
the same person in a text can be introduced at first as an elderly
gentleman, afterwards named George Soames, then presented as my
uncle, later on referred to by he, and at last characterized as the old
scoundrel (cf. Danes, 1983, p. 72).l Generally speaking, in texts a given
discourse referent or discourse subject2 (DS) may be coreferentially
resumed once or several (many) times, so that chains (strings) of
coreferential naming units (CNUs) arise. I call them coreferential
naming chains (CNCs). (Cf. Viehweger's (1977, 1978) nominative Ketten
and Agricola's (1979) Isotopieketten.)
The crucial point with naming (and referring) is that the facts of
the world (as well as their fictitious images) do not appear without
properties and vice versa. (It may be that the dichotomy objects - their
properties represents, in fact, "the transference to the world structure
of the structure of sentences" (cf. Russell, 1946, p. 225), reflecting a
naïve world view.) The human differentiation, categorization, classifica
tion of experience into resemblance classes find their reflection in the
system of naming units (NUs) of the vocabularies of natural languages,
so that the (intensional) meaning of any common noun (or noun
phrase) represents a structure of semantic features reflecting the proper
ties of objects or the other facts of the world. Consequently, any NU
used in an act of reference by a text productor (and receptor)3 will
inevitably be connected with mentioning the given set of properties of
the given DS. In this way the DS will be characterized (or specified).
Paduceva (1970, p. 226) truly maintains that "naming of objects usually
is not separated from stating their properties".4
STYLISTIC ASPECT OF COREFERENT1AL NAMING CHAINS 147
The hierarchical notional structuring of vocabularies along with

the immense possibilities of modifying simple (head) nouns by means of
attributives of different grammatical forms and structures (adjectives,
prepositional phrases, dependent relative clauses or blocks of them,
adverbials, etc.) and of different semantic categories, as well as by
means of appositive noun phrases (appositions), all these possibilities
offer a broad diapason of choices to connect the mere reference to a DS
with the mentioning of differently rich sets of its various properties.
1.2 Naming is, to be sure, not the only - and, in certain respects,
not the primary - way to introduce the characteristics of DS's into the
utterance. The other way is the introduction via predication. The basic
relation between these two modes can be demonstrated by means of the
following sequence of sentences (adapted from Mathesius):
(1) He presented her with two roses. (2) One of the roses was red, the other white.
(3) The red rose was fully unfolded, the white one a bud only.
In sentence (2) the two characteristics of the two DS's 'roses',

introduced in (1), are stated via predication and in the subsequent
sentence (3) they are incorporated into the NUs resuming the DS's.
This shifting (transferring) the expression of a characteristic from the
predication to a subsequent nomination represents one of the basic
procedures in text construction. On the level of the sentence-
constituents structure it may be described as the attributivization of a
preceding predication; grammatical (syntactic) means employed are
nominalizing transformations. An attributive can be viewed as a "de
graded predication" (H. Paul, 1909) or a "latent" one. A special kind
of attributivization is represented by attributive relative clauses. There
are also semi-predicative constructions (cf. some "non-finite clauses" of
English grammar, for example the participial ones). - The different types
of characterizing a DS have evidently a bearing upon certain stylistic
properties (values) of texts, as we shall discuss below.
From our considerations follow some text strategies. In building
up a text, its productor has to decide, inter alia, (1) which from the
immense set of thinkable properties of a DS (be they inherent, relation
al, or evaluative) he will directly introduce at all and which, in turn, he
will leave to the reader's inference processes; (2) which of the charac
teristics will be stated via predication and which, in turn, via naming
(without having been predicated first); (3) in what sequential order and
148 FRANTISEK DANES
at what text places he will mention by naming this or that property

(properties) - in other words, how he will construct the CNCs of
particular DS's; especially important is the decision concerning the
introductory naming unit (INU); (4) what forms of expression of NUs
he will choose.
1.3. The present article will be devoted to the discussion of the
cotextual and contextual aspects of CNCs, especially to the stylistic
(rhetorical) relevance of the choice of different NUs contained in a
CNC. If we conceive of linguistic style, in Praguian tradition, as con
cerning the ways and manner in which linguistic means of expression
are being selected and organized (arranged) into singular structural
wholes (i. e. texts), then the trivial fact that the same thing can be said
in more than one way, or, more specifically, that one and the same DS
can be named and referred to by means of an immense number of
different NUs, necessarily bears upon the stylistic aspect of the make-up
of texts.
For practical reasons our discussion will concentrate mainly on a
specific class of DS's - persons, and on one type of texts - modern
literary prose.
2. The involvement of coreferential NUs in co-text and con-

text and its stylistic values
2.1. To begin with, let us analyse a CNC extracted from a passage
episode in U. Sinclair's novel "The Spy" (191 - 194). In the episode
(taking place in New York during the First War) the young hero Peter
makes an occasional acquaintance with a girl, but when she discovers,
during a promenade, that he has a "red" friend, disgusted and with
indignation she hurries away from him. Now, the CNC of DS 'girl' is
the following one:
a neat little girl going into a picture show (INU) - her - (they) - she - she - his
manicurist - Miss Frisbie - Miss Frisbie - his friend - his lady - (they, their) - his lady-love
- the girl - the girl - the little manicurist - Miss Frisbie - Miss Frisbie - she - she - her
Generally speaking, authors may use different options in choosing

particular NUs, ranging from a 3rd person pronoun (e. g. she discloses
STYLISTIC ASPECT OF COREFERENTIAL NAMING CHAINS 149
the following characterizing features only: 'one female person') or a

proper name to very richly characterizing NUs - cf. the following one:
"Man vergegenwärtigte sich einen Brünetten am Anfang der dreissigen
und von stattlichen Statur, dessen Haar an den Schläfen schon merklich zu
ergrauen beginnt, dessen rundes, weisses, ein wenig gedunsenes Gesicht aber
nicht die Spur irgendeines Bartwuchses zeigt" (Th. Mann, quoted from Har
weg, 1988, p. 47).
In the choices, at least the following several factors might be
operative: (1) The relevance of particular characteristics to the contents
of the subsequent and preceding co-text; (2) The distribution of relevant
characteristics according to the author's text plan and stylistic pattern;
(3) The artistic literary bias of the author's personality and/or the
stylistic dominant of the given text whole (literary work), conditioned
also by the text type, by the style of the literary period, etc.
In the above sample by Sinclair, the INU mentions several inherent
characteristics and a situational one, and is relatively moderate, not an
abundant one. The evaluative adjective neat (from the set of several
other near-synonyms, as beautiful, handsome, nice, pretty), implying
cleanness, orderliness, simplicity, purity, appears in accord with the
girl's future behaviour and her ultimate reaction; the same holds with
the characteristic little ('young, unexperienced').
The first occurrence of NU manicurist does not, in fact, bring new
information about the DS to the reader - as it could appear when
examining the extracted CNC out of context; this NU had been
prepared in the preceding co-text by the explicit predication "she
worked in a manicure parlor". 5 As a co-text given characteristic also
appears NU his friend (she became his friend in the course of the
episode). NU Miss Frisbie (proper name + "title"!), in turn, brings into
the text a new, unknown characteristic; its introduction is clearly prom
pted by the co-text, in which the young pair had proudly been making
their promenade in Park Avenue on Eastern Sunday, studying, in their
best clothes, "the customs and make-up of the ladies". The third
occurrence of Miss Frisbie accentuates, again, the "miss-like", de
tached, and high behaviour of the girl after the accident. As for NU his
lady, its motivation is the same as with the first occurrence of Miss
Frisbie. But NU his lady-love, appearing in the description of the
accident in the context "... without introducing his lady-love, (he) took
150 FRANTISEK DANES
her by the arm and hurried away", has an ironical connotation prom
pted by contrast. A similar connotation is displayed by NU the little
manicurist (when she "stamped her foot with impatient anger" and "her
eyes flashed with indignation"). - Among all NUs of the given CNC, the
girl appears as "least text dependent and characterizing", most "neut
ral" - with the exception of the pronoun she/her.
2.2. The above discussion prompts us to a schematic survey of
different CNUs in respect to their position in text structure. (Cf. also
Viehweger, 1977, p. 193). In general, they may primarily be conditioned
by co-text, or co-operate in text development.
2.2.1. The basic distinction is that between (1) text/situation-
independent and (2) text/situation-contingent CNUs.
(1) The independent CNUs can be treated in relation to the INU, or to
another preceding CNU; they belong to two essentially different classes:
(a) The coreferentiality of these CNUs is based on the semantic
system of vocabulary or/and on other systems of knowledge (there is no
objectively statable, generally valid, dividing line between the two or
between particular knowledge "modules", however). If a succession
INU - CNU (or CNU n - CNU n + 1 ) in a text is based on the general
relation "genus pro specie" (or, "genus pro individuo"), then CNU
does not bring forth new characteristics of the given DS; if, in turn, the
relation is that of "species pro genere" (or "individuum pro genere"),
then CNU, with an obligatory identifier, is highly informative and text
developing.6
A special class is represented by figurative (mostly metaphorical)
NUs. Both with figurative and non-figurative NUs, the members of a
coreferential pair show a common semantic (notional) core. With fig
urative NUs this core appears as a tertium comparationis, that is posed
as a "riddle" to the interpreter. Nevertheless, in view of the fact of a
virtual "referential pansynonymy", stated by Karcevskij (1929) under
the label of the "asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign"7, the task of
finding out the tertium comparations is, in fact, restricted not to the
figurative use only (or the "figurative use" should be conceived of much
more broadly and indeterminately than it currently will be).
(b) The coreferentiality of CNU is not based on the vocabulary
and/or conceptual system, neither it is derivable/predictable/recover
able from preceding co-text. Such CNUs naturally bring forth new
characteristics of the respective DS and contribute to text development
(cf., e. g., a CNU revealing the proper name of the DS).
(2) Text/situation-contingent CNUs are of two major kinds:

(a) By means of a CNU the informative content (a part of it) of the
preceding co-text (or of its section) either will be summed up or/and
evaluated, or it will be specified, explained or particularized (itemized).
With such CNUs certain increase of information is often associated. -
As for anaphoric pronominalization or for the repetition of the same
NU and for its lexical synonym proper, we could say that they retain the
development of the naming line in suspension.
(b) The characteristics expressed by a CNU are prompted by the
informative content of the preceding co-text (and/or by the situation)
and are inferred from it. The degree of the "newness" of such charac
teristics varies owing to the subjective differences in world knowledge
and inference processes.
Thus if a historical person - say Napoleon Bonaparte - is introduced as DS byrneans
of his proper name, then, from an "abstract" viewpoint of the overall historical know
ledge, any known characteristic of this DS might be "theoretically" inferrable, not "new".
But such an abstract general way of reasoning does not do justice to the concrete
conditions of text processing. Since the characteristics of a (historical) person are, in fact,
indefinitely numerous, the selection of one or several of them by the text productor
appears, to a high degree at least, incalculable and, consequently, associated with a
relatively high degree of "newness" (unexpectedness) to the readers. The relatively great
differences concerning the knowledge of historical facts between individuals do not allow
for generally valid conclusions concerning text comprehension.
2.2.2. Along with the semantic (cognitive) aspect of the content of

NUs, another aspect (or a bundle of affined aspects) is operative,
namely pragmatic values of evaluation, emotion, attitudes. In W. Sty-
ron's "Sophie's Choice" (215) the narrator quotes from his diary:
"Leslie re-creates for me the dark odyssey of her psychoanalysis. And of course of
her family. Her horrible family. Her family which is a wax work gallery of monsters. The
ruthless and ambitious father whose religion is molded plastics and who (...). The creepy
younger sister and the stupid older brother. Above all, the ogreish mother who has
dominated Leslie''s life with bitchery and (...). All this Leslie pours out to me in a terrible
rush".
Pragmatically imbued characteristics will be of a more or less subjective

character and have an originator / experiencer / attitude bearer, who
represents a "point of view" from which a DS, an action, event and other
"facts" are looked at, experienced. (Cf. Conte, 1988; she makes the use of
the happy label "empathy", initially borrowed by Kuno (1975)
152 FRANTÍSEK DANES
from Uspensky (1973).) Even though the productor's viewpoint ap

pears as typical and basic for the text, there are texts (text types) with
relatively rich and complicated "empathie structure", with a number of
"empathic shifts". This is especially the case of narratives (spoken as
well as written), with their intricate structuring.
In section 3 several examples will be adduced showing how the
choice of a certain CNU may be just contingent on an empathie shift.
(Cf. also the discussion of Sinclair's fragment above.) But now I shall
try to show how even the option of an apparently most "unemotional,
sober" CNU may be conditioned by an emotional attitude. The follow
ing text fragment is from I. Murdoch's novel "The Sea, the Sea",
written in the 1st person sg. ("Ich-Form"). The attitude bearer is here
the narrator (fictitiously identical with the author of the novel).
"I became obsessed with the idea of carrying a chair and table out of the tower and (1)
I set off across the rocks with the little folding table which I had moved from the middle room
to the drawing room. (2) This object soon began to seem absurdly heavy, and I found to my
annoyance that the smooth steep faces of the rocks were too difficult to climb (3) while I was
holding the table in one hand. (4)Eventually I let the thing fall into a crevasse".
Outside the text, the individual NUs can be neatly ordered accord
ing to the degree of their semantic (conceptual) generality: the little
folding table which ... - the table - this object - the thing. Interestingly
enough, such an order roughly corresponds with a pragmatic, empathie
ordering of entities on the dimension of "proximity (intimacy)" -
"distance".
Now, how to explain the actual sequencing of this set of NUs in the
given text fragment? Their sequence corresponds neither to Lakoff's
(1968) assumption of a sequel (1) proper name, (2) specific description,
(3) a general class name, (4) pronoun, nor to a reverse one (creating a
"knowledge deficit"), mentioned by de Beaugrande (1980, p. 146). In
fact, the most informative NU, with a number of inherent characteris
tics and a situational one, occurs in sentence (1) as INU (which is often
the case; but I would never claim, as some scholars do, that an INU can
represent a "full, complete" characterization of a given DS: there is no
such thing). NU this object in (2), of a very "distant" character, goes
with the narrator's assertion that the table is very heavy, and with his
annoyance at the impossibility to manipulate it.8 The use of the basic
(neutral) term of the given lexical hierarchy, the table, in (3) is in accord
with the factual, objective character of the message in the subordinate
clause. In (4), representing the culmination and catastrophe of the

episode, the most distant and somewhat contemptuous, in the given
content, NU the thing occurs (in colloquial usage it is used to denote
"something mentioned but unnamed, as in contempt" - Webster's
Dictionary).
3. One specific variety of CNCs: the "austere" chains of

modern literary prose
3.1. This section of the present contribution will treat one kind of
CNCs with a personal DS typical of modern literary prose. This variety
can be characterized, somewhat metaphorically, as "austere" or "bare".
The austerity of these chains concerns two aspects. First, the set of
different NUs (taken as types) constituting such a chain (be it as long
as it may) is extremely small and slightly differentiated; in some cases
it may consist of one item only, continually repeated (with the posssibil-
ity of pronominalization, of course). Second, NUs of austere chains are
of a very general, highly categorical meaning (they mention very res
tricted sets of categorical characteristics) and their contribution to the
characterization (specification) of the DS is very poor.
3.2. There are several subvarieties of austere chains; I shall adduce
and illustrate here several of them.
3.2.1. Subvariety (I) may be illustrated by Hemingway's famous
story "The Old Man and the Sea". Apart from the more or less regular
pronominalization (he, him, his), occurring also as the initial, opening
word of the whole narrative (a relatively frequent phenomenon of
narrative techniques), the hero of the story is referred to by means of
the only NU the old man (without initial capital letters, that is in the
function of a common noun phrase, not of a proper name), even
occurring in the title. The only exception is his proper name Santiago
El Campeón. Once it is mentioned in the reminiscences about the
bygone days when the old man "was not an old man then but was
Santiago El Campeón", i. e. not an anonymous veteran; for the second
time the name Santiago occurs in the boy's direct speech to the proprie
tor. Thus both occurrences of the proper name are co-textually motivat
ed. - As for the second personage, the boy, his proper name never
occurs. And let us say that even the third main "personage", the (great)
154 FRANTISEK DANES
fish, is referred to by its generic name only, without attributives, with the
exception of the quite simple and matter-of-fact adjective great (also the
old man addresses it with this NU).
Generally we might characterize subvariety (I) of austere CNCs by
stating that NUs used in them represent such denominations the mean
ing of which corresponds to the relatively most general degree in the
given conceptual hierarchy. The qualification "relatively" is necessary
here and concerns the fact that such a NU contains in its meaning those
semantic features only, but all of them, that in the given text appear to
be necessary and sufficient characteristics of the DS for all different
contexts in which the NU occurs there. Consequently, we often find in
such CNCs bare nouns only, without attributives or with attributives of
a basic semantic character (such matter-of-fact adjectives as old, young,
great, ...). (Let us add that on the surface the situation may look
differently in different languages; cf. "The old man and the sea", but
Russ. "Starik i more"). To be sure, there are scarcely strict objective
criteria of the necessity and sufficiency of characteristics. But let us
remember that the subjective component in beletristic literature is
inevitable and essential.
3.2.2. Subvariety (II) I shall illustrate by two of F. Kafka's Erzäh
lungen. In the first story, a relatively longer one, "In der Strafkolonie",
the following main personal DS's (personages) are referred to: der
Offizier, der (Forschungs) reisende, der Verurteilte, der Soldat, der
(frühere) Kommandant, der (neue) Kommandant. With several excep
tions, which I shall comment on below, the DS's are referred to only by
means of these NUs throughout the whole text. We could characterize
the labels of this kind as "status/role names", by means of which DS's
are presented as "individualized types/roles". This concurs with the fact
that these NUs occur with definite article even in the opening, initial
position of the whole story (the second effect of the use of the definite
article here is the in-medias-res commencing).
Interestingly enough, in Kafka's second narrative, "Vor dem
Gesetz", the INU with which its two personages are introduced, occurs
with indefinite article: ein Türhüter, ein Mann (vom Lande). This fact
bears on the style of this narrative, more or less resembling that of folk
tales and, at the same time, the personages are conceived of as in
dividuals solely characterized (identified) by their roles. Der Türhüter is
a social role in full sense and the actual performance of this function by
STYLISTIC ASPECT OF COREFEKENTIAL NAMING CHAINS 155
the personage throughout the whole narrative represents one of the two
conflicting actions on which the plot of the tale is based - the other,
complementary action being the patient waiting of der Mann (vom
Lande) till he is admitted to das Gesetz (a third, somewhat mythical,
DS). The variation of NUs is here minimal: the full NU ein/der Mann
vom Lande occurs only twice: as INU and then in the following context:
"Solche Schwierigkeiten hat der Mann vom Lande nicht erwartet; das
Gesetz soll doch jedem immer zugänglich sein, denkt er (...)", where the
typically naïve assumptions of a countryman are showed, (Let us re
member that even in the first story, the behavior, actions, and activities
of the personages follow from their statuses/roles and do not go beyond
their standard framework.)
Let us now return to the above mentioned exceptional variants of
NUs in Kafka's first story. They are really not many and for the most
part not striking, though interesting. The full denomination der For
schungsreisende occurs as INU only (INUs are often more informative,
as mentioned above); its CNU der grosse Forscher occurs twice, in
"Offizier's" direct speech, tendenciously exaggerating in this way the
significance of this personage; the variant der fremde Reisende appears
also twice, in the context of the speculations of the pardoned convict,
fully uninformed of the situation (a case of empathy). - CNUs der/
dieser/unser Mann, with which "der Offizier" refers to the DS "der
Verurteilte", again reflect the impersonal approach an officer may have
to a (convicted) soldier. In all these examples, the attributives (simple
adjectives to the point) and/or very highly generic nouns reflect the
specific personal attitudes of the given DS's.
There is only one place in the entire text where DS is characterized
with a rather expanded noun phrase (in an appositive position) specify
ing several striking qualities in the appearance of the DS, that might
evoke certain evaluative and emotional attitudes in the reader. In any
case it is certainly not insignificant for the sense of the whole text that
this exceptionally treated DS is der Verurteilte: "(...) der Verurteilte, ein
stumpfsinniger breitmäuliger Mensch mit verwahrlostem Haar und
Gesicht". We can only speculate about the author's intentions and
motives (conscious or unconscious) that led him to employ this descrip
tive NU. And, similarly, we can only theorize about the effects on the
reader, about possible comprehensions and interpretations of this NU
by different potential readers when construing the sense of the whole
text.
156 FRANTISEK DANES
3.2.3. Subvariety (III) may be regarded as an extreme case: the

personages are not named (in proper sense) but referred to by the 3rd
person pronouns he/him, his and she/her. In these circumstances, how
ever, the pronouns are used neither anaphorically, nor cataphorically in
the strict sense, since they do not point back or forward to a previous
or subsequent mention, thus replacing an earlier or later noun phrase, 9
but they function "absolutely" more or less like nouns with a very
general, categorical meaning of 'male/female person'.
It is well known that the anaphoric/cataphoric use of he/she and
his/her ("possessive" pronouns evidently belong to the category of per
sonal pronouns as its subcategory - cf. Danes, 1985) in the position of
INU at the beginning of narratives is a common phenomenon (e. g., in
Joyce's "Dubliners" a third of the short stories begins with a cataphoric
he/she). And it is not a rare case when a substitution noun-phrase, to
which the many times and without interruption occurring pronoun points
forward, comes relatively late in the text (sometimes it appears even in a
very far distant paragraph; cf. the story "Eveline" in Dubliners).
A very interesting specimen of such a use of pronouns is found in W. Styron's
''Sophie's Choice" (91f.). A new tenant of a boarding house is discussing with an
old one the somewhat unusual behavior of a pair of younger people living in the
room just above that of the newcomer. They are quite unknown to him, he does
not know even their names; the only information about them he derived from
specific noises they produced and which he could not fail to hear and interpret.
Now, in the dialogue of the new and old tenant, the couple above will consistently
be referred to as he, she, they, without problems. Only after a while the old tenant
mentions, in passing, the proper name of 'him' (and the newcomer is happy to
learn it). - It seems to me necessary to treat the use of he/she in such cases as deictic
rather than cataphoric: the pronouns do not substitute, in fact, a subsequent noun
phrase, but they directly refer to and indicate the twp persons, sufficiently iden
tified by the dialogue partners (for the dialogue's sake) and by the reader as well.
Moreover, we should not neglect the fact that naming is not the
only way of characterizing a DS in text: on the one hand, DS's will be
further characterized in detail directly in the predication component,
and on the other hand, many characteristics are entailed by (inferred
from) the whole story, by situations in which DS's are involved, by their
behaviour, etc.
A good illustration of subvariety (III) is offered by W. G. Hardy's
short story "The Czech Dog". In it the use of she is absolutely conse-
quent, it is really the only NU referring to the given DS. As regards he,
alternating CNU the/this man appears several times. (After all, the
meaning content of this noun differs from the "absolute" he only in that
it contains an additional feature 'adult'- but this property of the respec
tive DS follows from the described situation from the beginning of the
story). And again, the use of the alternants is context contingent: the
given DS is named as the man twice from the viewpoint of a dog
(cf.:"The collie, perceiving that the man's attention was (...)" • "It was
continuing to watch the man"), and NU this man appears in the
author's presentation of 'her' flow of thought and imagination (cf.:"Sit-
ting here in this secure, comfortable room, she tried to visualize the
ditch and the darkness and this man". "It was not this man's fault that
in his fight for his country he had to sacrifice everything (...)"). I n both
cases a kind of "narrative accent" is present (pointing at, contrasting -
cf. the demonstrative this), probably a component of the "empathy"
phenomenon, mentioned above. - The other two occurrences of the man
are in the author's pure narrative descriptions and are not easy to
explain in terms of context contingency. But it is possible to propose a
syntactic interpretation: In texts such as Hardy's the difference between
the two uses of 3rd person personal pronouns, the "absolute" one and
the "normal" one (i. ., according to the syntactic rules of pronominali-
zation) is neutralized. Now, in both cases NU the man occurs in such
a syntactic (co-textual) position where the use of he according to the
rules of pronominalization would be excluded.
3.2.4. A distinct, though in any case an affined variety of "bare"
CNCs involves chains containing sheer proper names. Thus in Heming
way's short story "The Undefeated" the two main heroes, Manuel
Garcia and Miguel Retana, are referred to nearly in all cases by their
proper names (though in a few common modifications: Manuel', Mano
lo (when addressed);10 Retana). In the short opening part of the text
only, describing Manuel's comming into Retana's office, Retana is
referred to as someone - the voice - a little man, in turn: the author views
the situation from Manuel's position, the sequence corresponds to
Manuel's local progression.
Relatively often we meet with combinations of proper names and
pronouns. Thus in Sheila Kaye-Smith's short story "A Day in a Wo
man's Life" the proper name Joyce Armstrong appears as INU, but
subsequently the heroine will be mostly referred to by the pronoun
158 FRANTISEK DANES
she/her. The other way round, in H. G. Wells' short story "The Man
who Could Work Miracles" the INU introducing the hero is the pro
noun form him, followed by CNUs he - he - he - his (name was George
McWhirter Fortheringay) - he, - he - he - his - Mr. Fortheringay; in the
subsequent part of the text the proper name occurs then very often (thus
the first occurrence of the proper name is in a predicative position - not
a rare case).11 Even though a proper name brings forth a very meagre
characterization of its DS, the initial pronominal reference (esp. if the
proper name comes in relatively late) creates in the comprehender a
feeling of the above mentioned "knowledge deficit", connected with
expectation. But this deficit has a pragmatic rather than a semantic
basis: the proper name will be experienced by people as an unalienable
possession, as an indispensable attribute of any human being.
An ingenious pattern of the combination of "status/role" chains
and the chains with proper names may be found in Faulkner's "dual"
story "The Wild Palms". Since the analysis of its rather refined and
complicated structure would require much more place than I have at my
disposal here, I have to abstain from it.
3.3. In conclusion let us consider the possible overall stylistic value
(sense) of the austere (non-depictive, non-descriptive) CNCs. We have
pointed above to the fact that there are other sources of information
about a DS, in fact, than NUs only. Consequently, in a text with austere
chains, the informative, characterizing role of NUs is drastically re
duced and the reader/comprehender of the text has to find out and
often to construe by inference particular characteristics of DS's from
the predication component and from the entire story. Such a text
"reckons" with the independent constructive endeavour of the com
prehender. On the one hand, it forces him to be self-reliant in com
prehension and evaluation, and on the other hand, it does not set limits
to his comprehension and does not force him into certain solutions and
evaluations, it does not try to "guide his hand", to instruct him. (Thus
whether a certain character is"wretched"or not, whether an event was
"lucky" or not, is not to be settled by the respective NUs, but has to be
inferred from the story by the comprehender, or more precisely, the
reader has to make evaluations of his own.) - This assumption is
sustained by the fact that even the non-naming text component (and,
consequently the whole text) very often reveals austerity features, too.
But these problems would lead us beyond the realm of text linguistics.
In my opinion, it is preferable to treat 'austerity' rather as an

abstract stylistic principle, applied in individual texts with different
degrees of consistency, in a singularly patterned interaction with other
principles of the stylistic make-up of the text.
Notes
1 The present article is an abridged version of the author's paper On stylistic relevance
of the choice of anaphoric expressions published in: M.-E. Conte, ed., Anaphoric
Relations in Sentence and Text (= Rivista di linguistica 2), Torino 1989.
2 DS is treated by me very broadly, as that entity (of any kind, not only "objects", but
other "facts" as well) which the productor has just in mind when using this or that
naming unit and which he wants to bring to the receptor's mind.
3 Conte's (1986) definition of reference reads as follows: "ein Akt, den ein Sprecher
vollzieht, um mit einem sprachlichen Ausdruck auf einen Gegenstand zu verweisen
und um den Hörer zu instruieren, diesen Gegenstand zu identifizieren (bzw. re-iden-
tifizieren)". I find very important that even the comprehender's act of identification
has to be subsumed under "reference" in linguistic sense. Nevertheless, the act of
referential identification of DS's may sometimes be connected with problems and
uncertainties. It was also truly stated that reference can only be accomplished via
propositions (cf. Searle, 1971, p. 14; Conte, 1988, p. 25) and, moreover, looking at
reference from the comprehender's angle, it is, in fact,"accomplished via the entire
text-world model"(de Beaugrande, 1980, p. 66).
4 Paduceva maintains that even proper names serve not only to refer to an object, but
also to point to some constant property of that object; e. g. John means ' person who
responds to a call John'. In fact, however, a proper name often reveals more charac
teristics of its potential referent; thus John points to the fact that its referent will be
a male person, very probably belonging to an English-speaking community; or the
name Rek very probably would refer to a he-dog of a Czech master. Further,
Paduceva's claim that as the only kind of name that can be regarded as a true "deep
name" of an object, including none of its properties, may be considered pronouns,
appears to me not fully justified; it may, perhaps, hold for such cases as "Was it your
wife?" - "No! It was my sister", but certainly not, e. g., for the English pronouns he,
she, bearing information about the sex of a person.
5 When formulating our findings about text structure/processing, we may approach it
from three different points of view: 1. from the productor's angle (here the notions
of the author's motivations, intentions, etc. find their place); 2. from the receptor's
angle (if we state possible effects of text phenomena on receptors' comprehension
and interpretation); 3. from the linguistic analyst's angle, i. ., from the viewpoint of
a specially erudite receptor, comprehender, and interpreter, who primarily takes into
account the relatively objective data of the text structure and the broad and differen
tiated knowledge resources and skills of the set of possible receptors (a rather vague
assumption, though - cf. Danes, in print) and who tries then to ascertain a wide range
160 FRANTISEK DANES
of different possible partial and global comprehenders' interpretations and to ascribe

to them, as far as possible, different degrees of likelihood. For evident reasons one
has to prefer the third approach (after all, in a certain measure present in the other
two, to be sure). Nevertheless, on certain occasions, formulations of the other two
kinds will not be avoided, in our discussion, too. (Cf. also Note 8.)
6 These cases are relatively rare and their existence is doubted by some linguists.
Nevertheless, they do normally exist and may be based on the psychological
phenomenon that mentioning of a generic term activates, in the receptor's memory,
corresponding set of species and their instances. Of course, such a semantic link is
evidently relatively weak and vague and is restricted to cases where the relationship
between the hyper-item and the hypo-item(s) belongs to the currently activated part
of knowledge; the hyper-item mostly implies, in such cases, a few cohypo-items only.
From the textual point of view, between the occurrences of a hyper-NU and of a
hypo-NU there exists a "naming jump", a missing predicative link. E. g. in: "Last
spring 1 got a bodily injury. This fracture of my left arm vexed me for a long time",
there is a semantic gap between "bodily injury" and "the fracture of my left arm",
the missing predicative link being "1 broke my left arm".
7 Karcevskij claims that any linguistic sign represents, in principle, a point of intersec
tion of two series: the synonymic and the homonymic. Items of the first series
represent values of a similar (analogical) character, expressed by means of different
signs. The items are meant as different variants of an identical fact. (The second
series, the "panhomonymic" one, is based on associative transpositions).
8 I have just tried to formulate my findings by employing the relatively objective,
"neutral" approach. Of course, we could also say that the text productor chose this
NU in order to underline the (fictitious) narrator's annoyance, his attitude to the
table - only who really knows the productor's intentions or motives (often the
productor himself is ignorant of them)? Or we could say that the receptor learns
about the narrator's negative attitude to the table from the given NU - but in fact
anything linguists can know with certainty is that the text itself prompts a general
possibility of such a comprehension (perhaps besides other possibilities) to potential
readers, nothing more.
9 Cf., e. g., Leech and Svartvik (1975, p. 56). In Heidolph et al. (1981) the 3rd person
pronouns are classed as "personale Stellvertreter-Pronomen" (personal substitute-
pronouns), in distinction to the 1st and 2nd person pronouns, functioning as deictic
forms. Let us add that in languages with nonobligatorily expressed subjects (such as
Latin or Czech), the distinction between substitutive and deictic pronouns appears
in a somewhat diffferent light and has to be treated in view of the deictic function
of the personal endings of finite verb-forms as well (cf. Danes, 1985). - Even in
languages such as, e. g., German, Latin, Russian, where the option of a gender form
of the 3rd person pronoun is in principle regulated by the rules of concord with the
formal (grammatical, morphological) gender of the noun (phrase) for which the
pronoun anaphorically/cataphorically substitutes (independently of any semantic
association bearing on some "natural" property of persons/objects denoted by the
noun), some conspicuous traces of the "natural basis for gender" (Lyons) evidently
appear. Not only may he/she be used in a story in the above mentioned "ab-
solutely" naming manner, as, e. g., in English, but there are some more consequential
phenomena. Thus in German the name for 'death' is der Tod (masc.), whereas the
Czech equivalent smrt is a feminine. Consequently, in German - speaking countries
'death' will be symbolized (personified) as a male figure ("Schnitter mit der Sense"),
while in Czech, 'death' appears as an old woman with the scythe. The sex of the
English "skeleton in a black robe, holding a scythe" seems to be indeterminate.
Nevertheless, the title of Sherwood Anderson's short story "Brother Death" dis
closes the possible masculine character of 'death' in English. In Czech, e. g., such
a story could never be written and an equivalent translation of Anderson's text
would be a very hard nut, not less hard, of course, than the translation of a Czech
fairy tale "Smrt kmotricka", in word for word translation "Godmother Death".
10 Certainly, it is not by chance that the personage in a relatively low social position is
here often referred to by the author with the first name (and addressed by Retana
with a familiar, hypochoristic form), whereas the personage having a relatively high
social prestige is called by the author with the family name. This is a further example
of the empathic approach, even in passages with the author's "objective" narration
or description.
11 For simplicity's sake I have not taken into account the titles of the stories. The
interpretation of respective NUs (a woman's; the man who ...) in respect to the
subsequent CNCs would bring further interesting findings.
References
AGRICOLA, E. (1979), Textstruktur. Textanalyse. Informationskern. Leipzig.

BEAUGRANDE, R. de (1980), Text, Discourse, and Process. Norwood, N. J.
CONTE, M. -E. (1986), Textreferenten und Typen anaphorischer Wiederauf
nahme. In: W. Heydrich und J. S. Petöfi (eds.), Aspekte der Konnexität und
Kohärenz von Texten. Hamburg, 1 - 1 5 .
CONTE, M. -E. (1988), Condizioni di coerenza. Firenze.
DANES, F. (1983), On Text Constituting Semantic Relations. In: S. Rot (ed.),
Languages in Function. Budapest.
DANES, F. (1985), Zwei Anmerkungen zu den Personalpronomen. Zeitschrift für
Slawistik, 30, 53 - 60.
DANES, F. (in print), Some Considerations Concerning Text and Text processing.
In: J. S. Petöfi et al. (eds.), Aspects of Textological Research. Hamburg.
HAR.WEG, R. (1968), Pronomina und Textkonstitution. München.
HARWEG, R. (1988), Sentence Sequences and Cotextual Connexity. In: J. S.
Petöfi (ed.), Text and Discourse Constitution. Berlin/New York, 26 - 53.
HEIDOLPH, K. E. et. al. (1981), Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin.
KARCEYSKIJ, S. (1929), Du dualisme asymétrique du signe linguistique. Tra
vaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1, 88 - 92.
162 FRANTISEK DANES
KUNO, S. and KABURAKI, E. (1975), Empathy and Syntax. In: S. Kuno (ed.),
Harvard Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, Mass, 1 - 74.
LAKOFF, G. (1968), Pronouns and Reference. Bloomington.
LEECH, G. and SVARTVIK, J. (1975), A Communicative Grammar of English.
London.
PADUCEVA, E. V. (1970), Anaphoric Relations and Their Representation in the
Deep Structure of a Text. In: M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (eds.),
Progress in Linguistics. The Hague/Paris, 224 - 232.
PALEK, B. (1968), Cross-Reference. A Study from persyntax. Praha.
PALEK, B. (1977), Reference and Text. In: T. A. van Dijk and J. S. Petöfi (eds.),
Grammars and Descriptions. Berlin/New York, 355 - 394.
PAUL, H. (1909), Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle.
RUSSEL, . (1946), History of Western Philosophy. London.
SEARLE, J. (1971), The Problem of Proper Names. In: D. Steinberg and L.
Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics. London, 134 - 141.
USPENSKY, B. (1973), A Poetics of Composition: The Structure of the Artistic
Text and Typology of a Compositional Form. Berkley.
VIEHWEGER, D. (1977), Zur semantischen Struktur des Textes. In: F. Danes
und D. Viehweger (eds.), Probleme der Textgrammatik II ( = Studia gram
matica XVIII). Berlin, 103 - 118.
VIEHWEGER, D. (1978), Struktur und Funktion nominativer Ketten im Text.
In: W. Motsch (ed.), Kontexte der Grammatiktheorie ( = Studia grammatica
XVII). Berlin, 149 - 168.
Literary sources
A N D E R S O N , S.: Brother Death, in: The Albatros Book of American Short
Stories. Hamburg/Paris/Bologna, The Albatros, 1935:30 - 48
FAULKNER, W.: The Wild Palms. London, Chatto and Windus, 1939
HARDY, W. G.: The Czech Dog, in: M. Foley (ed.), The Best American Short
Stories. Cleveland/New York, The World Publishing Co, 1945:109 - 114
HEMINGWAY, E.: The Undefeated, in: The Albatros Book of American Short
Stories. Hamburg/Paris/Bologna, The Albatros, 1935:203 - 233
HEMINGWAY, E. The Old Man and the Sea. New York, Scribner's Sons, 1952
JOYCE, J.: Dubliners. Hamburg/Paris/Bologna, The Albatros, 1932
K A F K A , F.: Das Urteil und andere Erzählungen. Frankfurt a. M./Hamburg,
Fischer Bücherei, 1952
KAYE-SMITH, S.: A Day in a Woman's Life, in: My Best Story. An Anthology.
London, Faber and Faber, Ltd., 1934: 186 -208
M U R D O C H , L: The Sea, the Sea. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1980
SINCLAIR, U.: The Spy ( = 100 % : The Story of a Patriot). London. T Werner
Laurie Ltd., sine
STYRON, W.: Sophie's Choice. Toronto/New York/London/Sydney, Bantam
Books, 1980
WELLS, H. G.: The Man who Could Work Miracles, in: My Best Story. An
Anthology. London, Faber and Faber, 1934: 404 - 424
The Position of Verbless Clauses in the System of
Means of Czech Functional Styles
Otakar Soltys
Functional stylistics in Czechoslovakia can be regarded in a

twofold context. On the one hand as a generally valid phenomenon
which inevitably operates in any kind of linguistic description unless the
description abandons its aims of prescription and standardization. On
the other hand as part of a concrete historical stage in the development
of Czechoslovak linguistics; that is, as a specific structural and systemic
description closely related to the view of language as embraced in the
Theses of the Prague Linguistic Circle (Teze, 1929). The context of
general validity is no doubt suitable for Czechoslovak linguistics since
it directly links on to and explains the efforts, e. g., of Josef Jungmann
at the beginning of the National Revival and the latest efforts by
Czechoslovak text linguists. The other context, however, is more in
teresting as it is connected with the appearance of modern synchronous
linguistics in Czechoslovakia (see Leska, Nekvapil, Soltys, 1987) and
the scientific paradigms evolved at that time have lost nothing of their
scientific relevance for the linguistic descriptions of today.
As regards the first context, mention should be made of a manual
which even at the beginning of the National Revival, that means at a
time when active users of the Czech language numbered only tens of
thousands and Czech intelligentsia only thousands of speakers, was
written by an outstanding Czech linguist, Josef Jungmann. The first
edition of his Slovesnost (Verbal Art) came out in 1820, but we shall
examine the second, revised edition of 1846. Considering that it is
almost 150 years since its appearance, we cannot but admire the quality
of the book and the erudition with which it was written.
The experienced reader will find the following idea from the in
troduction interesting:"... As regards the theoretical part, I am sure that
no reasonable and knowledgeable reader expects to find in it any new
164 OTAKAR ŠOLTYS
original system. The author strove to put well-known facts in good

order and to build, as much as possible, the whole edifice on one
foundation. Understandably parts of it are due to himself, much more
to Reinbeck, Poelic, Eberhard, and others.
For he believes that as far as knowledge and science are concerned
it is better to make use of good works than produce something less
good, however original; sitting amidst classical writings, he finds it
impossible to remain original"(Jungmann, 1844, unpaginated Introduc
tion). The author's modesty needs to be stressed because he managed to
write a highly original textbook with a modern introduction to pro
cedures to be used in producing texts. The book is divided into a
theoretical and a practical part: the practical part falls into two divi
sions (sections). Section One in turn includes two subsections: a) On
Speech or Language in General, which deals with the general properties
of the Czech language (chapters such as Speech with Relation to Litera
ture, The Czech Language - A Slavonic Dialect, Etymology, etc.) and b)
On the Nature of the Czech Language in Particular, which besides
morphological properties examines prosodic characteristcs, word-
formation procedures, the use of metaphors and the essayistic charac
teristic of the language a s a whole (Declension and Conjugation, Com
ments on Vowels, Metaphorical Speech, Prosody, National Manners of
Speech, etc.). Section Two, however, is far more interesting providing, as
it does, an unusually consistent account of the theory and practice of
text production. Also this section divides into two subsections: a) On
Eloquence in General, which contains chapters such as The Basis of
Eloquence, The Usefulness of the Study of Eloquence, Forms of Elo
quence, On Inventiveness, On Arrangement, On Addressing, On Deliver
ing, and b) On Eloquence in Particular, which offers a detailed descrip
tion of prose, poetry and rhetoric. Thus the subjects dealt with under
prose include, for example: the style of instruction, objective descrip
tion, letter-writing and official dealings, dialogue and monologue (dis
course, soliloquy). Style and its classification are defined functionally. It
is our conviction that the depth of Jungmann's knowledge of text
production can be fully appreciated only in the context of the most
contemporary studies of text production or speech activity. Jungmann's
Verbal Art is, moreover, furnished with a complete set of exemplary
texts which is a significant addition to its practical usefulness. Still, in
spite of fulfilling the functions of a normative manual rationalizing the
VERBLESS CLAUSES 165
appearance of text patterns in small and ambitious ethnic communities,

Verbal Art could not have been provided with such a range of linguistic
knowledge as to attract the immediate appreciation it deserves.
Almost a century had to pass before stylistics derived from practi
cal experience with texts has become transformed into stylistics con
ceived within the context of a uniform theoretical view of language.
And so we move away from a context which is peculiar to Czech
linguistics as a generally valid principle to a particular historical context
of the early thirties, when Czech linguistics came under the influence of
the PLC conception (Teze, 1929) as the uniform theory of the national
language. Only with hindsight can we see the intellectual parallels
between the efforts of linguists, literary scientists, philosophers, logi
cians, estheticians and translators. These parallels were overlaid by the
principal controversies of that time and the almost antagonistic nega
tion with which contemporary philosophy approached psychology or
with which linguistics viewed logic, psychology, etc. Nevertheless, what
is the principal difference between the efforts of Fischer's school of
translation (which transposed the idea expressed in a source language
to a prenatal state to re-express it in the target language falling on its
own means of expression) and the efforts of linguists (recognizing, apart
from individual style, the objective existence of speech styles - Mathe-
sius, 1911 - as a superindividual norm in which an individual expresses
himself) or Husserl's description of acts through which the transcen
dental ego must pass before communication may take place (Husserl,
1900)? Bühler's principle of abstract relevance (Bühler, 1934) in much
the same way as Mukarovsky's esthetic norm of the period (Mukařov-
sky, 1936) results from the same scientific paradigm that came into play
in Central Europe and was used to account for empirical data by theory.
It is interesting to note how provident the beginnings of the particular
scientific paradigm are and the perspicuity with which the pioneers of
this new paradigm formulate the main tasks to be solved. In this
connection reference to B. Trnka's seminal paper Linguistics and the
Ideological Structure of the Period is in order (Trnka, 1948). Therein
Trnka formulates the cardinal thesis that experiencing {Erleben) imparts
functions to linguistic structures. We regard this thesis as a framework
within which we shall attempt to examine the position of verbless
clauses in the system of means of the functional styles of Czech.
166 OTAKAR ŠOLTYS
In order to come to grips with the theoretically grounded know

ledge as paradigmatically formulated by the Prague School, it is not
enough merely to gather empirical data on the use of verbless clauses
in various types of texts. It is necessary to make an attempt to accu
mulate findings on the way these clauses are experienced so as to have
access to values from which the functions of these clauses are derived
within the whole subsystem of syntactic means in Czech. Presumably,
they could be determined by means of an inventory. We do not, how
ever, regard this method as authentic enough and for this reason we
decided on a round-about route via the ontogenetic development of the
syntactic structure in a Czech child. This development shows an in
teresting gradual re-evaluation by the child of the verbless clause in the
system of syntactic means.
It is well known that an adult user of a language has no difficulty
whatever in communicating both by constructions containing the finite
verb and by those without it. Transition from one type of construction
to another presents no problems and is quite fluent. The situation is
quite different when a description, especially semantic, of these con
structions is to be made. We could go as far as to say that if a certain
balance between the surface-structure representation of the sentence
and its deep-structure analysis is to be maintained (in the sense that the
deep-structure representation will not involve many times more infor
mation than the surface one, information that has to be consequently
reduced the closer the surface), such a description is almost unfeasible.
Why? We believe that this stems from the nature of semantic
representations of the sentence, which cover the semiotic behaviour of
man only in part. For man is not always able to create a semiotic model
of reality that would be relatively complete and could exist indepen
dently of the context and its creator. In our view, a sentence of the type
Brutus killed Caesar, which is often quoted in this connection, comes as
the climax of a long process of specification, abstraction and again
concretization of both the denotation to kill and the semantic roles of
agent and patient and involves the gnoseological discovering of the
essential underlying processes, tested by practical activity, that has
always been man's concern. Obviously, well-developed and well-
thought out constructions are relatively easy to describe precisely for
being well-developed, complete and relatively independent. Parallel
with these, however, are constructions of the type Hon! / Vpravo vbok!
/ Nesmysl! (Fire! / Right turn! / Nonsense!), which also serve as com

municative units but which lend themselves to a relatively easy descrip
tion with much more difficulty. The fact that the user of a language is
able to switch from one type of construction to another is, in our view,
due to the structural properties of intelligence. But it is difficult to work
with the level of intelligence without knowing its internal structure and
without knowing how it responds to objective reality. We have already
briefly touched on the related issue of motivation and a broader ap
proach to the latter (Soltys, 1981, p. 177) and so we shall follow up on
the basic ideas of the paper. Drawing on studies by J. Piaget (1970) and
L. S. Vygotskij (1970), we understand intelligence as a series of hierarch
ically arranged stages which are governed by a certain law, of great
importance for us: transition from a lower stage to a higher, qualitative
ly different one which presumes mastering the former one. Which stage
the speaker finds himself at globally depends on his age. Once he has
reached the highest stage, i. ., the stage of formal thought with mature
reflexive intelligence, he inevitably has a good command of all the
lower-rank stages he had to go through before reaching the top one.
The stage-bound development of the level of intelligence may also be
described in terms of a temporally determined sequence of changes in
quality. Natural and harmonious development precludes any possibility
of by-passing some of the stages just as it allows for a slip-back to a
lower stage at any time. Such transition is by no means rare especially
in situations when the speaker finds himself in unusual communicative
conditions (adaptation to which has not yet become fully automated)
or in an emotionally or otherwise marked situation - simply on any
occasion when by using a developmentally lower stage of intelligence he
goes back to a level of being better integrated with the semiotically
relevant components of the utterance. If the idea of the stage-bound
development of the level of intelligence is directly coupled with that of
the stage-bound development of the grammatical system, the possibility
of a synchronous descent from a higher stage to a lower one, already
mastered, is of key importance. It newly models the idea of the gram
matical system as well as the idea of grammatical description. So far
researchers have "tacitly" proceeded from the assumption of a unity of
intellectual complexity in both the subject of description and the des
cription itself. Once the thesis of layers of intelligence reached by stages
and its direct consequences for the grammatical system are accepted,
168 OTAKAR SOLTYS
this assumption is no longer valid. Stage-based development is related

to another important idea, i. ., the concept of gradual liberation of the
cognizing subject from direct dependence on the immediate environ
ment through assimilation and accommodation and with the help of
ever-growing reversibility and mobility of cognitive structures. Cog
nition is accompanied by decentration, i. ., the cognizing subject
becomes less and less viewed as the centre of all goings-on and events.
Although the number of stages is less important than the mechanisms
of transition (clearly the number depends on how much detail we insist
on), we shall operate with five stages as identified by J. Piaget (1970):
I. the sensorimotor stage, II. the stage of symbolic and preoperational
thinking, III. the stage of concrete thinking, IV. the stage of operational
grouping with concrete objects, V. the stage of formal thinking with
advanced reflexive intelligence.
Let us start by changes that take place towards the end of the first
year of life when the child is able to anticipate the use of an instrument
for a tertiary circular reaction without having seen this instrument
before. This period is the culmination of sensorimotor intelligence. It is
the forerunner of thinking proper accompanied by the emergence of the
notion, the symbolic (semiotic) function and the symbolic (semiotic)
play in the most elementary form, i. e. involving one's own body. In this
period the child begins to acquire language.
It is not easy to collect clearly interpretable linguistic material from
this period. Although the child produces a great number of linguistic
utterances, they are formally quite imperfect from the point of view of
the last stage of intelligence. Clearly these utterances have a signifying
function but it is far from easy to find what is being signified. We can
make inquiries, but they plainly disturb the child. Quite often the child
merely wants to please the adult and joins signifiant and signifié for his
benefit. Or, when offered alternative, but mutually exclusive choices, the
child confirms all of them. Thus interpretation of the signified is based
on probability rather than certainty; though the more the observer
knows the child, the greater the degree of probability.
(1) Nána. (Dolly.) Holds a doll in her hand.
(2) Hamá. (Yum-yum). Holds a plastic tea-spoon and "feeds" the
doll.
(3) Estĕ hamá. (More yum-yum.) Continues to feed the doll.
(4) A estĕ. Fuj! (Some more. Ugh!) Stops feeding.
(5) Táto, fuj! (Dady, ugh!) Brings the doll to the observer.
(6) No! (Have!)
The observer: "The doll wet itself? Will you change the nappies?" The
child does not answer and bangs building blocks together. Then she leaves.
As she did not return to the doll it is not clear whether the last
utterance should be connected with the manipulation of the blocks or
the doll which the observer said had wetted itself.
Above the popular illustrator Lada's pictures of animals. The child
turns the leaves:
(7) Kikiriki. (Cock-a-doodle-doo.)
(8) Dák. (Cluck.)
(9) Haf. (Bow-wow.)
The foregoing examples do not exhaust all observations, to be sure,
rather they document their types. The communicative situation which
perhaps could be described as feeding the doll clearly shows the dependence
of speech attitudes on the activity and context of symbolic play. Personal
experience with feeding was being transferred without recourse to the
operational scheme mother-observed child, but the role of the person being
fed was assigned to the doll (1). Plainly the roles of the feeding person and
that of being fed are not yet distinguished. This is confirmed by utterances
(2) and (3). Although this period is often connected with one-word nominal
statements (utterances), our observation did not find any marked difference
between the incidences of nominal and verbal utterances. An interesting
point is the connection of the adverb with the verb (3). Presumably, this
construction had been picked up and learnt as a whole from the usual
communication during feeding: "Jestë jednu lzicku, jestë jednou do pusy."
(One more spoonful into the mouth). Utterances (4) to (6) indicate a change
for the worse in the attitude towards the doll although there is no clear
explanation for it at hand. The observer suggested an explanation to the
child that could provide a stimulus for developing the story; it was neither
rejected, nor was the story itself followed up. The inference is that in spite
of being offered another operational scheme by the observer, the child did
not feel inclined to accept it.
Let us try to interpret the first six utterances syntactically from the
point of view of the highest stage of intelligence development. First of
all, it should be noted that the child at this age still has a relatively
narrow field of interests - it perceives only immediate time and sur
rounding space and performs all operations only with relation to itself.
Piaget (1970) metaphorically calls this narrow scene dominated by the
child "egocentrism".
In terms of the last stage, i. ., that of formal thinking with mature
reflexive intelligence (V.), utterance (1) Nana may be conceived as an
170 OTAKAR SOLTYS
identifying or characterizing report whose lefthand participant as well

as the organizing constituent are contextually elided:
(1) Grammatical sentence pattern (GSP):
(Nnom / Pron - Vf) - Nnom
Nnom ~ characterized substance
Vf ~ existence predicate
Nnom ~ characterizing substance
Nevertheless, this explanation is unacceptable from the point of
view of sensorimotor intelligence. Since the child sees the immediate
surroundings as an extension of itself, designation (1) is in fact a
statement and discovery of non-I. No property is being ascribed to the
substance as the case would be at stage V, but the attention concentra
tes on the doll. This communicative unit can be then interpreted in two
ways: using the principle of predication, which would then require the
unexpressed constituents to be supplied (an interpretation we consider
inadequate); or, using the principle of centration - then the unit is
complete and no supplementation is needed (an interpretation which is
adequate from the point of view of (I)).
Similar arguments apply to utterance (2). From the standpoint of
formal thinking both utterances (1) and (2) are immediately restruc
tured into a single one: Nána hamá. The predicate hamá represents a
monovalent, action predicate with left-hand valency:
(2) GSP : Nnom - Vf
Nnom ~ the bearer of a feature and agens
Vf ~ action predicate
We would only have to find the stylistic and contextual causes of
why the dissociation of the two constituents occurred. But even this
interpretation would be false. For one thing, it is not in keeping with
objective reality - the doll is not eating but is being fed by the child; this,
of course, is not a very strong objection. The fact that we have to do with
the same case as in (1) is of far greater importance. The child's attention
and cognitive activity once again concentrate on non-I which is being
subject to a certain operation and this operation is being designated. It
is not important that the child feeds the doll; it is the fact that the doll
"eats" which is of importance. From the point of view of the sensorimo
tor stage of intelligence, this communicative unit does not need - very
much like (1) - any supplementation. The focusing of attention on the
act of feeding results in the linguistic expression of this operation.
Utterance (3) is quite interesting as it exceeds the bounds of the
sensorimotor stage of intelligence. As we have stated above we consider
it a quotation for the child itself has been fed in a similar manner. The
fact that this is not an internalized construction (i. ., one that has been
internally assimilated owing to advanced intelligence) is documented by
utterance (4) where the wordestĕvis used inorganically. The repeated-
ness of duration is, at this moment, connected with an interjection with
which the child has become perfectly familiar. Since the previously
manifested relation to the doll was not rejective this is further evidence
of the fact that the utterance clearly has a quotation as its model
sentence.
Utterance (5) shows restructuring of the communicative situation.
The observer, formerly outside the child's immediate surroundings,
after the child has moved is now included in its surroundings and a
dialogue starts. However, as continuation (6) suggests the dialogue is
merely suppositional. Being offered a solution, the child does not go on
to respond (see above).
Let us turn to utterance (7) to (9) which are quite typical of
children of this age. They are interjections imitating animal sounds. We
can see them being used in three ways in the observed situation: a) an
interjection is assigned to a picture (without prompting); b) in response
to a question which requires a noun to be supplied in the identification
(What kind of animal is this?), and c) in response to a question which
asks for a verb to be supplied in action structure (What is the little dog
doing?) From the viewpoint of the highest stage (V) identification of the
following patterns may be set up:
GSP: Pron - Vf - Nnom
Pron ~ toto (this), a demonstrative referring to a picture or animal
Vf ~ je (is)
Nnom ~ identifying constituent
GSP: Nnom - Vf
Nnom ~ agens
Vf ~ designating action
In terms of stage (I), once again we are dealing with centration. At
one point the structure centres on the agent, at another on the activity.
The situation described by utterance (7) to (9) attests to one other
important factor, namely, the already established psychological me
chanism maintaining the identity of one and the same object. Before
reaching this level, the same picture was alternatively associated with
miaowing, bow-wowing and crowing; around the 12th month of life the
child invariably associates the same picture with the appropriate inter
jection. Even here we may conclude that the child does not distinguish
172 OTAKAR SOLTYS
between activity and the object; hence the one-word utterances are not
exclusively nominal.
The grammar of the sensorimotor stage of intelligence as revealed
by our observation can be briefly characterized as follows:
1. The child begins to learn constructions which are not yet inter
nalized and which therefore serve as model sentences.
2. The child linguistically designates non-I objects.
3. The child maintains the identity of an object or animal in
different contexts and communicative situations by means of a constant
designation.
4. The child has mastered some of the structures of interpersonal
communication.
5. The child is capable of concentrating its attention on both the
object and the activity and expresses this focusing or centration of
attention through language.
6. The word stock of interjections allow the child to pass from
object to activity and vice versa without great difficulty.
7. The child has problems finding an intersection of activity
schemes it has mastered in order to solve the need of social interaction
with less familiar persons in a satisfactory way.
Next, we shall pay attention to the second stage in the development
of intelligence, the period of preoperational and symbolic thinking in
the child at 2 to 4 years of age. This period is far more interesting, as
regards our subject, and is of key importance for the constitution of the
language system. By saying this we do not want to weaken the impor
tance of the basic findings from the sensorimotor period. The theory
that we are drawing on actually states that the sensorimotor stage is
negated by the stage of symbolic and prenotional thinking dialectically.
Piaget assesses this fact in the following way:"Sensorimotor intelligence
forms the basis of thinking and will continue to affect it throughout the
individual's life by impressions and practical attitudes. Especially the
task of perception in thinking cannot be overlooked as some authors
tend to.... In this respect it is enough to point out the constant influence
of the initial schemes"(1970, p. 102).
The period between the child's 2nd and 4th year is characterized by
such an increase in the speed of sensorimotor assimilation that com
ponents of knowledge that have up to now been bound up with gradual
phases of activity now merge in one whole. Next, the actual procedures
of activity, not only their desirable results, become conscious, which

means that the goal can be sought for verbally and finally the immediate
space and time are transcended, which is made possible by the multi
plication of distances and transition from operations with real objects
to those with signs and symbols. In this period the child is quite
intensively mastering language not only by expanding the stock of
social-conventional symbols (elements of language) and their combina
tions but also (owing to immediate time and space transcendance) by
mastering different situations in language use as it likewise assimilates
structures that can - at later stages - be rightly called structures of the
communicative situation.
On the other hand, this stage of intelligence development is
characterized as prenotional and transductive. The child is still unable
to distinguish between an individual and a class of different individuals.
While in the sensorimotor period communication with the child is
difficult, communication in the symbolic and prenotional stage is com
mon and easy since the space and time wherein the child communicates
(even with its peers) have expanded. While in the late sensorimotor
period we questioned the use of the term dialogue, in the next period it
is quite legitimate. Communicative units are also much less egocentric
which makes it unnecessary to give as broad a context as we did in the
previous period. In the interpretation we shall have recourse to a
classification of communicative units which is based on the number and
orientation of valency positions created by the predicate.
The child has perfect command of sentences based on a nonvalent
predicate as early as the age of about 3 years. We recorded only the
sentences Prsi (It is raining) and Snĕží (It is snowing) in our study. The
sentence Prsi had a regular alternative Déšt'prší (The rain is raining),
while Snezi had an alternative in Padá snih (The snow is falling). The
sentence Padá dést'(The rain is falling) was not found. It is also obvious
that the child does not understand very well the thetical nature of these
sentences as their use was accompanied by strong gesticulation, par
ticularly with snow. The study seems to have proved that the child in
this period has mastered syntactic structures based on the nonvalent
predicate and that it closely associates them with nominal sentences of
the thetical type Déši, Sníh, Tatínek, Auto. This conclusion has its inner
logic from the point of view of a stage-based approach to the develop
ment of the grammatical system depending on the ontogenetic develop-
174 OTAKAR SOLTYS
ment of the individual. Rain, snow, daddy, car, it rains, it snows are
objects, phenomena and events occurring in the immediate time and
space whose existence (and nonexistence) bears on the communicator.
The ontogenetic subject soon assimilates them into his cognitive struc
tures and is able to focus attention on them as early as the stage of
sensorimotor intelligence. This proves that thetical sentences (whether
verbal or verbless) are among the earliest (I) structures which the
ontogenetic subject uses in the highest stage of his intelligence develop
ment (V). Their use is presupposed by the principle of centration, i. .,
focusing attention on an object phenomenon or activity and its designa
tion. Later stages of intelligence development only add the feature of
common centration to this focusing, i. ., letting the partner or partners
in the communicative situation know that the speaker's attention is
concentrated right there. It can be said then that the class of sentences
based on nonvalent predicates and the class of nominal sentences from
(I) associated with it are identical with the classes of these sentences in
(V). It is interesting that precisely these communicative units remain
unchanged during the development of the grammatical system and
preserved throughout all stages while other communicative units go
through a dramatic development.
Thus, sentences based on mono- and multivalent predicates are not
coextensive as far as stage (II) and (V) classes of communicative units
are concerned, not even when they have predicators in common. At best
these classes merely overlap.
Only left-hand (monovalent) structures are frequent at this stage of
intelligence development; the child often uses structures of the type
Otec spí (Father is sleeping), Maminka pláce (Mummy is crying), Strejda
zlobí (Uncle is naughty). We may say that this structure is essential for
period (II) as it reveals the possibility to model the world beyond the
immediate environment and thus singles out the ontogenetic subject
from the relationships while simultaneously integrating him into them
at a different level. A typical example of this is the development of the
relationship between the personal pronoun I and the child's name. At
first, I and Lucy were two different entities. The answer to Kdo to udêlal?
(Who's done it?), Kdo chce ít, (Who wants to have a drink?), Kdo
pujde na procházku (Who'll go for a walk?) was invariably Lucy; only
in about the 30th month of life and under pressure of the adults Lucy
came to be identified with I, so that a photograph was commented upon
with the utterance: To je Lucinka, já (That's Lucy, me) and later on,
after the structure has been mastered, by: To jsem já, To jsem já,
Lucinka, Kdo chce pacholíka? - Já. (That's me, That's me, Lucy, Who
wants vanilla cream? - Me.)
Let us have some other typical examples from our rich material:
(10) Dominik spinká. (Dominik is sleeping - Dominik being a little
tomcat from a book by M. Lukesová)
(11) Prádelník zívá. (The chest of drawers yawns.)
(12) Nebe hvĕzdná. (The sky is starring.)
(13) Desi prsí. (The rain is raining.)
These are types of sentence in which the predicate without right-
hand valency is used quite in keeping with predicates of the highest
stage. Apart from these the observed child formed sentences as left-
hand valent structures in which - from the stage (V) point of view - it
used multivalent predicates together with right-hand valencies and
regarded them, to use V. Mathesius's words, as subjectively complete.
In terms of the theory we are proceeding from these sentences must be
viewed (from the standpoint of intelligence and the development stages
of the grammatical system) as grammatical in stage (II):
(14) Babicka navstívila. (Granny visited.)
(15) Cikina vrtí. (Cikina waggles. - Cikina being the name of a dog)
(16) Bajaja zabil. (The prince Bajaja killed.)
In sentences (10 - 13) it is unnecessary to introduce different
patterns for stages (II) and (V) of intelligence; all of them are based on
the same GSP and the differences between the stage of symbolic and
prenotional thinking and that of advanced reflexive intelligence involve
- in a varying measure - only the adequacy of the semantic elements
within the pattern.
(10) GSP: (Nnom) - Vf
Nnom ~ the bearer specified by the feature of animateness
Vf ~ process
Having mastered this pattern perfectly, the observed child pro
duced a large number of sentences using it, e. g., Táta cte (Father is
reading), Máma sije (Mummy is sewing), Pejsek bĕhá (The doggy is
running about), Kocicka cíhá (The pussy is prowling), etc. However, as
example (11) shows, the child did not yet respect the selective semantic
176 OTAKAR SOLTYS
feature of animateness in this period (II) and used predicates requiring

this feature even for inaminate objects, e. g.: Knízky spinkají (The books
are sleeping), Kamínek behá (The pebble is running about), Knihovna se
kouká (The bookcase is watching), Prádelník poslouchá (The chest of
drawers is listening), etc. Overlooking the selective feature of animate
ness is helped by model sentences which the child draws from fairy-tales
(e. g., Skála se otevrela (The rock has opened), Jabloñ promlouvá
lidskym hlasem (The apple-tree speaks in a human voice)) and by the
personification of the elements such as wind, rain, etc. {Meluzina je za
oknem a poslouchá, jestli zlobís (The wailing wind lady is outside the
window and listens whether you're good)). But the child has assimilated
this structure even further. Example (12) is a graphic document of this.
The child wanted to express that stars appear in the sky at night. It
assimilated stars into the role of the bearer and placed the bearer in the
left-hand position; since it did not have a processual predicate for star
appearance at hand, it created one - a new verb of the 5th verbal class
- hvĕzdat, quite in the spirit of the rules of language and the dynamics
of the Czech subsystem of verbal classes it has mastered. There are not
many such examples: Kolo kolá (The bike is biking - a comment on a
boy cycling around the parking place in front of the house), Kbelicek
skáce (The pail is jumping - after the child had dropped it, and it was
rolling down the stairs). Actually, the predicate in this example is
comparable to those in sentences Prádelník zívá (The chest of drawers
yawns) and Rybník utíká (The fish-pond is running away - a comment
on waves lit up by the sun which gave the impression that the sluice-gate
the child was standing on or the pond was moving).
Apart from these structures which can be deduced and interpreted
there appeared structures with special lexemes peculiar to the child,
with idiolexemes which are strongly reminiscent of accounts of syntac
tic interrelation. In these, use is made of nonsense lexemes in order to
demonstrate the ability to determine the syntactic function of the word
without understanding the word. We recorded these examples: Dlo bufá,
Nuno t'untá and Nano vrzí. We consider them to be extremely important
because the pressure of model sentences can be ruled out in them
completely and because they can be related to cognitive operations
occurring in the direct contact of the ontogenetic subject with objective
reality.
A monovalent structure with a left-hand participant is in fact the

first model of the world which the ontogenetic subject includes in his
sentences and which we recorded. We believe that it arose through the
assimilation of the structure agens - actio connected with the decentring
of the subject and its distinction from the agent. The whole structure
was then internalized and became the basic cognitive as well as gram
matical unit available to the ontogenetic subject as the result of all his
previous development. (A more detailed description prevented by lack
of space could trace the temporal sequence of the statements Lucinka
bĕhá, Nožicka bĕhá, Konícek bĕhá (Lucy/The footsie/The pony is run
ning) and interpret the finding as progress towards an ever-broadening
context and exclusion of I from the centre of activity.) This internalized
structure is very soon and quite regularly associated with the GSP:
Nnom - Vf. We did not notice the child using any other case but the
nominative. It is also apparent that the internalized structure begins to
function as an independent form and is applied even to facts in the
object position; from the stage (V) grammar standpoint, this use must
be rated as nongrammatical (Nebe hvezdd).
The strong influence of this first acquired model apparently ac
counts for the filling-in of the valency potential of the verb navstívit (14).
Here it is necessary to distinguish between the GSP of this verb for stage
(II) when the complete Czech sentence does require right-hand valency
to be filled in and the GSP for stage (V) where not filling in right-hand
valency would place the sentence beyond the boundaries of grammati
cality. Thus two different structures arise:
(II) GSP : Nnom - VF
Nnom ~ agens
Vf ~ process
as against
(V) GSP : Nnom - Vf - Nacc
Nnom ~ agens
Vf ~ process
Nacc ~ patiens
In the period under observation the child is clearly incapable of
distinguishing obligatory semantic positions from other positions. And
even if it did possess such an ability, it is not quite certain whether it
would make use of it. In our view, the child applied an adequate model
to an inadequate situation because of the residual influence of the
178 OTAKAR ŠOLTYS
principle of centration operating even in such model structures. In

terms of the model, the structure Babicka nayŠtivila is just as complete
as the structure Dominik spinká (see (14) and (10)) with the attention
centering on action in both cases. The action is distinctive, and sets the
structure of Dominik spinká apart from that of Babicka navstivila. The
child will correctly answer the question Koho navstivila babicka? (Who
did Granny visit?), but then will immediately use sentence (14). We
regard this finding as significant for, in our view, this loosens the far too
strict dependency series of 'predicator choice - GSP - semantic fill-in'.
Our records show that this was not the way the child proceeded. Rather
than using the order 'choice of predicate - choice of semantic function
fillers - formal expression of the relationship' the child followed a
different line: assimilation of a piece of reality to a certain relational
structure which has already been internalized. Then the child confront
ed the reality with this structure and thus created a model to be tested
experimentally in social context later on. We arrived at this conclusion
during observations made throughout data-collection. It will have to be
verified experimentally before it can be used as a hypothesis.
We are convinced that in Czech there are two parallel principles
that combine to form a communicative unit: the principles of predica-
tion and the principle of centration. The principle of centration, or its
acquisition by the speaker, is (because of the mechanisms described
above) a prerequisite for mastering the principle of predication. Both
principles are functionally equivalent, though their construction out
puts are quite different. Their relationship is that of complementary
distribution. The principle of centration occupies the central position in
the last phases of the sensorimotor stage and the stage of symbolic and
preconceptual thinking. Later on it gradually loses its central position,
becomes peripheral and gives way to the principle of predication. The
latter assumes the central position during the stage of formal thinking
with advanced reflexive intelligence (V), while the principle of centra
tion is already on the periphery. This switch of centre and periphery in
the principle of communicative unit construction depends on qualita
tive changes at the level of intelligence which means that under unusual
circumstances of the ontogenetic subject's (speaker's) development the
centration principle may remain the exclusive principle for communica
tive unit construction.
The verbless clause is thus a remnant of the sensorimotor period

in the development of syntactic structure in the ontogenetic subject and
exhibits the signs of dialectically negated construction from stage (I)
grammar. We have suggested above that its exclusive syntactic position
is gradually on the decrease. Nevertheless, it does retain the position of
a living peripheral feature of the syntactic structure of Czech and every
adult speaker of Czech either consciously or subconsciously operates
with systemic features that the verbless clause developed during the
developmental stages of the ontogenetic subject. Systemically, the verb
less clause is characterized by the following features: weakened intellec-
tualization of the context in which it occurs, direct participation of the
speaker in the semantic construction of the communication (the relation
of centration) and an unspecified emotional charge of which the verb
less clause is a signal.
Systemic characteristics by themselves are not enough to place
verbless clauses within the system of means of Czech functional styles.
As far as we know the ontogenetic development of the native speaker
of English (Wall, 1974) is almost the same as that of the native speaker
of Czech and yet we may observe fairly substantial differences in the use
of verbless clauses between English and Czech, a fact noted by Mathe-
sius (V. Mathesius, 1961). Systemic characteristics are joined by another
important factor, namely experiencing (Erleben).
Systemic and functional linguistics in Prague in the thirties was
interesting not only because it added socially determined functions to
structural linguistics, but also because it related - for the first time in
modern linguistics as we believe - functional and systemic linguistics to
the ontogenetic subject. (In the philosophical context of that period in
Prague it might be more fitting to use the term transcendental subject
but with regard to the first part of this paper we shall stick to the term
ontogenetic subject.) The term experiencing was first used by B. Trnka
and the significance he attached to it in his description is evident from
his explicit statement:
"It is only by being experienced that the logically structured me
chanism of language, for the most part very complex, becomes a func
tional totality whose adequacy can be satisfactorily tested by a non-
mediated reality of language consciousness."(Trnka, 1948, p. 79; 1966,
p. 163)
180 OTAKAR SOLTYS
We are convinced that contact between the systemic features of the

verbless clause and its practical use as encountered by the ontogenetic
subject in texts is the starting-point for the experiencing of verbless clauses
and that this experiencing is already in direct relation to the position
verbless clauses assume in the system of Czech functional-style means.
To prove this thesis is not impossible but it would require a lot of
space. Therefore we shall confine ourselves to a few examples that
should be characteristic enough to illustrate the point.
It follows from the systemic characteristics that verbless clauses
ought to have a rather restricted occurrence in objectifying, descriptive
texts. Strongly subjectivized, though still descriptive, texts such as Slovak
lyrical prose texts are rather short on verbless clauses as well. Apparently
the representational function of these texts by itself calls forth the need
to use at least the existential predicate. We may document this by two
sufficiently illustrative examples taken from K. Capek's writing:
(17) More
Jaderské, Tyrhénské, Africké, Jónské, Ligurské; modré, zelené,
ocelové, perlefové, zlaté a cerné; mrtvé, dřímající, hlucící a
zpënëné; at' nezapomenes na zádnou z tĕch promënlivych tváří...
Pozdravy (Greetings, p. 205)
Sea
Adriatic, Tyrhenian, African, Ionian, Ligurian; blue, green, steel,
pearl, golden and black; dead, slumbering, uproarious and spum
ing; don't forget any of these ever changing faces...
Clearly, the verbless clause in this passage (where the existential
predicate can be easily supplied) is used as an expressive exclamation
serving to evoke all the changing qualities of the sea. The primarily
representational function secondarily changes into an expressive one as
it describes the author's relation to the sea through which Capek
characterizes himself.
The other extract from his Letters from England, of similar secon
dary expressiveness, also uses the representational function, though
with a deeper undertone of feeling:
(18) Mile a mile, od Peckhamu po Hackney, od Walworthu po Barking:
Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, Poplar, Bromley, Stepney, Bow a Bethnal
Green, ctvrti dëlníkû, zidû, cockneyû a nakladacû z dokû, lidi chudych
i ztracenych - vse stejnë nijaké, cerné, holé, nekonecné, proryté ne-
konecnymi kanály hlucné komunikace a naporád stejnë bezutësné.
Anglické listy (Letters from England, p. 210)

Miles and miles, from Peckham to Hackney, from Walworth
to Barking, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, Poplar, Bromley, Stepney,
Bow and Bethnal Green, the quarters inhabited by navvies, Jews,
Cockneys and stevedores from the docks, poverty-stricken and
downtrodden people - everything equally dull, grimy, bare and
unending intersected by dirty channels of deafening traffic, and
throughout equally cheerless. Letters from England, p. 75.
The description could be the same as in the previous extract about
the sea. The only difference is in the characteristic of the emotion
expressed and in that the existential predicate in this extract is more
strongly signalized by a dash although it is once again overrun by the
secondary expressive function.
It is interesting to note that such an accomplished writer, as K.
Capek undoubtedly is, does not use verbless clauses even in contexts
where it would be appropriate according to their systemic characteris
tics. We are speaking now of contexts wherein the pressure of time or
emotions may evoke structures from the lower stages of the ontogenetic
subject's intelligence development. Thus, e. g., we found no verbless
clause in the description of the corrida although the action described
during the fight of the toreador and the bull provides room for it. On
the other hand, a description of a fight between two men that we
witnessed and that was reproduced by one of the participants abounded
in anything but verbal clauses. To give a brief example:
(19) Von na mĕ, ty idiote! (He to me:"You moron!")
A ja, posero! (Me to him:"You chickenshit!")
A von zas, ty idiote! (And he again:"You moron!")
A já, chces do drzky? (And me:"Want to have your face smashed
in?")
The situation in objectifying descriptive texts should be evident
from these examples. The verbless clause here is experienced as being
marked, semiotically richer than its purely semantic content, and is
often a signal of functional transformations of the text. As long as this
type of text is constructed merely or mostly from verbless clauses, it
represents a deviation of the author's style or register.
Quite a different situation obtains in texts which directly or in
directly contain a dialogue. For dialogue allows for the relations of
182 OTAKAR ŠOLTYS
predication and centration to co-exist functionally and enables verbless

clauses to function as a proper means.
It is quite common that a verbless clause has a verbal equivalent.
However, there are a few occasions when the verbless clause is an
exclusive means. For example, Czech military and PT commands in
clude a number of verbless clauses as the only alternative. These com
mands and exclusive verbless clauses are not, in other contexts, experi
enced as units that have been negated developmentally by verbal
clauses; in fact, they are unmarked. The Czech vpravo vbok, celem vzad,
na rámĕ zbran (right turn, about turn, shoulder arms), etc., are therefore
outside the scope of this paper as they are social formulae.
We may have some further extracts from several Czech plays to
provide us with more examples:
(20) Teta pred Saxanou couvla.
"Co ti slíbili?"
"Vase ucho, prece!" Saxana otevrela nuzky a sla za tetou.
"Potrebuju si ho vyvarit!"
Teta sice znala Mikyho přatele ... Odstrcila Saxanu.
"Bájecny for! Ale tyhle fóry," rekla opovrzlivë, "ty te prejdou ...
Tfuj!" Odesla a zas práskla dvermi.
The aunt backed away from Saxana.
"What did they promise you?"
"Your ear, of course!" Saxana opened the scissors and went after
the aunt.
"I need an extract from it!"
Although the aunt knew Miky's friends well, still .... She pushed
Saxana away.
"Some joke! But," she said contemptuously, "we'll cure you of
these jokes ... Ugh!" She left, slamming the door behind her again.
H. Franková, M. Macourek: Dívka na kostëti (The Girl on the Broom
stick, p. 79)
This is an example of a typical Czech text as far as the co-occur
rence of verbal and verbless sentences is concerned. The first verbless
clause Vase ucho, prece! (Your ear, of course!) sets up a structural whole
together with the question Co ti slíbili? (What did they promise you?).
Although centration is represented very weakly in it, it is still present.
With regard to experiencing we could add a verbal clause as well in this
context without having to reframe the text. The resultant sentence

Slibili mi vase ucho (They promised me your ear) is a functional equiva
lent to the verbless variant. It would be much more difficult to find a
similar equivalent to another verbless clause occurring in this extract:
Bájecny for! (Some joke!). We could possibly imagine a sentence like To
je ale bájecny for! (This is some joke!) in this context, with sentence
stress on bájecny fór. But, in terms of experiencing, this would be a
partial departure from the stylistic level of the text, since the verbless
clause signalizes strong ironic expressiveness and its nominal character
is essentially weakened in favour of interjection. On the other hand, the
sentence Tfuj! (Ugh!) is definitely interjectional and, in our view, oc
cupies a stylistically exclusive position. Here, the systemic characteris
tics are quite clearly at play, fulfilling the textual function, and the
experiencing incorporates the ontogenetic development of the syntactic
system of Czech. Let us move to another example.
Arlecchina Pollo! Hop! Udëlej opici!
Kure Tise! A sed'te, propána! Tady se nedĕlá opice.
A   se tady dĕlà? Zacni, Pollo! Nebo vraf
peníze!
 Zacínám! Was ist Leben?
A Svrab a nestovice!
Arlecchina Polio! Hop! Be a monkey!

Chicken Hush! And sit down, for Christ's sake! This is
no place to play at monkeys.
A What do they do here, then? Start, Pollo! Or
give us back the money!
Ch Here I go! Was ist Leben?
A Rotten and wretched!
J. Sotola, Z. Potuzil: Kufe na rozni (A Chicken on the Spit, p. 23)
The extract is one more illustration of the interchangeability of
verbal and verbless clauses. The verbless clauses are of the same type
and are comparable with the previous examples. It might seem that
verbless clauses are in the minority. And it would be hardly surprising
in view of the ontogenetic development. Yet there are contexts in which
184 OTAKAR ŠOLTYS
they have a more than ample representation. For example, in V. Cort's

play Cirkus Blecha (The Circus Flea) (Praha, 1980) they constitute more
than half of the text.
An interesting and illustrative example appears in K. Svoboda's
play Rùze z hor oucich pekel (The Rose from Burning Hell) where Kudejs
answers Lucifer's question Kudejs!  tady más nciky dluhy? (Kudejs!
D'you have any debts here?) by (22) Hm .. nojo ...ale zas, kouknou, šéfe,
vzdyt' tyhle vydaj kazdá nejrníñ za tri (H'm ... well, yeah ... but on the
other hand, look here, boss, each of them is worth at least three, ain'
they?). Kudejs's reaction is quite in keeping with recourse to lower
stages of the grammatical system at moments of time and emotional
stress.
We could go on adducing other examples or, conversely, document
the absence of verbless clauses in certain types of text. But what with the
limited space we shall sum up, instead, our findings about the position
of verbless clauses in the system of means of Czech functional styles.
1) Their position among other means of Czech functional styles is
directly influenced by the factor of experiencing. This follows from their
structural characteristics and use in text.
2) Their structural characteristics are due to the specific develop
ment of the syntactic system of Czech, which exhibits certain ontogenet
ic principles (see 1-16).
3) The use of verbless clauses does not go beyond their structural
characteristics in any substantial way (17 - 22).
4) Verbless clauses are becoming an adequate means of expression
at the colloquial and artistic (publicist) level of style. They are marked
when occurring in (practical and theoretical-specialist) texts of objec
tive and descriptive style.
5) The occurrence of verbless clauses is accompanied by centration
and expressiveness.
6) The direct link with experiencing is of importance for stylistics
and for the functioning of the esthetic norm of a given period.
7) The credit for drawing attention to these important issues goes
to B. Trnka.
References
BÜHLER, . (1934), Sprachtheorie. Jena.

HUSSERL, E. (1900, 2nd ed. 1913), Logische Untersuchungen. Halle.
JUNGMANN, J. (1820, 2nd ed. 1946), Slovesnost (Verbal Art). Praha.
LESKA, O., NEKVAPIL, J. and O. SOLTYS (1987), Ferdinand de Saussure and
the Prague Linguistic Circle. Philologica Pragensia, 30, 77 - 109. Also this
volume.
MATHESIUS, V. (1911), O potenciálnosti jevû jazykovych (On the Potentiality
of the Phenomena of Language). Vĕstnik Královské ceské spolecnosti nauk
(Prague) 1911-12, trida filosoficko-historicko-jazykozpytná. Section II, 1 - 24
(English translation 1964, A Prague School Reader in Linguistics, Blooming-
ton, 1 - 32).
MATHESIUS, V (1961), Obsahovy rozbor anglictiny na zàkladĕ obecnë lingvis-
tickém (A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguis
tic Basis). Praha (English translation 1975, The Hague, Praha).
MUKAROVSKY, J. (1936), Estetická funkce, norma a hodnota jako sociàbili
fakty (Aesthetic Function, Norm and Value as Social Facts); Praha (English
translation 1970, Ann Arbor).
TRNKA, B. (1948), Jazykozpyt a ideologická struktura doby (Linguistics and
the Ideological Structure of the Period). Slovo a slovesnost, 10, 1948, 73 - 80
(English translation 1966, The Linguistic School of Prague, Bloomington,
152 - 165).
PIAGET, J. (1970), Psychologie inteligence (Psychology of Intelligence). Praha.
SOLTYS, O. (1981),  lingvistické realité propozice (Towards the Linguistic
Reality of Proposition). Slovo a slovesnost, 42, 177 - 182.
Thèses présentées au Premier Congrès des philologues slaves (1929). Travaux du
Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1, 5 - 29 (English translation 1983, Praguiana,
Praha, 77 - 120).
VYGOTSKIJ, L. S. (1970), Myslení a řec (Thinking and Speech). Praha.
WALL, C. (1974), Predication: A Study of Its Development. The Hague.
Literary sources
CAPEK, K. (1987), Pozdravy (Greetings). Praha.
CAPEK, K. (1925), Letters from England. Translated by Paul Selver. London.
FRANKOVÁ, H , MACOUREK, M. (1987), Divka na kostĕti (The Girl on the
Broomstick). Praha.
SOTOLA, J., POTUZIL, Z. (1981) Kuře na rozni (A Chicken on the Spit).
Praha.
SVOBODA, K. (1983), Ruze z horoucich pekel (The Rose from Burning Hell).
Praha.
On the Asymmetry between Syntactic
and Elementary Textual Units
Jiří Nekvapil
1. Compounded formations, base component, bound component.

2. Grammatical sentence pattern and utterance.
3. Definition of compounded formations.
4. Structure of compounded formations.
5. Compounded formations and text.
6. Functional sentence perspective of compounded formations.
7. The syntactic processes of parcellation and supplementation and their results:
parcellated and supplemented formations.
8. Notes on the concept of the syntactic whole.
9. A tentative psycholinguistic interpretation of parcellation and supplementation.
10. The recipient's point of view.
10.1. Sentence delimitation.
10.2. The gradual filling of positions of the grammatical sentence pattern with a
right-valence potential element.
11. Basic models of elementary textual development.
12. The function of compounded formations.
13. The stylistics of compounded formations.
1. Compounded formations, base component,

bound component
This study analyzes examples of the following type:
Tatínka vzali cetníci. Kvuli letàkum. (The cops arrested Dad. Be
cause of the leaflets.)
Pritorn jsem ho dokonce držela za usi. Aby mi uz neutekl. (What's
more, I held him by the ears. So that he could no longer escape.)
Zmocnila se ho neobycejná lítost. A stud. (He experienced an over
whelming sense of pity. And shame.)
Byl to on. Muj Lédr. (It was him. My Lédr.)
ASYMMETRY BETWEEN SYNTACTIC AND TEXTUAL UNITS 187
You don't have to congratulate me. For knowing the difference

between Arizona and Mexico.
He gave me an emerald. As I was leaving.
You could ask her for a coffee. Or a drink.
Marin wanted a pair of red shoes once. When she was six.
To analyze the above-quoted examples I will introduce a special
metalanguage comprising expressions (terms) which, though not in
current use, are, in my opinion, adequate to the nature of the phenome
na studied. At this point - in compliance with the strategy of my paper
- I will introduce one general designation for all the examples quoted
above - viz. the cover-term compounded formations. A preliminary
definiton of compounded formations could run as follows: a com
pounded formation consists of at least two parts, the second part being
in some way determined by the existence of the preceding part. To
describe this fact I will introduce two other concepts (terms); the
designation base component refers to the first part of a compounded
formation, i. e. the unit beginning with the first initial capital letter and
ending with the first terminal signal (full stop). The designation bound
component refers to the subsequent part of a compounded formation,
i. e. the unit ranging from the second initial capital letter up to the
second terminal signal (full stop).
We will now perform a simple operation: in all the examples quoted
above, we will abolish the first terminal signal and replace the subse
quent capital letter with a small letter or - in compliance with correct
orthographic usage - supply the required punctuation marks. In this
way we will obtain sentences and/or complex sentences of the custom
ary type (to refer to this type of sentence I will use a designation which
will have no terminological status in our discussion, viz. "continuous
(non-segmented) expression" in contrast to " interrupted (segmented)
expression" referring to the type of unit first illustrated here:
Tatinka vzali cetnici kvuli letákum. (The cops arrested Dad because
of the leaflets.)
Přitom jsem ho dokonce drzela za usi, aby mi uz neutekl. (What's
more, I held him by the ears so that he could no longer escape.)
Zmocnila se ho neobycejná lítost a stud. (He experienced an over
whelming sense of pity and shame.)
Byl to on, muj Lédr. (It was him, my Lédr.)
188 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
You don't have to congratulate me for knowing the difference between

Arizona and Mexico.
He gave me an emerald as I was leaving.
You could ask her for a coffee or a drink.
Marin wanted a pair of red shoes once when she was six.
(Henceforward I will only discuss Czech examples. Each example is
followed by an English translation appearing here in brackets.)
With regard to the type of operation exemplified above, it ought to
be stressed that I see it only as a preliminary linguistic experiment to
which I assign no speech relevance at this stage of analysis. Nor do I
consider the "experimenter's" subject here.
In our further reflections we will compare two sets of examples, viz.
continuous (non-segmented) expressions and interrupted (segmented)
expressions. Prior to analysis, however, I will have to define, at least in
brief outline, the type of syntactic conception providing the basic
operational framework for our discussion.
2. Grammatical sentence pattern and utterance

Here I will pursue a line of inquiry consistent with Danes's syntac
tic model (see Danes, 1964; 1965) adapted to encompass the extra
dimension of the valence conception. Danes defines a grammatical
sentence pattern as a minimal configuration of distinctive syntactic
features. I define utterance as an intonationally and/or graphically
closed sequence of word-forms and regard it as an elementary textual
unit.
Let us analyze the following example:
2.1. Petr selhal totálne. (Peter failed totally.)
A step-by-step abstraction from the intonational pattern and/or
graphic representation of 2.1., from its word-order arrangement, mor
phological modification and lexical representation (i.e. operations spe
cific to Danes's syntactic model (Danes, 1965)) yields the syntactic
structure (Snom) - VF → Advmod.1 This syntactic structure is, admitted
ly, not yet a minimal configuration of distinctive syntactic features, and
hence not yet a grammatical sentence pattern, for we could still abstract
from the optional Advmod element. Nevertheless, such syntactic struc

tures possess a relevance that is no doubt central to the purposes of our
analysis. Following Danes's terminological usage, I will describe this
type of structure as a derivative of a grammatical sentence pattern
(derivation here refers to the enrichment of the grammatical sentence
pattern effected, e.g., through an expansion rule). It is important to note
that a sentence structure, too, may function as an optional element, as
may be the case in complex sentences (cf. also the concept of "incor
porated sentence").
Now comparing Ex. 2.1. Petr selhal totálne. (Peter failed totally.)
with the derivative of the grammatical sentence pattern (Snom) - VF →
Advmod, we may conclude that corresponding to one derivative of the
grammatical sentence pattern is one intonationally and/or graphically
complete sequence of word-forms, i.e. one utterance.
Let us now consider
2.2. Petr selhal. Totálnĕ. (Peter failed. Totally.)
A gradual abstraction from the intonational and/or graphic pat
tern, word-order, etc. again yields a derivative of the grammatical
sentence pattern (Snom) - VF → Advmod. Here, as is obvious, one
derivative of the grammatical sentence pattern may correspond to two
utterances. Recalling the title of my study, I describe this relationship as
the asymmetry between syntactic and elementary textual units.
3. Definition of compounded formations

In compliance with the conceptual terms of the syntactic model
specified above, a compounded formation may be defined as a lexically
represented and morphologically shaped derivative of a grammatical
sentence pattern (and/or a grammatical sentence pattern) presented in
several phonetic and/or graphic sections, the first of which is terminated
by a conclusive cadence or anticadence (and/or corresponding graphic
resources).
As to the presentation of a lexically represented and morphologically
shaped grammatical sentence pattern in several phonetic sections, what I
have in mind here is a grammatical sentence pattern with a right-valence
potential element; e.g. (Snom) - VF - (Sacc) (cf. Section 10.2.).
190 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
Provided we reserve the term 'sentence' for a lexically represented

and morphologically shaped syntactic structure (i.e. a derivative of the
grammatical sentence pattern or simply a grammatical sentence pat
tern), we could then define a compounded formation as a sentence
realized in several utterances (elementary textual units).
4. Structure of compounded formations
Let us first examine the type of syntactic units that may constitute
a bound component. A bound component may be:
(a) a simple expression
Byl jsem v Plzni. Sluzebnë. (I was in Pilsen. On business.)
(ba) an expression modified by non-sentential means
Proti proudu, ktery zde byl  konce sil, plavala dívka. Dlouhymi a
ráznymi tempy zkuseného vytrvalce. (Against the stream whose
force here was nigh spent, a girl was swimming. With the long
resolute strokes of an experienced long-distance swimmer.)
(bb) an expression modified sententially
Pulku dal Sasovi, druhou pulku zmoulal v puse. Pomalu, aby mu
vydrzela. (One half he gave to Sasa, the other half he munched in
his mouth. Slowly, so that it would last.)
(c) subordinate sentence (clause)
Musilipevnĕpřirazit dlan k pazbĕ. Az to zadunëlo. (They had to push
their palms firmly to the butt. So that it thudded.)
(d) a battery of sentences (clauses)
Snad jen zámek legendámího slechtice Ody Nobunagy by mohl byt
povazován za turisticky objekt. Kdyby ovsem nebylo obecnĕ známo,
ze byl - míme receno - rekonstruován v roce 1956. (Perhaps only the
chateau of the legendary nobleman Oda Nobunaga could be re
garded as a tourist attraction. If, of course, it were not a matter of
common knowledge that it was - to put it mildly - reconstructed in
1956.)
A syntactic unit constituting a bound component can always be de
scribed in terms of the syntactic function it performs, i.e. which type of
sentence element it represents in the compounded formation in question
(e.g. attribute, adverbial, etc.).
Bound components may involve syntactic units (constituents) of

the following type:
(a) dominated
(b) coordinated
(c) apposed (See examples listed in Section 1.)
To formulate a substantive point here, we could say that syntactic units
constituting a bound component are optional or potential (i.e. non-
obligatory) sentence elements.
Let us now examine the structure of the base component. A base
component comprises a syntactic unit containing an element correlated
syntactically with some of the elements of the syntactic unit constituting
the bound component. The base component is constituted by a verbal
sentence (finite clause) which, of course, may be incorporated in anoth
er sentence. A base component may also be formed by a verbless
sentence. The following are examples of verbless sentences, specifically
nominal and infinitival sentences:
Bleskurychlá promĕna na osmi schodech, vedoucích k satnám.
V ĕ malého, sedého. (A swift transformation on the eight steps
leading to the cloakrooms. Into something small, grey.)
Nĕco jako stesk. Kdyz si Sasa vzpomnël na kluky. (Something like
longing. When Sasa remembered the boys.)
Odpocinout si. Pĕt minut. (Just to rest. For five minutes.)
The relevant point to be made here is that the syntactic unit
constituting a base component must have (relative) communication
autonomy. This implies, among other things, that no bound component
is required to follow the base component.
The same applies to multimember compounded formations (i.e.
formations with more than two parts). Cf. Svëtylko zapalovace uz nebylo
vidët. Kdyz se pohnul ze stránĕ. Opacnym smĕrem, nez slíbil. (The flame
of the lighter could no longer be seen. When he moved away from the
hillside. In a direction opposite to that which he had promised.)
The subordinate sentence Kdyz se pohnul ze stránĕ. (When he
moved away from the hillside.) is, in terms of the superordinate sentence
Svëtylko zapalovace uz nebylo vidët. (The flame of the lighter could no
longer be seen.), a bound component, but with regard to the complex
phrase Opacnym smërem, nez slíbil. (In a direction opposite to that he
had promised.) it functions as a base component.
192 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
5. Compounded formations and text

Up to this point, our discussion has been more or less restricted to
the framework of isolated sentences (and/or complex sentences) con
sidered in the light of Danes's model (Danes, 1965). I will now attempt
to venture further afield, beyond the confines of the model. Taking this
analytical step, we will be guided by our knowledge of textually pat
terned units and the process of communication.
To sum up our findings obtained from the study of isolated sen
tences (and/or complex sentences), a bound component may only be
constituted by optional or potential, i.e. non-obligatory sentence ele
ments. An analysis of compounded formations operating within the
framework of text, and/or in the process of communication, reveals
further restrictions. Not every optional or potential element can form
a bound component.
One of these restrictions could be defined as follows: given a certain
linear arrangement of specific syntactic units, a certain syntactic element
must be followed by another syntactic element regardless of whether their
cohesive relationship (in terms of isolated syntactic structure) is optional or
potential. In contrast to the type of examples to be listed at a later stage of
our discussion, this constraint cannot be accounted for in terms of contex
tual dependence and/or contextual independence. The following example
will illustrate the phenomenon in question:
5.1. (Pak zahlédl Evu.) Třebaze se nevidëli mnoho let, poznal ji -
zite. ((Then he saw Eva.) Although they had not met for many
years, he recognized her immediately.)
5.2. ( zahlédl Evu.) Poznal ji okamzite, tfebaze se nevidëli mnoho
let. ((Then he saw Eva.) He recognized her immediately, although
they had not met for many year.)
As is obvious, the choice of the subordinate clause or the superor-
dinate clause for the opening of the complex sentence need not depend
on the preceding text, i.e. Pak zahlédl Evu. (Then he saw Eva.). The
possibility of presenting this complex sentence as a compounded forma
tion depends on whether the opening section of the complex sentence
is formed by the superordinate clause or the subordinate clause. If the
complex sentence opens with a subordinate clause (which, in terms of
isolated syntactic structure, may function as an optional sentence ele-
ment), no compounded formation is possible. In other words, the

complex sentence exemplified in 5.1. and 5.2. makes it clear that al
though both instances involve the occurrence of the same syntactic
structure containing an optional element (i.e. the subordinate clause),
the linear arrangement in 5.1. excludes the possibility of realizing a
compounded formation, whereas in 5.2. a compounded formation is
indeed possible. (For a more detailed account of this fact see Section 9.)
The ensuing restriction could also be formulated as follows: the bound
component must be in post-position; the above-mentioned restriction
complying with the requirement stipulated for a specific syntactic struc
ture nevertheless retains its validity.
A further restriction follows from the requirement placed on the
specific information value of each utterance, i.e. the observance of
specific communication rules. For example, the question Co cetl bratr
dlouho do noci? (What did your brother read late into the night?) can
never be followed by an answer in the shape of a compounded forma
tion such as Bratr cetl dlouho do noci. Nëjakou detektivku. (Brother read
late into the night. A detective story.), although the phrase Nëjakou
detektivku. (A detective story.) is - as regards the structure of Bratr cetl
dlouho do noci nëjakou detektivku. (Brother read late into the night some
detective story.) - a potential, i.e. non-obligatory sentence element and
occurs in post-position. The question quoted above can only be fol
lowed by an answer not involving a compounded formation, e.g. Bratr
cetl dlouho do noci nëjakou detektivku. (Brother read late into the night
some detective story.) or simply Nëjakou detektivku. (A detective story.).
Similarly, questions such as Proc sla primo do koupelny? (Why did she
go straight into the bathroom?) and Cí rodice rnusímepozvat? (Whose
parents must we invite?) cannot be answered by compounded forma
tions, viz. Sla primo do koupelny. Vykoupat se z toho bláta. (She went
straight into the bathroom. To wash off the mud.) and Musíme pozvat
rodice. Petry Novákové. (We must invite parents. Petra Nováková's.),
even though such bound components are, in terms of isolated sentence
structure, optional sentence elements and occur in post-position. The
restriction operating here could be formulated as follows: the base
component cannot contain solely contextually dependent elements. In
other words, a compounded formation cannot contain contextually
independent elements solely in the bound component. (This fact will be
analyzed in closer detail in Section 6.)
194 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
Taking a closer look at the three restrictions defined above (the first
restriction is clearly a structural restriction, since it follows from the
requirement stipulated for a specific syntactic structure; the second
restriction is a linear restriction, since it is determined by the require
ment of the specific linear arrangement of that structure; the third
restriction is a contextual restriction, since it reflects the requirement
stipulated for the specific information value of utterance), we are bound
to conclude that the three restrictions considered here specify in closer
detail the general requirement formulated in Section 4, viz that the
syntactic unit constituting a base component must possess (relative)
communication autonomy. Admittedly, communication autonomy is a
feature that can never apply to an isolated sentence devoid of obligatory
elements. What's more, neither the subordinate sentence itself, nor an
utterance conveying information in the manner outlined above (in the
instances considered here) can possess communicative autonomy.
6. Functional sentence perspective of compounded formations

Compounded formations will be discussed here - first, in terms of
their contextual dependence; secondly, in terms of their semantic struc
ture. This procedural sequence is in line with the approach current in
the contemporary theory of functional sentence perspective, and/or the
theory of communicative dynamism formulated and applied in Czecho
slovakia (see Sgall, Hajicová and Buráñová, 1980; Firbas, 1979). To
keep my account within manageable proportions, I will only discuss
compounded formations whose bound components are constituted by
an attributive or an adverbial element. Considering the scope and scale
of my research to date (Nekvapil, 1982, pp. 127-154), such inquiry is
bound to yield results applicable to other types of compounded forma
tions.
Prior to analyzing relevant language data, I will attempt to answer
the following question: to what extent can the theory of functional
sentence perspective (henceforward FSP) and/or the theory of com
municative dynamism (henceforward CD) shed light on the problems
considered here - or to apply the reverse (and for the purposes of our
analysis) more apposite approach - what are the things that FSP theory
and/or CD theory is incapable of accounting for and, finally, what are
the restrictions that ought to be taken into account?
Sentence-production and/or utterance-production is a process

that, in my view, oscillates between two poles. A sentence and/or
utterance is produced: (a) spontaneously, automatically, with a minimal
involvement of consciously reflected cognitive processes; (b) "deli
berately", "in a premeditated and fully controlled fashion", with a
maximum involvement of consciously reflected cognitive processes. The
operation of the FSP principle is, in my view, especially appreciable in
sentence and/or utterance-production of type (b). The reason why this
fact receives explicit mention here could be formulated as follows: this
restriction ought to be taken into account, if the concept of compound
ed formation is differentiated in relation to the syntactic processes
involved in the rise of a compounded formation (see Section 7).
Furthermore, it ought to be pointed out that FSP theory is based
on the analysis of syntactic units relying on the syntactic relation of
dominance. Nevertheless, our discussion makes it abundantly clear that
bound components can be not only dominated, but also coordinated
and apposed.
Let us consider the following compounded formation:
6.1. Náhle zaznël z lesa hlas. Jasny a hnëvivy.
lit. Suddenly sounded from forest voice. Clear(Nom) and
angry(Nom).
(Suddenly, a voice sounded from the forest. Clear and angry).
Let us transform this compounded formation into the correspond
ing continuous (non-segmented) expression:
6.2. Náhle zaznël z lesa hlas jasny a hnëvivy.
lit. Suddenly sounded from forest voice clear(Nom) and ang
ry(Nom).
(Suddenly a voice, clear and angry, sounded from the forest).
6.3. Náhle zaznël z lesa jasny a hnëvivy hlas.
lit. Suddenly sounded from forest clear(Nom) and ang-
ry(Nom) voice.
(Suddenly a clear and angry voice sounded from the forest.)
(Intonational foci are assumed to lie on the last expression
preceding the terminal signal.)
Now ignoring the difference between 6.2. and 6.3., I accept as
crucial the fact that both 6.2. and 6.3. can be used as a response to the
diagnostic question "Co náhle zaznëlo z lesa?" (What suddenly sounded
196 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
from the forest?) and will concentrate instead on a general confronta

tion of the given compounded formation and the corresponding con
tinuous (non-segmented) expressions, i.e. 6.2. and 6.3.. Now, obviously,
the diagnostic question "Co náhle zaznëlo z lesa?" (What suddenly
sounded from the forest?) can also be applied to 6.1.. The question test
reveals that in all three examples attributive construction (i.e.jasny +
hnĕvivy ←hlas) (clear + angry ← voice) may be contextually indepen
dent, while the line of demarcation between the contextually dependent
and contextually independent section occurs after the expression "z
lesa" (from the forest). If the attributive construction in all three
examples considered here lies in the focus, then further inquiry is clearly
needed to shed light on its semantic structure and the distinction ought
to be sought in a more subtle distribution of CD. Now this is exactly
where the concept of the graded hierarchic nature of FSP can help us
a great deal.
To quote a finding now generally accepted, if an adjective is contex
tually independent, it possesses a higher degree of CD than its dominat
ing and contextually likewise independent noun. This also applies to
adjectives in pre-position (Svoboda, 1968; Firbas, 1979). Now this is
exactly the case of the type of attributive construction exemplified in
6.2. and 6.3.. In my view, a compounded formation whose bound
component is formed by an attribute (see 6.1.) is characterized by the
following distinctive property: the CD of its individual elements is
equalized within the attributive construction. In other words, both the
adjective and its dominating noun possess the same degree of CD -
namely the highest degree of CD. Let us now consider the following
compounded formation:
6.4. Obcas si stëzuje na bolesti. Tise a s úsmévem.
(From time to time, he complains of pain.
Quietly and with a smile.)
To recall the point made here in Section 5, we cannot expect
contextual independence to be restricted to the bound component; we
have to reckon with the contextual independence of at least one seman
tic element of the base component (a requirement that we duly com
plied with in our analysis of 6.1.). 6.4. then can obviously function as
a perfectly acceptable response to, for example, the diagnostic question
"Na co a jak si obcas stëzuje?" (What does he complain of from time to
time and how?). It follows that the semantic element 'patiens' (bolesti)
(pain) and 'manner' (tise a s úsmĕvem) (quietly and with a smile) are
contextually independent (occur in the focus). To quote Sgall, Hajicová
and Buráñová (1980),differences in the degree of CD within the focus
(as regards contextually independent complements of the dominating
verb) are determined by the specific type of verbal complements with
individual complements assuming essentially the same position within
the linear-pattern arrangement of sentence structure. The CD-scale
within the focus is hence defined by what might be described as the
systemic ordering of verbal complements.
On the CD-scale in question 'patiens' possesses a higher degree of
CD than 'manner' - hence 'manner' precedes 'patiens". As is obvious,
the type of verbal complement arrangement exemplified in 6.4. fails to
comply with this requirement. We might therefore conclude that an
expression taking the shape of a compounded formation makes it
possible to change the linear arrangement of verbal complements and
hence their CD. However, apart from 6.4., we could quote other exam
ples of compounded formations in which the linear arrangement of
verbal complements is congruent with the so-called systemic ordering.
This seems to lend plausibility to the claim that in a compounded
formation contextually independent verbal complements are placed on
an equal footing with regard to their CD. In other words, verbal
complements that would be assigned a different degree of CD on the
CD-scale possess in fact the same degree of CD in a compounded
formation, namely the highest degree of CD.
Let us consider the following compounded formation:
6.5. Irena se usmála. Provinile. (Irena smiled. Guiltily.)
Let us assume that the line of demarcation between the contextu
ally dependent and the contextually independent section occurs after
the expression "Irena". Here we may note with Firbas (1979) that a verb
can carry the highest degree of CD only if all its complements are
contextually dependent. It follows that an expression in the shape of a
compounded formation makes it possible for both the verb and some of
its complements to possess the highest degree of CD.
The results of our analyses provide the basis for the following
generalizations: (a) a bound component and at least one semantic
element of the base component are, under normal intonation, contextu-
198 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
ally independent (occur in the focus); (b) the semantic elements occur
ring in a compounded formation within the focus possess, under normal
intonation, the same degree of CD - namely the highest degree of CD. 2
In this respect they diner from their counterpart continuous (non-
segmented) expressions.
Contention (a) also applies to compounded formations with a
coordinated or apposed bound component. The question whether the
validity of (b) could also be extended to such types of compounded
formations would require a separate inquiry directly affecting the
theory of functional sentence perspective and/or the theory of com
municative dynamism, which admittedly has so far tended to ignore
coordination and apposition relations (cf. Sgall, Hajicová and Buráño-
vá, 1980).
7. The syntactic processes of panellation

and supplementation and their results: parcellated
formations and supplemented formations
Let us consider the compounded formation
Petr selhal. Totálnĕ. (Peter failed. Totally.)
Let us analyze the possible genesis of this compounded formation.
A plausible answer seems to be suggested by the above reflections in
which constant regard was paid to the comparison of compounded
formations with "customary" sentences and/or utterances - in the case
in point - Petr selhal totálnĕ. (Peter failed totally.). The first answer
could be formulated as follows: a compounded formation comes into
existence as a result of the segmentation of a sentence and/or utterance
containing non-obligatory elements, i.e. as a result of the exclusion of
such elements. However, there is another process that may give rise to
compounded formations. One can envisage a situation in which the
opening status is assumed by a sentence and/or utterance solely corres
ponding to the base component (e.g. Petr selhal. (Peter failed.)) with
some non-obligatory elements being attached to it (e.g. Totálnĕ. (Tot
ally.)). In the first case, the bound component was produced by the
process of exclusion; in the second case, it was produced by the process
of inclusion. I will describe these two mutually opposed processes (the
first clearly involving an analytical procedure, the second - a synthetic

procedure) as parcellation (or exclusion) and supplementation (or inclu-
sion) respectively.
Now let us consider the type of relationship obtaining between the
parcellation/supplementation concept and the compounded formation
concept. The concept of compounded formation is pertinent to static
analysis, since it reflects the result of processes undifferentiated in closer
detail, processes that can be abstracted from during static ("structural")
description. Description of this type contents itself with the statement
that a compounded formation may originate owing to the operation of
both the syntactic process of parcellation and the syntactic process of
supplementation. This was the framework defining the range of my
analysis in Section 1-6, a framework that I will apply in the description
of a number of cases in the subsequent sections. Now the inadequacy
of such a descriptive scheme seems to reside in the lack of clarity
surrounding, in many cases, the actual mode of production of a given
syntactic formation. Another factor that ought to be listed on the minus
side in this respect is the fairly rudimentary stage of knowledge we have
so far reached in the present study of the phenomenon.
Nevertheless, one can envisage descriptions of a more subtle and
more dynamic type duly respecting the possible involvement of two
different processes in the rise of a compounded formation. Such de
scriptions will necessitate a differentiation of the concept of compound
ed formation in terms of the specific type of process that ultimately gives
rise to a compounded formation. Now with this consideration in mind,
we will enrich our conceptual apparatus by several new terms. I will
describe the result of the syntactic process of parcellation as parcellated
formation and the result of the syntactic process of supplementation as
supplemented formation. I regard it as expedient to introduce a further
degree of conceptual differentiation in the bound excluded component
(here the designation parcel seems to be appropriate) and in the bound
included component (the term supplement springs to mind). On the
other hand, I do not regard conceptual-terminological relativization as
absolutely imperative for the base component concept-term.
To sum up, compounded formation, parcellated formation and
supplemented formation are concepts covering different aspects of
identical syntactic formations. The concepts 'parcellated formation' and
200 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
'supplemented formation' refer to the processual, dynamic aspects of

such formations. In contrast, the concept of compounded formation
abstracts from the processual (dynamic) aspects.
A tabular representation of the newly introduced concepts:
process process
(exclusion) "(inclusion)"
panellation supplementation
parcellated compounded formation •■ supplemented

formation base component + formation
bound component
result base static view base result

component (undifferentiated) component
+ +
(bound (bound
excluded dynamic view included
component) (differentiated) component)
parcel supplement
8. Notes on the concept of the syntactic whole

Having introduced the conceptual terms 'pancellation' and 'supple
mentation' and/or 'parcellated' and 'supplemented' formations, let me
now clarify the concept of the syntactic whole. This is no doubt an issue
of major importance, since without a more definite notion of a syntactic
whole, such conceptual terms - their actual content and function - could
hardly be visualized.
In studying the relationship obtaining between a whole and a part
in syntax, we are aware of the fact that a part, too, constitutes a whole
in its own right and, vice versa - a whole constitutes a part of some kind
- as after all the theory of part-whole dialectics clearly reflects. The case
will certainly not be overstated if - with regard to all wholes and/or
parts - we say that they are divisible (at least theoretically). What is
important, however, is the fact that different wholes and/or parts pos
sess a different degree of resistance to division. This finding is central to
the conception of parcellated and/or supplemented formations.
The following procedure will be implemented from the point of
view of parcellation, i.e. the direction being from the whole towards the
parts; the reverse procedure - directed from the part to the whole (i.e.
from the viewpoint of supplementation) - has of course an equal
legitimacy.
Syntax and/or hypersyntax studies wholes of a different nature.
Now leaving aside syntactic phrases (i.e. units such as head noun +
dominated adjective) and their constituents, the following types are
distinguishable: verbal sentence (finite clause), verbless sentence, com
plex sentence, compound sentence, complex compound sentence (cf.
Bauer and Grepl, 1980); further possible wholes include paragraph,
chapter (cf. Vëdecká synchronni mluvnice spisovné cestiny - Scientific
Synchronous Grammar of Standard Czech - 1974) and text.
The following examples illustrate some of the units listed above:
8.1a. Utekl z války domit. (He ran away, from war, home.)
8.2a. Obloha modrá az  nevíře. (A sky unbelievably blue.)
8.3a. Pomuzu ti, i kdyz si to nezasluhujes. (I'll help you, even
though you don't deserve it.)
8.4a. Trvalo nám to devĕt minut, ale na řece jsme ztrátu dohnali. (It
took us nine minutes, but on the river we made up for the
loss.)
8.5a. Nesel přimo do chléva, zahnul vpravo a octl se v komoře, která
byla slabĕ osvĕtlena. (He didn't go straight into the stable, he
turned right and arrived in a chamber which was poorly lit.)
8.6a. Prostorovy rozsah obsahuje slozku ekologickou, která v ĕ
rûznĕ pusobí. To je patrné například při srovnání soustředëné-
ho prumyslu a rozptyleného zemëdëlství. Ekologické faktory
úzce souvisí s dopravou a spolecenskou komunikaci.(The spa
tial range contains an ecological component, which operates
in a variety of ways within it. This is apparent, for example,
from the comparison of concentrated industry and diffuse
agriculture. Ecological factors are closely connected with
transport and social communication.)
202 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
We will decompose these wholes in terms of sub-units. Decomposi

tion is to be effected in a way that gives rise to syntactic and/or
hypersyntactic units possessing a relative communication autonomy.
Where several possible modes of decomposition exist, I have chosen
only one possibility, more or less at random, for at this stage of analysis,
my sole aim is to illustrate the problem at hand.
8.1 b. Utekl z války. Domu. (He ran away from war. Home.)
8.2b. Obloha. Modrá az  nevife. (A sky. Unbelievably blue.)
8.3b. Pomuzu ti. I kdyz si to nezasluhujes. (I'll help you. Even
though you don't deserve it.)
8.4b. Trvalo nám to devĕt minut. Ale nařecejsme ztrátu dohnali. (It
took us nine minutes. But on the river we made up for the
loss.)
8.5b. Nesel přimo do chléva. Zahnul vpravo a octl se v komoře, která
byla slabë osvĕtlena. (He didn't go straight into the stable. He
turned right, and arrived in a chamber which was poorly lit.)
8.6b. Prostorovy rozsah obsahuje slozku ekologickou, která v ĕ
ruznĕ pusobí. To je patrné například při srovnání soustreřené-
ho prùmyslu a rozptlyleného zemëdëlstvi.
Ekologické faktory úzce souvisí s dopravou a spolecen-
skou komunikaci.
(The spatial range contains an ecological component, which
operates in a variety of a ways within it. This is apparent
from the comparison of concentrated industry and diffuse
agriculture.
Ecological factors are closely connected with transport
and social communication.)
It can be expected that a normal user of language will regard the
type of decomposition effected in 8.4b - 8.6b. as consonant with current
usage. On the other hand, he will perceive decomposition of the type
effected in 8.1b - 8.3b. as deviating from the usual pattern, as striking
and in some way unusual.
These differences in perception are determined by the different type
of cohesion specific to the syntactic and/or hypersyntactic wholes exem
plified above.
No doubt the following statement can be made about all the
examples considered: their integrity is effected through semantic rela-
tions. Another statement that holds good for examples deriving from
both groups is that their integrity may also be achieved by the use of
morphological resources - cf. examples of congruence (adjective form in
8.2b. and past participle form in 8.5b.). What is essential here is the fact
that only in 8.1b. - 8.3b. is integration ensured by formal syntactic
means in the sense that some of the elements of the component occur
ring in 8.1b - 8.3b. after the first terminal signal maintain a syntactic
relationship (dominance but possibly also coordination and apposition)
with some of the elements of the component preceding the first terminal
signal. At the same time, the component occurring in 8.1b - 8.3b. after
the first terminal signal occupies a definite position in sentence struc
ture.
As I see it, it is expedient to introduce the concept of parcellation
and/or parcellated formation only as a concept based on the level of
formal syntax. Its explicatory force is almost lost, once we include
within the scope of the analysis such wholes as paragraph,3 let alone
chapter or text - for obvious reasons these two units are not represented
in the set of examples. The same applies to compound asyndetic senten
ces - since we would have to regard all utterance occurrences in the text,
concluded by a pause and a conclusive cadence and/or corresponding
graphic resources - as parcellated compound sentences.
Special attention must of course be given to the decomposition of
compound sentences. A compound sentence is usually included in
grammatical description, although its grammaticality gives rise to
serious doubt. Thus Danes (1959) writes that a compound sentence can
only be defined at the graphic level. This fact alone would hardly suffice
to substantiate the possibility of describing a compound sentence as a
grammatical unit in its own right (cf. also Danes and Hausenblas,
1969). The cohesive potential of a compound sentence is so low that an
expression in the form of two intonationally self-contained utterances
- if one can formulate the point at all - is felt to be quite normal and
accepted in current usage. This statement of course requires immediate
qualification. First and foremost we must distinguish between com
pound sentences whose components (clauses) are linked together by
simple conjunctions (these of course allow for easy decomposition) and
compound sentences whose components are linked by correlative (i.e.
double) conjunctions (e.g. bud- nebo (either - or), sice - ale (true - but)).
Correlative conjunctions ensure such a close degree of cohesion be-
204 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
tween compound sentence components as to make parcellation practic

ally unfeasible. Now to switch the line of strategy, we may note that a
compound sentence whose components are linked together by correla
tive conjunctions can obviously not be the end-product of the process
of supplementation, since the user must heed the fact that the employ
ment of the first member of a correlative conjuctive expression neces
sitates the use of the second member of the conjunction. (For a more
detailed account see Section 9.). The decomposition of a compound
sentence whose components are linked by correlative conjunctions
would thus violate the basic restriction governing the rise of parcellated
and/or supplemented formations, i.e. it would interfere with the (rela
tive) communication autonomy of the base component.
Now to sum up: the three types of compound sentence analyzed
here with regard to the process of parcellation were:
1. compound asyndetic sentence; 2. compound syndetic sentence with
components connected by simple conjunctions; 3. compound syndetic
sentence with components connected by correlative conjunctions. In
Types 1 and 2, the explicative force of the parcellation concept or
parcellated formation is severely diminished, this being due to easy
decomposition. In Type 3 the process of parcellation is factually pre
cluded by the considerable cohesion of the syntactic unit in question.
The conclusion to be drawn from the discussion in Section 8 could
be formulated as follows: the suitability of the parcellation concept
(parcellated formation) and the supplementation concept (supplement
ed formation) seems to be restricted to lower levels up to complex
sentences, although with regard to the latter, some cases are debatable,
owing to the indeterminate line of demarcation between complex and
compound sentences.4
9. A tentative psycholinguistic interpretation of parcellation

and supplementation
If we consider no more than the mere results of the syntactic
processes of parcellation and supplementation, i.e. a compounded for
mation as a 'fait accompli', it is difficult to decide which of the two
processes actually produced the result in question. Now if we have no
more than the results, we must count with the possibility of involvement
of both processes (the pancellation process and the supplementation

process) in the actual rise of the formation considered. Provided we have
some insight into the circumstances surrounding the rise of the given
formation, the following premisses could be used as a viable starting
point.
The process of parcellation is a premeditated and deliberately
performed operation resorted to especially in the production of written
texts - a type of activity characterizing linguistically conscious writers
that are good stylists. The process of supplementation, on the other
hand, is a spontaneous and largely automatic language activity meeting
with application primarily in the production of spoken texts.5 This basic
division requires of course immediate restrictive qualification. Parcella
tion is a possible contingency even in premeditated speech and - in the
case of experienced speakers - in impromptu speech. The role of supple
mentation should likewise be considered in private correspondence and
in certain varieties of journalism and creative writing. Apart from this,
text analysis should also take into account the complicated transposi
tions occurring between colloquial speech and the language and/or style
of literary production. A distinction ought to be drawn between com
pounded formations merely imitating spoken utterances, e.g. in direct
speech, and compounded formations employed as an idiosyncratic
stylistic procedure, e.g. in narration using the so-called "er" - form.
Using the conceptual apparatus of 'utterance planning'- a field of
study undergoing spectacular development-6 we could perhaps charac
terize the process of parcellation and the process of supplementation in
the following terms: in the case of the parcellation process, both the
base and the bound components are planned at a definite point in time
t1. Now the problem here concerns the specific type of unit on which
operations leading to the realization of the base and the bound com
ponents are actually performed. Supposing the writer decides to change
a continuous (non-segmented) expression into an interrupted (segment
ed) expression, we could describe the ensuing base and bound com
ponents as the result of operations performed on an utterance event.
But the base-and-bound component plan can also come into existence
prior to the "realization" act, i.e. over and above the premeditated
utterance. Another possibility is the emergence of the base-and-bound
component plan after a certain part of the utterance and/or utterance
event has already been realized. What we have here is in fact a certain
206 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
"conflation" of two plans - the original plan working towards con

tinuous expression merges with a new plan for interrupted (segmented)
expression. As to the supplementation process, only the base com
ponent is planned at a definite point in time t1. The bound-component
plan emerges after the realization of the previous plan at temporal point
t2 (Müllerová and Kubicka, 1979, describe this strategy as an additional
expansion of the plan) and the producer elaborates the sentence struc
ture already employed. What is thus supplemented is the utterance
event.
From the point of view of communication, the essential distinction
between the process of parcellation and the process of supplementation
could be described as follows: in the parcellation process there exists a
point in time at which both the base and the bound components are
planned "simultaneously". In the supplementation process there is no
such "simultaneous" base-and-bound component plan - here the base
component and the bound component each represent the result of the
realization of two plans emerging at different points in time.
It remains true to say that the realization of compounded forma
tions can entail a complicated decision-making strategy which brings an
additional degree of difficulty into the actual differentiation of the two
processes. A writer may choose to code his utterance as follows: Marta
utekla. (Marta fled.) Then he may decide to express some of the circum
stances surrounding the event (e.g. time specification). So to the utter
ance thus coded he will add Ve ctyří hodiny ráno. (At four o'clock in the
morning.). Expressed in terms of our conceptual apparatus, the writer
implemented two plans, each emerging at a different point in time. The
bound component was produced by the process of supplementation.
But the bound component may also have come into existence in the
course of a complicated decision-making procedure. For example, the
writer may decide on Marta utekla. (Marta fled.) and then opt for a
temporal specification of the action. Basically he can choose one of the
three models of elementary textual development (cf. Section 11). He
may (1) perform an operation on an utterance event already coded and
by abolishing the terminal signal ( + implementation of further chan
ges) obtain the utterance event Marta utekla ve ctyři hodiny ráno.
(Marta fled at four o'clock in the morning.); (2) he may repeat the verb
or use a verb of the same semantic class, and/or semantic derivation of
some kind, so that the resulting text may be either Marta utekla. Utekla
ASYMMETRY BETWEEN SYNTACTIC AHD TEXTUAL UNITS 207
(Zmizela) ve ctyfi hodiny ráno. (Marta fled. She fled (vanished) at four
o'clock in the morning.) or Marta utekla. Ve ctyfi hodiny ráno byla pry.
(Marta fled. At four o'clock in the morning, she was away.); (3) the
writer may use a compounded formation - i.e. Marta utekla. Ve ctyři
hodiny ráno. (Marta fled. At four o'clock in the morning.). Provided the
writer considers all these alternatives - especially alternative (1) and
alternative (3) - we are bound to conclude that the bound component
was produced by parcellation (if of course his final choice is alternative
(3)). Now applying the theory-of-plans point of view, the processes at
work here could be described as follows: the utterance event Marta
utekla. (Marta fled.) was realized on the basis of the first plan; it was
only after the first plan's implementation that the second plan emerged,
comprising both the base component and the bound component (with
the base component already coded).
Finally, a brief note on the 'plan' concept. Obviously the term
'plan'requires a different interpretation when applied to the process of
paceellation and when used with reference to the process of supple
mentation. The need to distinguish the two senses ensues from the
different degree of intentionality characterizing each process. Panella
tion no doubt will have to be ascribed a higher degree of intentionality
than supplementation. Interestingly, Linhart (1971, p. 59) draws a
distinction between 'plan' and 'program'. In his conception, plan is a
deliberate program.
10. The recipient's point of view

10.1. Sentence delimitation
Proceeding from the results of the previous discussion, I interpret

Budou tu zít. Sami. Deset, mozná patnáct let. (They will live here.
Alone. For ten, maybe, fifteen years.)
as one sentence and three elementary textual units (utterances). This is
the point of view of static analysis, the attitude of a grammarian who
analyzes a text already coded. Now let us imagine a grammarian (or it
may of course also be an automated syntactic analyzer) studying the
speech activity of a speaker/writer and expected to delimit the bound-
208 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
aries of each produced sentence. Apparently, the grammarian and/or

arbitrary recipient will interpret the sentence differently, depending on
the different time aspects of text perception (the question whether the
text and/or sentence is the product of parcellation or supplementation
is clearly irrelevant here, since for the recipient the producer's mind
remains a "black-box"). Let us illustrate this point on the example
quoted above. Depending on the moment of perception, the recipient
may interpret the sentence as the first section of text (viz. Budou tu zít.
(They will live here.)), or the first + second section of text (viz. Budou
tu zít. Sami. (They will live here. Alone.)), or the first + second + third
sections of text (viz. Budou tu zít. Sami. Deset, rnozná patriáe t let. (They
will live here. Alone. For ten, maybe, fifteen years.)
It follows that after a conclusive cadence and pause (or corres
ponding graphic devices), the recipient cannot decide whether the
sentence is brought to a close. The only signal indicating sentence-end
is the incipient use - after a conclusive cadence and pause - of a syntactic
structure devoid of any element that would stand in a syntactic relation
ship with the structure (or any element of it) terminated by a conclusive
cadence and pause. (Sentence-end may of course also be signalled by
absolute pause, i.e. a spell of silence on the producer's part.)
10.2. The gradualfillingofpositions of the grammatical sentence pattern

with a right-valence potential element
The distinction between static and dynamic analysis respecting the time
factor may also be reflected in the different results of the two analyses,
as far as sentence semantics is concerned. Analyzing the example listed
in 10.1. the recipient merely "adds up" the meaning of successive
utterances. On the other hand, a recipient analyzing the examples listed
below is required to correct his previous analysis (see 10.2.2.) or indeed
re-evaluate and reinterpret antecedent analysis (see 10.2.6.).7
Let us first analyze
10.2.1. Petr kouři doutnik.
lit. Peter is-smoking cigar.
(Peter is smoking a cigar.)
Now this utterance actually tells us something about Peter doing

something at a given point of time. The underlying grammatical sen
tence pattern is (Snom) - VF - (Sacc). Let us now compare 10.2.1. with
10.2.2. Petr kouři. Doutník. (Peter is smoking. A cigar.)
An analysis of the dependency structure of 10.2.2. yields the con
clusion that 10.2.2. is likewise modelled on the grammatical sentence
pattern (Snom) - VF - (Sacc). Semantically, 10.2.2. is likewise a statement
about Peter' s momentary activity. This conclusion inevitably follows
from a conception envisaging the text as a finished product, i.e. a static
conception (cf. Viehweger, 1980). Now bearing in mind the fact that text
production is a gradual process - phased out in time - we have to adopt
a somewhat different procedure for the analysis of 10.2.2. Utterance
10.2.3. Doutnik. (A cigar.)
succeeds in time the utterance
10.2.4. Petr kouři. (Peter is smoking.).
Both utterance 10.2.3. and utterance 10.2.4. are terminated by a conclu
sive cadence and very likely the use of a pause (or corresponding
graphic devices). Obviously, in 10.2.2. Petr koufi. Doutnik. (Peter is
smoking. A cigar.), utterance 10.2.4. Petr koufi. (Peter is smoking.) can
be interpreted as a realization of the grammatical sentence pattern
(Sn0m) " VF. Utterance 10.2.4. Petr koufi. tells us something about
Peter's momentary activity, nevertheless, apart from its topical mean
ing, one may trace a non-topical sense - the characterization of a person
by action - in other words, 'Peter is a smoker'.
Ambiguity of this type is of course ruled out in English where the
distinction between the two senses of the verb would be clearly marked
by the simple and the progressive form of the verb 'smoke', cf. 'Peter
smokes' and 'Peter is smoking'. However, the recipient analyzing the
Czech utterance 10.2.4. Petr koufi. must admit the presence of both the
topical and non-topical meaning component. Of course, once utterance
10.2.3. is added, viz. Doutnik. (A cigar.), the recipient will assign the
topical sense (temporary happening) to the verb kouřit (to smoke) in
utterance 10.2.4. Petr koufi.
What makes this interpretation possible is the fact that the gram
matical sentence pattern (Snom) - VF may be perceived as part of the
210 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
grammatical sentence pattern (Snom) - VF - (Sacc) and hence the posi

tions of the pattern (Snom) - VF - (Sacc) may be filled gradually. In other
words, in 10.2.2. Petr kouří. Doutník. the transitive meaning of the verb
kourit (to smoke) is made transparent gradually in the process of
text-production; we could well describe this instance as a specific textual
realization of the transitive meaning of some verbs. As is obvious, the
gradual filling of the positions of a grammatical sentence pattern and
the ensuing semantic changes in interpretation are closely connected
with verb polysemy.8
Similar facts are revealed by the analysis of
10.2.5. Bûh je mrtev. (God is dead.)
10.2.6. Buh je. Mrtev. (God is. Dead.)
10.2.5. realizes the copula-meaning of the verb byt (to be). In 10.2.6. the
existential meaning of the verb byt (to be) is realized first (i.e. the sense
is 'God exists') and only then the copula meaning. We could thus
describe 10.2.6. as a specific textual realization of the copula-meaning
of the verb byt (to be).
The difference between 10.2.2. and 10.2.6. could be summed up as
follows: whereas 10.2.2. may involve only semantic specification, 10.2.6.
deliberately exploits the polysemic nature of the verb byt (to be). The
type exemplified by 10.2.6. may be regarded as a standard stylistic
device employed to achieve, for example, a comic effect by purely
linguistic resources. The underlying mechanism utilizes the possibility
to interpret an element of one utterance in a surprising manner in the
utterance that follows.
11. Basic models of elementary textual development

Let us imagine we wish to communicate, in textual form, the
following information: our friend Peter has escaped from prison; at the
same time, we wish to communicate further relevant bits of information
concerning the circumstances of this event: when it happened, where it
happened, how many times it happened, how it happened, under what
circumstances it happened, why it happened, which way, from where
and to where Peter escaped.
Our message could serve as a possible response to the question "Co

je nového s Petrem?" (What's new with Peter?/How's Peter?/Any news
about Peter?). The answer may be either a simple statement (specifying
the escape and the place of escape - cf. Ex. a), or it may be a more
detailed statement incorporating all the bits of information specified
above (cf. Ex. b).
The message could be coded in a variety of ways:
11.1a. Petr utekl z vernice. (Peter escaped from prison.)
11.1b. Petr utekl vcera v Madridu uz podruhé zázracnĕ svym stráz-
 z vëznice pres zed do pripraveného auta pod palbou
kulometu kvùli své zenë. (Maintaining the Czech word order:
Peter escaped yesterday in Madrid already for the second
time miraculously his guards from prison over the wall into
a prepared car under the machine-gun fire because of his
wife.)
We can of course communicate the same bits of information in a
different way:
11.2a. Petr utekl. Utekl z vëznice. (Peter escaped. (He) escaped
from prison).
11.2b. Petr utekl. Utekl vcera. Utekl v Madridu. Utekl uz podruhé.
Utekl zázracnĕ. Utekl svym strázcum. Utekl z vëznice. Utekl
pres zed. Utekl do pripraveného auta. Utekl pod palbou kulo
metu. Utekl kvùli své zenë. (Peter escaped. (He) escaped
yesterday. (He) escaped in Madrid. (He) escaped already for
the second time. (He) escaped miraculously. (He) escaped
his guards. (He) escaped from prison. (He) escaped over the
wall. (He) escaped into a prepared car. (He) escaped under
machine-gun fire. (He) escaped because of his wife.)
We can also use a compounded formation:
11.3a. Petr utekl. Z vëznice. (Peter escaped. From prison.)
11.3b. Petr utekl. Vcer a. V Madridu. Uz podruhé. Zázracnĕ. Svym
strázcium. Z vëznice. Pres zed. Do pripraveného auta. Pod
palbou kulometu. Kvuli své zenë. (Peter escaped. Yesterday.
In Madrid. Already for the second time. Miraculously, His
guards. From prison. Over the wall. Into a prepared car.
Under machine-gun fire. Because of his wife.)
212 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
In natural communication it is very unusual to expect that the text will

unfold in strict compliance with only one of the models described here.
As is evident, these models deviate from natural communication especi
ally when a large number of information items are coded.
The most unnatural development pattern is no doubt 11.1b.
Symptomatically, here we have a classical example of a text develop
ment pattern that violates Mathesius' injunction that "each indepen
dent sentential whole should only convey one central idea that, as to its
relevance, functions as the nucleus of an utterance." (Mathesius, 1942,
p. 66). Now viewed in the light of this requirement, 11.2b. and 11.3b.
strike us as more natural than 11.1b. (provided we envisage all three
types as a possible response to the question "Co je nového s Petrem?"
(What's new with Peter?)).
A relatively natural text can be produced if we utilize all three
models; cf.
11.4. Petr vcera utekl z vernice. Utekl v Madridu. Uz podruhé.
Utekl svym strázcüm zázracnë pres zed'. Pod palbou kulometu.
Do pripraveného auta. Utekl kvuli své zenĕ. (Maintaining the
Czech word order: Peter yesterday escaped from prison. (He)
escaped in Madrid. Already for the second time. (He) es
caped his guards miraculously over the wall. Under machine-
gun fire. Into a prepared car. (He) escaped because of his
wife.)
Authentic natural communication would of course acquire a shape
differing in many details from the type exemplified in 11.4.. Now leaving
aside the producer's possible attitudinal qualifications of the semantic
content of utterance, we would have to consider not only the verb utéci
(escape), but also its various synonyms, different paraphrases, senten-
tialization of nominalizations, etc. Cf.
11.5. Petr vcera utekl z vĕznice. Stalo se to v Madridu. Uz podruhé.
Uprchl svym strázcüm zázracnë pres zed'. Do pripraveného
auta. Pálili po  z kulometu. Udĕlal to kvùli své zenë.
(Maintaining the Czech word order: Peter yesterday escaped
from prison. It happened in Madrid. Already for the second
time. (He) fled his guards miraculously over the wall. Into a
prepared car. (They) were shooting at him with machine-
guns. (He) did it because of his wife.)
Some of the insights gained from the comparison of 11.4. and 11.5. are
discussed in closer detail in (Nekvapil, 1983a; cf. also Nekvapil, 1983b)
where also more general conclusions are formulated. Suffice it to say
here that compounded formations represent one of the basic models of
elementary textual development. They appear in combination with the
other two models, which gives rise to texts of the type exemplified here
in 11.4. and 11.5.
12. The function of compounded formations

The question I will attempt to answer in this section concerns the
specific purpose or aim served by the speaker's/writer's use of com
pounded formations. The final answers will of course differ according
to the level of linguistic sophistication, according to the type of writer/
speaker we have in mind, and according to the extent to which we wish
to generalize the prospective aims of compounded formations uses. At
the highest level of abstraction such answers could be formulated as
follows - compounded formations are employed:
(a) to complete the message;
(b) to emphasize the message;
(c) to make the message clear.
Let us now discuss each answer in more detail. One thing that emerges
clearly is the need to relate each answer to the concepts of parcellated
and supplemented formations and/or 'parcel' and 'supplement'. An
swer (a) is relatable solely to the syntactic process of supplementation
and hence to the supplemented formation concept. The statement
"complete the message" of course only applies to the base component;
a supplemented formation is the result of completion of the original
message. Answer (b) and (c) apply to parcellated formations.
From what has been said above it follows that the function of
supplemented formations and/or 'supplements' is to complete a mes
sage; the function of parcellated formations is to give emphasis to a
message (or, more precisely, to give emphasis to some of its com
ponents) or - to give lucidity and order to a message so as to make it
more easily comprehensible.
To develop the point which is briefly sketched above, my definition
of the functions compounded formations perform takes into account
214 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
the variety of motivations a producer may have: in other words, I pay

due heed to the ternary "intention",9 viz. to complete, to emphasize, to
make the information structure clear. Of course, one has constantly to
bear in mind the distinction between the producer's motivation and the
recipient's perception and/or interpretation. What in the speaker's/writ
er's judgement figures as mere completion of utterantial content may, as
a consequence of the intonational independence of the supplemented
syntactic unit ('supplement'), be perceived as emphasis by the recip
ient. A further point deserving explicit mention is this: what is empha
sized gains, as a rule, greater prominence and clarity.
We could now progress from the general functions towards the
more specialized functions and, ultimately, to the function of each
specific compounded formation in concrete texts. To retain the required
degree of generality, in the following section I will discuss the uses of
compounded formations in different functional styles. In other words,
I will explore the specific aims and purposes served by compounded
formations in the usage of writers displaying a different degree of
linguistic competence and stylistic sophistication.
13. The stylistics of compounded formations

Let us begin by analyzing the style current in literary prose writing.
Without attempting to subject the development of Czech prose to
detailed scrutiny, I venture the claim that compounded formations are
a feature characterizing first and foremost modern Czech prose. Of
course, it remains true to say that not all modern Czech writers employ
compounded formations in their craft. Another point that ought to be
stressed is this: writers who do employ compounded formations do so
in a way that leaves no room for doubt that in their usage compounded
formations are not characteristic of all narrative modes (on the concept
of 'narrative mode' see Dolezel, 1964), viz. direct speech, free direct
speech (unmarked direct discourse), free indirect speech (represented
discourse), mixed speech (diffused represented discourse) and the nar
rator's speech. Interestingly, in some writers compounded formations
only occur in direct speech.
The task here is to specify the function compounded formations
perform in different narrative modes. My inquiry will be based on
language data drawn from the following samples of modern Czech

prose: I. Olbracht: Nikola Suhaj loupezník (Nikola Suhaj, the Robber),
F. Kubka: Básníkova svatba (The Poet's Wedding) and J. Svejda: Pozáry
a spálenistë (Fires and Burnt-out Places). All these works have been
deliberately chosen as the basic source of the data for my analysis, since
they abound in compounded formations. The writers employ practic
ally all the narrative modes discussed here and - what is perhaps most
important - favour the "er" - form of narration (third-person narrative).
In the work of all writers covered by my research, compounded forma
tions are represented in all types of narrative modes, although the
motivations underlying the choice of compounded formations for spe
cific narrative modes vary. The following types are particularly specific:
direct speech on the one hand, free indirect speech ( + free direct speech
+ mixed speech) on the other hand and, finally, narrator's speech,
which in this respect has a distinctiveness of its own.
In my view, compounded formations used in direct speech imitate
the syntax of colloquial speech. Significantly, colloquial speech is gener
ally described as the primary source from which compounded forma
tions found their way into literary prose (cf. Vannikov, 1979). In other
words, compounded formations used in direct speech primarily imitate
the syntactic process of supplementation, the completing (supplement
ing) function.10 It is of course apparent that writers also employ com
pounded formations in direct speech to emphasize individual semantic
elements. In such uses, compounded formations help to re-evoke the
tenor of excited emotional utterances approaching in type convulsive
speech exemplified by the "fits-and starts" kind of utterance.
Compounded formations used in free indirect speech serve a dif
ferent purpose. Free indirect speech is a suitable device for the so-called
"interior monologue". The use of compounded formations (in conjunc
tion with other resources) in free indirect speech simulates the twists
and turns of human thought in its inchoate, embryonic stage, i.e. the
loose associations and rambling course of the mental process. This is
unmistakably a device simulating the syntactic process of supplementa
tion (the completing function). Nevertheless, in this narrative mode,
too, secondary motivation, viz. the intention to emphasize individual
semantic elements, cannot be entirely excluded.
The use of compounded formations in what is described as nar-
rator's speech is primarily designed to emphasize individual semantic
216 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
elements (significantly, this function can fittingly be described in FSP

terms) and hence give the narrative flow a certain dynamic quality. The
use of compounded formations in narrator's speech can be regarded as
a stylization procedure of a special type, as one of the modes of textual
build-up (cf. Section 11), especially current in prose highlighting aspects
of topical detail (cf. Arutjunova, 1971; 1972). In this type of prose,
compounded formations shift different situational elements into a sharp
topical focus, detail different settings and hence share a lot of common
ground with close-up camera techniques. Referring to this point, Pytlík
(1982) stresses the inner kinship traceable between specific syntactic
units and flash photography. Svejda's extensive use of compounded
formations of the type exemplified below betrays inspiration by film
technology: Prselo. Hustë a vytrvale. (Rain. Pouring down in thick
persistent streams.), Irena se usmála. Piase a provinile. (Irena smiled.
Shyly and guiltily.), Mĕl hezké oci. Sedomodré, velké a plné jakéhosi
smutku. (His eyes were beautiful. Grey-blue, big and somehow sad.),
Podíval se na ni. Vlídne a s pochopením. (He looked at her. Kindly, and
with compassion.), Zacala ho lïbat. Ütocnë a naléhavë. (She began to
kiss him. Aggressively and with a sense of urgency.), Připili si. Naráz
plnou sklenkou. (They drank to each other's health. At one go, a full
glass.). Such style of expression conjures up an image of some kind of
distant global take immediately closing up on a specific detail. In the
first-person narrative this gradual "focussing" simulates the process of
human perception - visual or acoustic; cf. the following example deriv
ing from V. Dusek's Tuláci (Bums):
Stál jsem za dvermi bytu na rohozce a chystal se uz dobrych deset
minut zaklepat. Uvnitř vyhrávalo rádio. Cekal jsem, ze promluvi Kovan-
dová, to bych utekl, nebo ze promluvi Haryk, pak bych hned zaklepal.
Kromĕ radia nic.
Pak zakaslání. Haryka. Rychle jsem zaklepal.
(I stood outside the door, on the mat and for a good ten minutes
was mentally preparing myself to knock. A radio was blaring inside. I
was waiting for Kovandová's voice - now that would make me run for
miles - or Haryk's voice, then I would knock immediately. Nothing but
the radio.
Then a cough. Haryk's. I knocked at the door at once.)
Compounded formations are used in profusion in the style of
writing typical of journalism. This statement of course is of little heuris-
tic value, unless we specify the kind of text or genre variety we have in
mind. Journalistic style is characterized by two functional dominants:
informativeness and persuasion.11 The first feature is distinctive of news
reporting, the second of analytical varieties of journalism (to use Mis-
trik's terminology, cf. Mistrík, 1977, p. 149.). A typical example of this
genre variety is a news item, while analytical writing is best represented
by the commentary.
In the language of journalism, compounded formations obviously
reflect the element of improvisation indispensable in the journalist's
daily work. This is attributable to the special requirements of news-
reporting. Obviously swift production and prompt response are the
overriding needs. The information itself is more important than the
actual mode of presentation. Compounded formations in this genre of
writing are obviously produced by the syntactic process of supple
mentation. It follows that here the function of bound components is to
complete information. On the other hand, newswriters are aware of the
fact that the use of compounded formations gives the story emphasis
and makes its structure clear. This leads them to retain compounded
formations in preference to continuous (non-segmented) expressions.
Compounded formations occur far more frequently in commen-
taries, i.e. in a register of language that gives generous scope to the
persuasive element, and, in general, in the analytical varieties of journal
ism (e.g. reviews). Texts belonging to this specific variety of writing, too,
bear the unmistakable imprint of haste - that chronic scourge of the
journalist's daily stint. Evidently, here, too, bound components may
efficiently answer the need for information supplementation. Yet, it
remains true to say that compounded formations in texts giving so
much prominence to persuasion are primarily used as emphasis-build
ing devices. Such texts bristle with compounded formations and one
could quote a multitude of examples to document the deliberate use of
compounded formations. They occur in the crucial sections of the text,
conclude paragraphs, or even the whole text and, in this way, round off
the argument with an effective "punch-line".
Relatively meagre is the incidence of compounded formations in
the style distinctive of specialized scholarly discourses. Their use in this
register could be summed as follows.
If they occur at all, their incidence is almost exclusively restricted
to popular scientific accounts, while in texts of a purely theoretical
tenor, they are a rare exception.
218 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
Compounded formations tend to occur in specialized texts cover

ing topics of socio-scientific interest and only exceptionally in texts
representative of the natural sciences.
Compounded formations are largely used to make the information
presented more easily surveyable. Cf.
Tento dodatek podporuje nase presvëdcení, ze Klímovi slo predevsím o po-
trebu opëtného podtrzení jeho predstav o lidské podstatë, nikoli o zrelativizování
závërü z této podstaty vyplyvajicích, jak jsme je poznali v jeho pozdéjsím díle. Ze
slo o opétné zvyraznëní síly vnitrníhopostoje, vedoucíhoaz k bozství, které Klima
nazyvá téz omnismem. Protoze, jak ríká, v tomto bozském vëdomí muze byt
uskutecnëno vse. Metafyzika, materialismus, morálka atd. i jejich negace.
(Filozoficky asopis, 1980)
(This additional comment supports our conviction that Klima primarily
sought to reiterate his notions of human nature, rather than relativize the
implications ensuing from human nature, in the shape presented to us in his
later work. That he sought to re-enhance the strength of the inner attitude
leading up to Godhood, which Klima also describes as omnism. Because, as he
puts it, in this divine awareness everything may be realized. Metaphysics,
materialism, morality, etc., just as their negation.)
(Journal of Philosophy, 1980)
Compounded formations occur in specialized texts featuring the
presence of the persuasive element (texts of this type obviously cover the
transitory area of contact with the style of journalism), e.g. in testimo
nials. In such texts they have a distinctly emphasizing function. 12 .
Conclusion
My final comment brings us back to the title of this study, viz.

'asymmetry between syntactic and elementary textual units'. As is
apparent from Section 13, compounded formations are by no means a
customary phenomenon. Symptomatic in this respect is their total
absence in certain types of text. The use of compounded formations is
always in some way striking, marked, distinctive. This is perhaps why
compounded formations rarely occur in specialized discourse. In most
cases, sentences are coextensive with elementary textual units (utteran
ces) with regard to their borders. (The mark of distinction, in this case
zero realization, is the use of a terminal signal within the sentence.)
What is essential here is the expectation of the text producer, especially

writer, that the recipient will judge the specificity of compounded
formations in confrontation with the "customary" type of sentence
and/or textual unit (utterance) - in other words, that he will judge the
compounded formation in question against the background of un
marked usage. The correlation between "sentence syntax" and the
"syntax of elementary textual units (utterances)" is therefore a fully
legitimate field of study, as is after all attested by Hausenblas' inquiry
(1979; cf. also 1977) - a fact that I regard as the raison d'être of my own
conception of the asymmetry between syntactic and elementary textual
units.13
Notes
1 The bracketing of symbol Snom marks the potentiality of the position in question. This
potentiality is of course a feature specific to Czech; in English the position concerned
is obligatory. The arrow directed towards symbol Advmod denotes the introduction of
a specific position through optional expansion.
2 This formulation of course simplifies matters a good deal - its validity is essentially
restricted to compounded formations possessing only two semantic elements in the
focus - one in the base component, the other in the bound component. An approach
taking into account the occurrence of several semantic elements in the focus, especially
within the bound component, would require additional regard for the graded hie
rarchic nature of functional sentence perspective.
3 A completely different case of course involves paragraph division at the point of
sentence or complex sentence segmentation. Cf. "Odlisnost budí nenávist," vysvëtluje
veliky Stendhal.
Ktery by si rozloucení se Zinou jistë nedal ujít a s chutí by   napsal nejmíñ jeden
krásny odstavec - sám bych rád, a tedy jsem naposledy vytocil Zinino císlo. (V. Parai)
("Difference breeds hatred," explains great Stendhal.
Who certainly would not have missed saying goodbye to Zina and would, with great
flair, have written at least one beautiful paragraph about it -I wouldn't mind either,
and so I dialled Zina's number for the last time.)
4 This is where my aproach differs from that adopted in some Russian studies (cf. e.g.
Vinogradov, 1981).
5 Luriya's comment expresses the gist of the argument presented in this section, most
fittingly (cf. Lurija, 1979, p. 213):
"..         
 ,     ,  
 ,         
.  ,     
,       , 
    ."
220 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
6 Cf. Petrie's survey in Lyons et al. (1987, 336-366).

7 Here I continue a line of inquiry initiated in one of my earlier articles (Nekvapil, 1981)
which discusses the problem of re-interpretation in more detail. Section 10.2. elimina
tes some of the errors occurring in the symbol notation of grammatical sentence
patterns in the article quoted above.
8 With regard to the type incorporating the verb kourit (to smoke), further examples
could of course be quoted to illustrate the type of gradual filling of positions of the
grammatical sentence pattern with a right-valency potential element basically
amounting to the mere process of "addition", i.e. sum total of successive meanings;
cf. e.g. A vecer jsme si dlouho do noci vypráveli. O knihách, politice, kuiture, o práci.
(And in the evening we were chatting long into the night. About books, politics,
culture and work.)
9 The reason why I use inverted commas for the expression here follows from my
comments on the different degree of behavioural intentionality reflected, for example,
in the distinction Linhart (1971) draws between the concept of plan and the concept
of program. What I have in mind here is the different degree of intentionality of the
syntactic processes of panellation and supplementation.
10 Notice that the formulation of my comment on the different imitative function of
compounded formations does not concern the particular mode and/or process that
has produced the given compounded formation in the literary text. On this point see
Section 9, especially the concluding remarks.
11 This of course is not generally accepted. Mistrik (1977, p. 140ff ), paying little attention
to the persuasive element, regards informativeness as the main feature of journalism.
Stich (1974, pp. 52, 35) excludes purely informative texts from the domain of journalis
tic style and interprets persuasion as the constitutive feature of this style register.
12 My conclusions concerning the incidence of compounded formations in journalistic
and specialized style are based on data samples obtained from Czech newspapers and
periodicals published between 1980 and 1982.
13 This paper represents a slightly adapted and abridged version of the paper published
under the same title in Text and the Pragmatic Aspects of Language. Ed. by J.
Kořensky and J. Hoffmannová. Linguistica X. Praha: Ústav pro jazyk cesky CSAV,
1984, 163-205.
References
ARUTJUNOVA, N.D. (1971),  probleme svjaznosti prozaiceskogo teksta (On
the Coherence of Emotive Prose). In: Pamjati akademika Viktora Vladi-
mirovica Vinogradova. Moskva, 22-30.
ARUTJUNOVA, N.D. (1972),  sintaksiceskich tipach chudozestvennoj prozy
(On the Types of Syntax in Works of Fiction). In: Obscee i romanskoe
jazykoznanie. Moskva, 189-199.
BAUER, J. and M. GREPL, (1980), Skladba spisovné cestiny (The Syntax of
Standard Czech). Praha.
DANES, F. (1959),  vymezení syntaxe (On Delimiting Syntax). Jazykovedné

stúdie, IV, 41-45.
DANES, F. (1964), A Three-Level Approach to Syntax. Travaux linguistiques de
Prague, 1, 225-240.
DANES, F. (1965),  systematickému syntaktickému popisu slovanskych jazyku
(On Systematic Syntactic Description of Slavonic Languages). Slovo a sloves-
nost, 26, 112-117.
DANES, F and K. HAUSENBLAS, (1969), Problematika urovnej s tocki
zrenija struktury vyskazyvanija i sistemy jazykovych sredstv (Language Levels
from the Viewpoint of the Structure of the Utterance and the System of
Language Devices). In: Edinicy raznych urovnej grammaticeskogo stroja
jazyka i ich vzaimodejstvie. Moskva, 7-20.
DOLEZEL, L. (1964), Vers la stylistique structurale. Travaux linguistiques de
Prague, 1, 257-266.
FIRBAS, J. (1979), A Functional View of ORDO NATURALIS. Brno Studies in
English, 13, 29-59.
HAUSENBLAS, . (1977),  rûznych přístupech  vykladu vĕty a jevu stycnych
(On Different Approaches to the Conception of the Sentence and of Related
Phenomena). Slovo a slovesnost, 38, 43-50.
HAUSENBLAS, K. (1979), Gramatická syntax v textu (Grammatical Syntax in
Discourse). In: Referati od X zasedanie na megunarodnata komisija za
izucuvane na gramatickata struktura na slovenskite literaturni jazici. Skopje,
175-182.
LINHART, J. (1971), Náhodné variace, struktura a plán v tvořivé cinnosti (Ran
dom Variations, Structure and Plan in Creative Activity). Praha.
LURIJA, A.R. (1979), Jazyk i soznanie (Language and Consciousness). Mosk
va.
LYONS, J. et al. (1987), New Horizons in Linguistics 2. London.
MATHESIUS, V. (1942), Řec a sloh (Speech and Style). In: Ctení o jazyce a
poesii. Praha, 11-102.
MISTRÍK, J. (1977), Stylistika slovenského jazyka (Stylistics of the Slovak
Language). Bratislava.
MÜLLEROVÁ, O. and J. KUBICKA, (1979), Nëkteré rysy intonacniho členĕnï
nepřipravenychmluvenych projevu (Some Features of Intonational Segmenta
tion in Impromptu Discourse). Slovo a slovesnost, 40, 23-31.
NEKVAPIL, J. (1981), Zur Re-interpretation der Satzstrukturen im Text. In:
Satzsemantische Komponenten und Relationen im Text. Ed. by F. Danes and
D. Viehweger. Linguistica, I, Praha, 112-118.
NEKVAPIL, J. (1982), Periferní vypovední realizace vĕtnych struktur (Periph
eral Realization of Sentence Structure in Utterance). Praha, Ustav pro jazyk
cesky CSAV (diss).
222 JIŘÍ NEKVAPTL
NEKVAPIL, J. (1983a), Concerning Elementary Text Development. In: Ebenen

der Textstruktur. Ed. by F. Danes and D. Viehweger. Linguistische Studien,
112, Reihe A, Berlin, 36-43.
NEKVAPIL, J. (1983b), Poznámky  elementárnímu rozvíjení textu (Some Re
marks on Elementary Text Development). Jazykovëdné aktuality, 20, 16-18.
PYTLIK, R. (1982), Próza filmem křtená (Fiction Strongly Influenced by the
Cinema). In: Knien (literární přiloha Tvorby), No 16, 21.4.1982, pp. 3-4.
SGALL, P., HAJICOVÁ, E. and E. BURÁÑOVÁ (1980), Aktuální členênî vëty
v cestinĕ (Functional Sentence Perspective in Czech). Praha.
STICH, A. (1974), Problematika publiastického funkcniho stylu a jeho konfron-
tačniho studia v ràmci slovanskych jazykû (On Journalistic Style and Its
Contrastive Study within Slavonic Languages). In: Stylistické studie, I,
Praha, 33-54.
SVOBODA, A. (1968), The Hierarchy of Communicative Units and Fields as
Illustrated by English Attributive Constructions. Brno Studies in English, 7,
49-101.
VANNIKOV, J.V. (1979), Sintaksis reci i sintaksiceskie osobennosti russkoj reci
(Speech Syntax and the Syntactic Specificities of Russian Speech). Moskva.
Vedecká synchronní mluvnice spisovné cestiny (Scientific Synchronic Grammar
of Standard Czech). (1974), Praha (mimeo).
VIEHWEGER, D. (1980), Methodologische Probleme der Textlinguistik. Zeit
schrift für Germanistik, 1, 6-20.
VINOGRADOV, A.A. (1981),  voprosu  differenciacii javlenij parcelljacii i
dinamiceskogo prisoedinenija (On Differentiation in the Parcellation and
Dynamic Annexation Phenomenon). Voprosy jazykoznanija, No 3, 98-110.
The Language and Style of Hašek's Novel
"The Good Soldier Švejk" from the Viewpoint
of Translation
František Danes
1. The aim of the present paper1 is to point out several linguistic

and linguo-stylistic features of Hasek's famous novel that bring forth
more or less serious translational problems or that, at least, should not
be overlooked, dismissed or neglected in the process of translation.
Problems connected with translating any literary work ensue from
a number of sources, belonging to several dimensions:
(1) The dimension of contrastive properties and other differences:
(a) contrastive structural properties of the source language and the
target language; (b) differences in the sociolinguistic situation of the two
languages (the types of the standard/literary languages, their social
position and inner differentiation, etc.); (c) differences in the modes of
text construction and in established text patterns; (d) specific traditions
of the manners of expression characteristic of a given literary genre in
the two language domains; (e) individual properties of the language and
style of the given author; (f) specificities of the language and style of the
given literary work.
(2) The dimension of time (the historical dimension). Though the
text of any literary work is, as a material fact, fixed and does not change,
its "social environment" is in a permanent state of flux. Consequently,
the text appears to "new" readers in a changed light, it will be viewed,
accepted, understood, interpreted anew, differently. We could say that
the "social-historical actualization" of texts by the public changes with
time (even the view of one and the same reader may undergo changes
as the time goes on). These changes concern the structure and norms of
the given language, its sociolinguistic situation, stylistic, esthetic and
other norms, value judgements, attitudes and opinions. All this, natur
ally, has a bearing upon the domain of translation. If we state that the
224 FRANTIŠEK DANEŠ
relation of 'translation' holds between such (two) texts whose com

prehension (interpretation) is equivalent, then we have to decide which
of the possible "historical actualizations" of the text will be chosen, to
which the translation should be equivalent. (Thus very often the "classi
cal" works of literature will be anew translated for each successive
generation of readers. Accordingly there is only one Shakespeare in
English, whereas there is a historical series of Czech translations of his
works, representing several "generations".)
(3) The dimension of the different kinds of translation, correspond
ing, in essence, to the different versions of or approaches to "transla
tional equivalence": close, literal, word-for-word; faithful; free, loose,...
(Let us remark that all judgements on translational equivalence are of
necessity in some degree subjective in several respects.)
The linguistic and linguo-stylistic features of Hasek's novel that
represent the distinct points of translational problems are. to a certain
extent, different in respect to different target languages, to be sure.
2. Hasek's literary production, in its entirety, abounds in antinomies,

paradoxes and inconsistencies of different kinds (Hausenblas, 1971,
126, even speaks of an inner inconsistency of the character of Švejk
himself). The basic linguistic and linguo-stylistic antinomy of Hasek's
novel may be seen in the contrast between the narrative / descriptive
passages (the author's-narrator's speech) and the direct speech of par
ticular characters (cf. Danes, 1954). The former component appears as
background (the dark side) on which the latter stands out in relief (as
the bright side).
2.1.1. Narrator's speech. The inventory of Hasek's means of expression

is relatively poor, sometimes almost shabby, and its employment does
not seem to be fully mastered in all cases. Besides neutral standard
expressions we find at least four other types of linguistic forms and
devices: (1) morphological and syntactic means of expression that are
archaic, obsolete, or bookish; (2) lexical and phraseological units of the
older Czech used in offices and in journalism; (3) some Common Czech
or other substandard forms; (4) hypercorrect and incorrect forms; (5)
some Russian military words and phrases (an unconscious remines-
cence of Hasek's stay in Russia as a captive and in the Red Army). In
HASEK'S NOVEL "THE GOOD SOLDIER SVEJK" 225
this somewhat curious and motley composition we discover, neverthe

less, two diverse tendencies. On the one hand, it may seem that Hasek
follows the prescriptions of a rigorous Czech teacher with a puristic and
traditional orientation, on the other hand, this school knowledge will be
corroded and partly overrided by Hasek's natural feeling that this
obsolete Czech is at variance with the vivid tendencies of the contem
porary norm and far-away from current colloquial Czech.
To be sure, Hasek did not rank among writers who deal with
language material in a deliberated way. It is well known that he was used
to working very quickly, sometimes even cursorily or hastily; he wrote
with great ease, made a fair copy of his manuscripts straight away,
without a first draft; he only rarely made corrections and read proofs
(and sometimes he wrote with a weakened censorship of his conscious
ness). We know as well that he was no formalist (either in his writings
or in his behaviour). He appears, on the whole, as an ingeniously
negligent fellow. No wonder that Hasek's speech in narrative and
descriptive passages represents, at first sight, a wonderfully confused
mixture, which "needs pruning" (as the English translator of "Švejk"
from 1973 remarked).
This - somewhat severe - evaluation corresponds to the view of
present-day readers. But from the historical point of view, when exam
ining the novel in the situation of the days of its first appearance, of the
Czech literary structure at the beginning of the 20th century, we get at
a somewhat different picture. In short, the literary language of Hasek's
contemporaries, e.g., of such outstanding authors as Fr. Langer or Ed.
Bass, had shown in Hasek's day similar features as we ascertained in
Hasek's writings. We could simply say that Hasek had bad luck, since
he was not granted the possibility to improve and later develop his
language (he died in 1923, forty years old), in contrast to his luckier
fellow writers.
So far we have approached our subject matter rather from a
simplified psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic and historical standpoint.
And our critical findings concerning the properties of Hasek's language
could lead to a curious conclusion that, at last, it appears advantageous
if these apparently not too welcome qualities for the most part disap
pear in the process of translation. (Generally, in descriptive and narra
tive passages, translators employ neutral, mediocre standard language,
currently used in literary narrations of their period.) Nevertheless,
approaching these facts in a structuralist manner, we arrive at quite

different results. Without regard to various other possible evaluations,
all linguistic (as well as other) facts acquire, in this approach, certain
functional qualities derived from their relational position in the holistic,
complex structure of a literary work. In this light, the "negative"
language qualities of narrative and descriptive passages of Hasek's
novel make them, in a certain, formal, respect, somewhat grey, colour
less, dull, cumbersome, and thus place them into a striking contrast to
the vividity, fluency, and colourfulness of direct speech by individual
characters (as we shall show below, 2.2.3.). We also may assume that in
the process of the development of literary language and style and of the
ongoing changes in the inner differentiation of Czech, this contrast has
been becoming more and more conspicuous.
Thus we arrive at a surprising conclusion, at variance with our
previous, unstructuralist and unfunctionalist conclusion, namely that
the nivelization of this contrast, to a certain measure an inevitable result
of any translation, brings on, in fact, an impoverishment of the translat
ed work. (To try to largely imitate Hasek's language specificities in this
or that language would be a scarcely realizable task.)
2.1.2. Before undertaking the analysis of the characters' direct
speech, let us discuss some linguistic and linguo-stylistic means of
Hasek relevant to translation that go across narrative passages and
direct speeches.
Hasek's vocabulary is - as I mentioned above - relatively poor and
stylistically only little differentiated, with a low number of synonyms:
the words are here only in order to name the things in a simple,
matter-of-fact manner, to identify them, nothing more. The author does
not like ornamental or decorative expressions and shows dislike for
playing with words (as he also explicitly stated in one of his satire
deriding the decadents). Nevertheless, his narrations and descriptions
are - in spite of the formal drawbacks mentioned above - interesting,
impressive, because objective: the author selects and renders linguistic
ally such phenomena of the (fictitious) reality that appear typical and
essential in the given situation and characterize the given scene accord
ing to the author's intentions.
On the whole, Hasek prefers the verb and simple noun phrases
with concrete nouns and is not fond of condensed, nominalized forms
of expression. Nevertheless, this author's bias had a widely different
HAŠEK'S NOVEL "THE GOOD SOLDIER ŠVEJK" 227
effect in descriptive and narrative passages on the one hand, and in

direct speech on the other. In the first domain the author makes use of
additively conjoined simple sentences or of not complicated and nonex-
tensive complex ones; the text structure is easy to survey, lucid (also
owing to the author's bent to articulate the text in short paragraphs).
This manner of expression is dynamic and not overloaded semantically,
the story quickly advances. The danger of certain monotonousness and
stylistic dilution of such passages is compensated for by the above
mentioned tendency to express only essential, typical and necessary
concrete facts without "decoration", in an economical manner. The
following samples demonstrate it very clearly and show, at the same
time, that such passages do not represent serious translational pro
blems; it is only desirable to retain an equivalent specific stylistic
colouring.
The first sample shows Hasek's way of description; it is seriously
emphatic and implies an ironical, indirect, but the more convincing
severe criticism of war:
... Karpatské stránĕ a svahy byly rozryty zákopy, jdoucími z údolí do údolí
podél trati s novymi prazci, po obou stranách veliké jámy od granátû. Nĕkde
pres potoky tekoucí do Laborce, jehož horní tok dráha sledovala, bylo vidët
nové mosty a ohořelé trámy starych mostovych prechodu.
Celé údoli na Medzilaborce bylo rozryto a pfeházeno, jako kdyby zde
pracovaly armády obrovskych krtku. Silnice za ríckou byla rozryta, rozbita a
bylo vidët zdupané plochy vedle, jak se vojska valila.
Přívaly a destĕ odkryvaly na pokraji jam zpûsobenych granáty roztrhané
cáry rakouskych stejnokroju.
Za Novou Cabynou na staré ohořelé borovici ve spleti vĕtví visela bota
nĕjakého rakouského pesáka s kusem holenë.
... The Carpathian hillsides and slopes were furrowed with trenches run
ning from valley to valley along the railway track with its new sleepers, on both
sides of which were huge shell craters. The track followed the upper reaches of
the Laborec and here and there across the streams flowing into it could be seen
new bridges and the charred beams of those they had replaced.
On the way to Medzilaborce the whole valley was furrowed and the earth
piled up as though armies of giant moles had been working there. The road
behind the river was dug up and destroyed, and alongside it could be seen the
vast trampled expanses left by the armies which had rolled over them.
Storm and rain had uncovered the torn shreds of Austrian uniforms lying
on the edge of the shell craters.
Behind Nová Cabyna, entangled in the branches of an old burnt-out pine,

there was hanging the boot of an Austrian infantryman with a piece of shin-
bone.
The second description is a humorous and grotesque one, demon
strating typically Hasek's sense for contrast, his bias toward absurdity
and blasphemy, too; it contains a description of a field altar:
Opatřen rvavymi barvami, vypadal zdáli jako barevné tabule urcené pro
zkoumání daltonistû na zelezné dráze.
Vynikala jen jediná figura. Nĕjaky nahy clovĕk se svatozáří a nazelenalym
třlem jako biskup husy, která uz zapáchá a je v rozkladu.
Tomu svatému nikdo nic nedĕlal. Naopak, mĕl po obou stranách dva
křídlaté tvory, kteří mĕli znázornovat andëly. Ale divák mel dojem, ze ten svaty
nahy řve hruzou nad tou spolecnosti, která ho obklopuje. Ándele vypadali totiz
jako pohádkové přísery,  mezi okřídlenou divokou kočkou a apokalyp-
tickou přiserou.
Protĕjskem  nëmu byl obrázek, ktery mei znázornovat trojici bozí. Na
holubici, celkern vzato, nemohl malíř niceho zkazit. Namaloval nĕjakého ptáka,
ktery mohl byt stejnĕ holubici jako slepicí bílych wyandotek.
Zato vsak buh otec vypadal jako loupezník Divokého západu, kterého
predstavuje obecenstvu film nëjakého napínavého krváku.
Syn bozí byl naproti tomu vesely mlady muz s pëknym břískem, zahalenym
nĕcím, co vypadalo jako plavky. Celek dĕlal dojem sportsmana. Kříz, ktery mĕi
v ruce, drzel s takovou elegancí, jako kdyby to byla tenisová raketa.
Z dálky vsak to vsechno splyvalo a cinilo dojem, že vlak vjíždí do nádraží.
Painted in screaming colours it appeared from a distance like a coloured
chart intended for testing colour-blind railway workers. One figure stood out
prominently - a naked man with a halo and a body which was turning green,
like the parson's nose of a goose which has begun to rot and is already stinking.
No one was doing anything to this saint. On the contrary, he had on both sides
of him two winged creatures which were supposed to represent angels. But
anyone looking at them had the impression that this holy naked man was
shrieking with horror at the company around him, for the angels looked like
fairy-tale monsters and were across between a winged wild cat and the beast of
the apocalypse.
Opposite this was a picture which was meant to represent the Holy Trinity.
By and large the painter had been unable to ruin the dove. He had painted a
kind of bird which could equally well have been a pigeon or a White Wyandotte.
God the Father looked like a bandit from the Wild West served up to the public
in an American film thriller.
HAŠEK'S NOVEL 'THE GOOD SOLDIER ŠVEJK" 229
The Son of God on the other hand was a gay young man with a handsome
stomach draped in something that looked like bathing drawers. Altogether he
looked a sporting type. The cross which he had in his hand he held as elegantly
as if it had been a tennis racquet.
Seen from afar, however, all these details ran into each other and gave the
impression of a train going into a station.
In the third fragment the author relates a "dramatic" action, in a
very simple and objective way.
Svejk odzátkoval láhev, přiložil  ústum a hlt za hltem se ztrácel v jeho
hrdle. Porucik Dub zkamenël. Svejk před jeho ocima vypil celou láhev, aniz by
hnul brvami, a prázdnou láhev hodil přes ulici do rybníka, odplivl si a řekl, jako
by byl vypil sklenicku minerální vody:"Poslusnë hlásím, pane lajtnant, že ta
voda mĕla vopravdu železitou příchut'. ...".
Svejk uncorked the bottle, put it to his lips, and gulp by gulp it disappeared
down his throat. Lieutenant Dub stiffened. Svejk drank the whole bottle before
his eyes without batting an eyelid and threw away the empty bottle across the
road into the pond. Then he spat and said, as though he had drunk a glass of
mineral water:"Humbly report, sir, that water really had a taste of iron. ...".
Hasek's dislike for nominalizations and a condensed sentence

structure in general, leads in the text parts with direct speech of the
characters - strictly speaking, in Svejk's telling stories of people's trou
bles - into an extreme (which only underscores the above mentioned
dichotomy): narrations in direct speech have a very loose syntactic as
well as thematic structure, they are lengthy, loquacious, long-tongued,
nearly limitless.
2.2. Thus we have arrived at the linguistic character of the direct speech
(talks) of particular characters. From the point of view of translation,
at least three aspects of these talks should be distinguished: (1) The
overall character of the language (grammar and vocabulary) used in
them, (2) the vulgarisms (coarse speech), (3) their syntactic make-up.
2.2.1. The well-known Czech publicist J. Fucik speaks about
Hasek's "canonization of popular Czech". But Hasek's near friend Fr.
Langer (a noted writer, esp. playwright) maintains, with more precision,
that Hasek's"popular Czech"corresponds to the Prague variety: Hasek
was born in Prague and lived there for the most part of his life and this
variety was his language in every day discourse since his childhood. 2
230 FRANTTŠEK DANEŠ
If we want to estimate rightly Hasek's contribution in this respect

and come to a deeper understanding of this aspect of his novel, we have
to take into account two moments. First, the entire sociolinguistic
situation of Czech in Hasek's period, and second, the Czech tradition
of the employment of substandard, Common Czech linguistic forms in
literature.
2.2.1.1. The Czech linguistic situation at the beginning of the 20th
century (and even of the present time) is characterized by a dialectical
tension between the (traditional) Standard Language (SL) and the
language of current everyday conversation. In the region of Bohemia,
the dialectal differences are to a high degree nivelized and a - relatively
uniform - interdialect, called Common Czech (CC) has developed. The
differences between CC and SL are - roughly speaking - most conspi
cuous in phonology and morphology, less in vocabulary and syntax.
Both varieties partly overlap. In natural informal conversation people
do not use SL, or more precisely, they often use CC intermixed with
some SL-forms. This situation, in which SL lacks the function of
colloquial language and is largely substituted by another, non-standard
variety (namely by CC), may be characterized by Ferguson's label
"diglossia". The second translator of "Svejk" into English, C. Parrott,
who lived for six years in Prague, truly states:"The use of Common
Czech in Bohemia and Moravia is by no means confined to the unedu
cated. The Czechs are a democratic people and when they get together
and let their hair down, whether they are educated or not, they speak
a more or less common vernacular"(1973, XX).
Further, in the period when the Czech countries belonged to the
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the Czech language was under consider
able influence of German (i.e., until the year 1918) and many German
expressions infiltrated into colloquial Czech, esp. in towns, where the
Czech-German bilingualism existed to a great extent. Such expressions
as pucovat, sekyrovat, fasovat, mit recht, rynk, flaska, luftovat, kelner,
fusekle, lajntuch etc. (German: putzen, sekkieren, fassen, recht haben,
Ring, Flasche, lüften, Kellner, Fusssackel, Leintuch) were common in
Hasek's time, esp. in Prague (and may be heared even now, though
experienced as low substandard expressions).
Moreover, in "Svejk" another, special, category of German expres
sions apears, namely those words and phrases used in the language of
command and that of the army in general, some of which were distort-
ed, in army slang, by Czech mispronunciation;3 "this adds a peculiar

colour and humor to the language" (as C. Parrott aptly remarked).
They play, of course, an important role in a war novel.
All these three components represent a hard nut for any translator,
to be sure. The particular solution of this problem depends mainly on
two circumstances, on the type and sociolinguistic situation of the given
target language and on the personal translator's opinion about the
possibilities and appropriateness of this or that solution (in view of the
literary tradition).
Thus as for the German expressions, an entirely "true" translation
would be possible in the case of languages with a fate more or less
identical with Czech (say, e.g., in Slovenian); an equivalent translation
would be possible in a language with a similar fate, in which, however,
the role of German was played by another "foreign" language. Natur
ally, the German, English or French translations have to dispense with
it. (Thus the (quasi-)German expressions of military commands remain
German (in their correct form) in the German translation, but are
translated into English in the English version.)
As for the Praguian Common Czech forms, even here the transla
tion possibilities differ with different languages, according to their
linguistic situation, especially the position of colloquial language in the
inner functional differentiation of the given target language. Of course,
in no language will this position be equivalent to the Czech situation
and any solution the translator will choose inevitably will represent a
distorting transposition. Analogical translational situations are not rare
(esp. in connection with dialects or slangs) and roughly speaking they
may be solved in two opposite manners, both of them having their
advantages and disadvantages.
The translator of the second English translation of "Svejk" decid
ed to use colloquial English (colourless, in this situation, to be sure). His
argument for this decision is typical and reads as follows: "This Com
mon Czech vernacular cannot be adequately rendered in English, since
the only thinkable equivalent would be dialect or bad English. Either
would be false and out of place in this context. We also have to
remember that the action is taking place during the First World War in
the Austro-Hungarian Empire among Czechs and it will create a wrong
atmosphere if the language used in the English translation is associated
with people and conditions of a very different kind"(1973, XX).
In fact, however, "a wrong atmosphere" will of necessity be created

by any translation. By using a local dialect or so, the translator only
heightens this inevitable "wrongness", but at the same time his transla
tion will retain much of the colour and attractiveness, and even some
semantic and pragmatic effects. This concedes even C. Parrott: "Much
of the charm of Svejk's narration lies in his use of Common Czech"
(ibid.).
It will not be out of place to remember, in this connection, the lively
discussion provoked by the Czech translation of J. Steinbeck's novel "The
Grapes of Wrath" in the forties and fifties. The translator, V. Procházka, rightly
found out that Steinbeck's use of Oklahoma dialect by certain characters, in
contradistinction to Standard English and non-dialectal colloquial English of
others, belongs to the fundamental components of the novel and, therefore,
ought to be rendered, in a way, in its translation. He chose the dialect of Eastern
Bohemia (having good literary tradition) with some ingredients of Praguian
Common Czech, imitating thus the impact of the city speech on the speech of
"Okies". Thus "a kind of language amalgam came into being, an artificial
colloquial speech, created especially for the sake of the translation of The
Grapes of Wrath'." (1958, 548). - It is also interesting that the arguments
against Procházka's solution raised in the discussion were, in principle, similar
to the above quoted argument of C. Parrott.
2.2.1.2. Now I shall shortly comment on the employment of Com

mon Czech in literature and the contribution of "The Good Soldier
Svejk" to the development of this aspect in Czech literature.
Whereas the local dialects of the whole area of the Czech language
(some of them distinctly differing from Standard Czech) had found
their place in the realistic prose and drama as early as in the second half
of the 19th century, Common Czech (representing then mainly the
speech of town population, esp. in industrial districts) had been making
its way into literature with difficulties, being not favoured by literary
criticism. According to K. Hausenblas (1969), the first literary work in
which a good deal of Common Czech occurred was a naturalistic novel
by K.M. Capek-Chod from 1895, but as a rara avis for a time only.
What is important is the fact that in the bulk of Hasek's satirical short
stories from the prewar period, Common Czech played no important
role; and this statement holds good even for the five chapters about the
good soldier Svejk, published in satirical journals Karikatury and Dobrá
 in 1911. Comparing this "primeval" Svejk with the famous postwar
novel, we ascertain, at first sight, an essential difference: not only the

amount of direct speech is considerably lower than in the novel (the
author had preferred indirect speech) and the famous Svejk's narrations
from the history of people's troubles are totally missing there, but Svejk
is speaking the Standard Language with an admixture of colloquial
elements and does not use Common Czech and vulgarisms at all!
We may conclude that the development of Hasek's employ
ment of the linguistic material from CC in the postwar novel is to be
appreciated as a phenomenon of a pioneering character. In the prose
and drama of the following period, the use of CC and city substandard
appeared only diffidently and cautiously with particular authors (e.g. in
E. Vachek's novel Bidylko (1927), in direct speech of characters from
Prague outskirts and the lower world). Many such works, which had
then met with an opposition of a part of the public and of some critics,
appear very moderate to the present-day reader. Fr. Langer, whose plays
also belong to this class, characterized at last (in the letter from 1954)
his linguistic achievements as follows: "I myself have brought the
popular language on to the stage to such an extent that colloquial
Czech has become the Czech stage language proper, in which vulgar
forms occur sporadicaly, as mere accents".
2.2.2. Special attention should be paid to vulgarisms in the talks of
Svejk and of some other characters. Of course, it much depends on the
semantic interpretation of the label vulgarism: What appears as a vulgar
expression to one person or a group, need not appear so to some other
person or group, and what was estimated as vulgar and shocking in the
past, may be felt as an acceptable colloquialism today. In any case
Hasek's vulgar expressions do not belong to the class of the most
scurrilous vulgarisms. Many of them will be used by ordinary people
(and not by them only) quite normally in the informal or familiar types
of communication, often without emotional colouring (and by people
with less informal behaviour in highly emotional situations). And it
should be stressed that Hasek is never obscene or lascivious. (In his
letter, Fr. Langer even expressed doubts whether that scene from Part
I of the novel in which Svejk reports that he had six times fulfilled the
wishes of Mrs. Katy was really written by Hasek himself. I have only to
add that this passage actually occurs in the manuscript, undoubtedly
written in Hasek's hand.) Hasek himself motivated his use of "strong
expressions" as follows: "Everyone speaks the way he is made. (...)
234 FRANTIŠEK DANES
Where it is necessary to use a strong expression which was actually said,

I am not ashamed of reproducing it exactly as it was. (...) In using few
strong expressions in my book I have done nothing more than affirm in
passing how people actually talk". He regarded his novel "a historical
picture of a certain period of time" (Epilogue, p. 214). It is also telling
that he characterized the coarse manner in which Palivec used to
express himself as "a simple and honest way" (ibid., 215). - In short,
everybody knows how people, for the most part, really speak in their
everyday life; but many readers may feel ashamed or shocked to hear
it in a polite society or to read it on paper.
From the standpoint of the development of literary structure in
general, it would be possible to ascertain schematically 3 stages con
cerning the social/literary norms, etiquettes, conventions or taboos
regulating the use of "vulgarisms" in a broad sense, linguistic as well as
"factual":
(1) Certain phenomena (things, actions, behaviour) are in no case
allowed to be even mentioned, pointed at, or named, directly or in
directly.
(2) Certain phenomena are allowed (a) to be mentioned only
indirectly, never directly named or described, (b) to be named or des
cribed by means of the "standard", "neutral technical" or "decent
familiar" terminology only. This means that there exist certain words or
ways of expression that are under taboo in literature.
(3) There are no literary taboos at all, neither factual, nor linguis
tic; nothing is forbidden, the author is allowed to write about anything
and name or describe it by any linguistic device. Only the amount of
these phenomena and their expressions will be under certain conven
tions. What appears to be socially relevant is the overall ethical sense,
moral purport and message of the work of literature.
In the Epilogue to Part I Hasek wrote: "Years ago I read a criticism
of a novellette, in which the critic was furious because the author had.
written: 'He blew his nose and wiped it'. He said that it went against
everything beautiful and exalted which literature should give the na
tions". Hasek himself was convinced that "a man who is well brought-
up may read anything". A better illustration of the above thesis of the
three stages can be hardly imagined.
Consequently, an attempt to expurgate or improve Hasek's novel
in translations by means of a kind of smoothing, polishing or deleting
the vulgarisms goes counter the author's very intentions. Nevertheless,

there exist such translations, inter alia also the first (abridged) English
version, which Parrott (1973, XXI) aptly characterized as an "unbowd-
lerized version". - Even though the present-day literature finds itself
straight in the third stage, this fact does not mean that this freedom
would be practised by all authors and accepted by all readers or critics.
We have to distinguish between three autonomous (though not indepen
dent) spheres: objectively existing set of literary norms, inherent in the
bulk of existing literature; attitudes, opinions and tastes of particular
critics, reflected in their only partially objective judgements; varying
acceptance by individual readers or groups of them, conditioned by a
number of different individual and social factors. These three spheres
interact and in many cases interfere. The value pattern and the system
of conventions is never unified for the whole of a society and it is even
less so where there are differences between particular societies. Conse
quently, the situation of the translator is in all cases complicated and
there is no generally valid recipe how to solve this situation.
Thus even the author of the above mentioned novel "The Grapes of
Wrath" had to explain and defend the coarse language of some of its characters.
In a letter (published in The Atlantic Monthly) Steinbeck writes that it does not
matter that the speech of working people may seem to the members of ladies'
clubs too juicy. A working man robbed of the so-called vulgarities in speech -
is a mute man. - Does not this creed of Steinbeck sound like a paraphrase of
Hasek's Epilogue?
There are some complications connected with the translation of
vulgarisms, ensuing from the fact that particular languages differ in the
richness of inventory of vulgarisms and in their type and character, esp.
in the domain of words of abuse. Thus in popular opinion, the Hun
garian language possesses a very rich and varied inventory of such
names and phrases, in most part not to be found in dictionaries, to be
sure; a small sample of it appears even in Hasek's novel, in the speech
of Mr. Kákonyi. On the other hand, English belongs to languages with
a relatively poor and little diversified inventory. It is worthwhile to
quote here the interesting findings of Parrott (1973, XXI):"In common
with other Slavic languages and with German, Czech can boast a wide
range of words of abuse in all shades of intensity. We cannot match
these in Britain, where - no doubt under the influence of puritanism -
the bulk of our terms ... are too mild and our strong expressions are
limited to one or two hackneyed obscenities. Czech words of abuse

generally involve domestic animals, excrement or the parts of the body
connected with it. The English relate mainly to sexual functions or
perversions, although there is in this respect a narrow area of common
ground between the two languages".
2.2.3. Now let us switch to some syntactic and textual phenomena
of direct speech (talks).
2.2.3.1. Firstly, Hasek excellently mastered the art how to charac
terize the individual characters by means of their way of speaking. Fr.
Langer truly stated that their speech represents far more better charac
teristics than anything else that the author tells about them. The charac
ters are constructed by means of their speech, of their capacity of
expression, of imagination, of the social level of their speech, etc. - I
shall adduce two examples, at least:
The speech of the one-year volunteer Marek reflects his status of en
eloquent young intellectual. It is a combination of colloquial standard
with its well articulated syntax and of the ingredients of two antithetical
spheres: on the one hand intellectual expressions, on the other emotive
vulgarisms. Two classical examples: "Pycha pfedchází pád. Vsechna sláva
polní tráva. Ikarus si spálil krídla. Clovëk by chtĕl byt gigantem - a je
hovno, kamaráde." // "Pride goes before a fall. All flesh is grass and all
the glory of man as theflowerof grass. Icarus burnt his wings. Man would
like to be a giant - and he's nothing but a shit, old man." - "Znás poucku,
ze úhel dopadu rovná se úhlu odrazu?  jedno tĕ prosim: Naznac a dej
mnë pevny bod ve vesmíru a vyzdvihnu celou zem i s tebou, nádivo! "
// "You know the law that the angle of incidence equals the angle of
reflection? I only ask you one thing: Show me and give me a firm point
in the universe and I'll lift up the world with you in it, you conceited
oaf."(The option of the English "bad word" conceited oaf shows the
difficulty, or impossibility to find out a perfect equivalent: between con
ceited oaf 'and nádivo there is a rough semantic equivalence, but the Czech
expression appears to be less vulgar and strong.) Marek's character, with
his inner disunity, resembles somewhat the author himself.
Another masterpiece of the characterization by means of speech is
the religious sermon of chaplain Katz, exhorting the prisoners. His
speech has two linguo-stylistic layers, one of the religious exhortation
(with its stereotypical phrases), the other of the officer's typical way of
abuse and insult. Two short examples will suffice: "Trnitá cesta hříchu
je, vy kluci pitomí, cesta boje s neřestmi" //"The thorny path of sin, you
bloody half-wits, is the path against vice". - "Pusfte se, krucifix, do
hledání boha, a vsi si hledejte doma" // "For Christ's sake, get on with
searching for God, and do your searching for lice at home". This
curious combination is very persuasive and shows, again, the inner
antinomical character of Hasek's work.
Though the just mentioned phenomena are not connected with
substantia] translational problems, in any case they should not be
overlooked or neglected in the target text.
2.2.3.2. Another outstanding property of direct talks may be seen
in their syntactic-textual as well as thematic make-up; most conspi
cuously in Svejk's famous narrations. The most characteristic feature is
their naturalness and idiomacity, i.e., their striking similarity to the way
ordinary people converse and narrate. We have to assume - and this
assumption will be attested by Hasek's old personal friends - that Hasek
had an extraordinary powerful auditory memory for speech and re
tained in it "certainly hundreds, may be thousands of locutions and the
whole cadence of popular speech" (Fr. Langer). Syntactic structure,
word order, the mode of building up text, and esp. rhythmical arrange
ment appear very authentic; such a discourse very easily lends itself to
being read aloud.
I shall adduce three distinct types of such narrative discourses:
(1) Discourse with an agglutinative syntactic structure, in which
individual sentences (simple ones, or sometimes with one or two subor
dinate clauses of an elementary character - what, that, when, because)
will be adjoined by means of the coordinative conjunction a (and) or
simply juxtaposed, nearly without limits. - Let us add that in Czech
recent literature there exists even a whole short story written in a similar
manner, i.e., styled as one extremely long "maxi-sentence" (94 pages),
with punctuation marks, but with no full stops (and capital letters),
ending with a string of three stops: B. Hrabal's "Tanecní hodiny pro
starsi a pokrocilé" (Dancing lessons for elderly and advanced couples).4
An example of Svejk's talks:
"... Vohlédli jsme se vsichni, a ten pán s tou bradou sel k mariñákovi a dal
mu facku a mariñák mu rozbil hlavu flaskou od piva a ten bradatej pán se svalil
a zustal lezet bez sebe a s mariñákem jsme se rozloucili, ponĕvadz hned vodesel,
kdyz vidĕi, ze ho přizabil. ..."
"... We all looked round and that man with the beard went up to the sailor
and slapped his face. The sailor then broke his head with a beer bottle and the
bearded gentleman fell down and lay unconscious. We said goodbye to that
sailor, because he went away at once when he saw he had very nearly slain the
man. ..."
"... Wir ham uns alle umgedreht, und der Herr mit dem Kinn is zu dem von
der Marine gegangen und hat ihm eine Watschen gegeben, und der von der
Marine hat ihm den Kopf mit einer Bierflasche zerdroschen, und der Herr mit
dem Kinn is umgefalln und bewusstlos liegengeblieben, und von dem von der
Marine hamr uns empfohlen, weil er gleich weggegangen is, wie er gesehn hat,
dass er ihn so bissert erschlagen hat ..."5
The German translation is evidently closer to the Czech original
than the English one: it uses a lower substandard of vocabulary and of
the sound forms of morphemes, and its syntactic structure is very close
to the Czech version. In the English version, the long series of sentences
has been divided into two syntactically independent sentence wholes.
The translator did it on purpose (and not only in this place) and offered
a justification of his decision: "It is characteristic of Svejk's telling a
story that he does not bother about syntax. This of course is an
indication of his mentality and a part of his character, but it is also a
reflection of the author's disregard of grammatical rules. In translating
Svejk's lengthy anecdotes it has been found necessary to break up some
of his sentences so that the reader can understand their drift and get the
point of the story "(Parrott, 1973, XXI).
Unfortunately I do not find his thesis convincing. Certainly, Svejk's
lengthy "periods" are full of different deviations from the school syntax
and stylistics that are based on smooth, elaborated written text and not
on the material of naturally spoken discourse, esp. not of discourse by
people of Svejk's nature, status and situation. But even the natural
discourse of educated people in normal situations (sometimes also in
discussions of experts) is controlled by specific "loose" rules of syntax
and text construction, not yet fully described. Not being a native
speaker of English I cannot definitely judge whether the retaining of
Hasek's lengthy strings of sentences would hamper their comprehen
sion by English readers. But as for Czech readers, at least, I never heard
anybody complain that he could not "understand their drift and get the
point of the story".
Let us once more refer to a practical expert familiar with the ways
of creating literature, Fr. Langer. According to him, Svejk's talks reflect
a situation in which the speaker is speaking without any inhibition."Of

ten we meet with such a talkativeness that sticks together only because
Hasek has stopped the distancing from standard syntax just at that
point where it would dissolve, become slushy and pour out as dough.
All this will be always controlled by the author, who feels the expressive
potencies of the speech and even within the frame of this colloquial style
he chooses quite accurate words, idioms, metaphors, cadence, to im
prove its expressive power. But all this is stored in him, in his memory
and usage, so that we never notice that his direct speech is controlled
and directed by him and that he does not allow - not in all cases, though
- to be drifted by it".
(2) Series of sentences similar to (1) will often be supplemented by
various parenthetical or other additions or supplements; they have
mostly the grammatical form of a subordinated clause. This way of
expression is typical of folk narrators.
An example:
"Nejlepsí by bylo, pane obrlajtnant" řekl Svejk,"kdyby ten její muz, od kteryho
utekla a ktery ji hledá, jak jste říkal, ze je v torn psaní, ktery jsem vám pfines,
vëdël  torn, kde je, aby si pro ni pfijel."
"It would be best, sir" said Svejk, "if her husband, who she's run away
from and who's looking for her, as you said was stated in the letter which I
brought you, got to know where she was and came to fetch her away."
(In this case the English translator did not hesitate to retain the loose
syntactic structure of the original version.)
(3) Multiple discourse, i.e. direct speech with an indirect (reported)
speech embedded. In other words, such instances where a narrator in
his direct speech is reporting - in the form of an indirect speech - what
another person had said.
An example:
"... Ten pan Karlík zacal na nëj zbytecnë rvát, ze mu prece říkal, ze si ji
nesmi vzit, ze mu ji nedá, ale von mu docela správnë vodpovëdël, ze si ji taky
neveme, a tenkrát ze nebyla vo torn zádná reč, co s ní muze dĕlat. Ze se vo torn
nejednalo, von ze drzí slovo, aby byli bez starosti, ze von jí nechce, ze je
charakter, ze není kam vítr tam plást' a ze drzí slovo, ze kdyz nĕco řekne, ze je
to svaty. A jestli bude kvuli tomu pronásledovanej, tak že si z toho taky nic
nedëlá, ponëvadž má svëdomi cisty a jeho nebožka maminka jestë na smrtelny
posteli ho zapfisahala, aby nikdy v zivotë nelhal, a von ze ji to slíbil rukou dáním
240 FRANTIŠEK DANES
a taková přísaha ze je platná. V jeho rodinĕ že vubec nikdo nelhal a von mĕl taky
vždycky ve skole z mravnyho chování nejlepsí známku. Tedy tady vidíte, ze se
leccos nesmí, ale muže, a že cesty mužou byti rozlicné, jenom vuli mĕjme vsichni
rovnou."
"... Then Mr Karlík started shouting at him quite gratuitously that he'd
told him that he must not marry her and that he wouldn't give her to him, but
Mr Mikes answered quite correctly that he was not going to marry her and that
at that time they had never discussed what he could do with her. There had been
no bargaining about that. He would keep his word and they shouldn't worry as
he wouldn't marry her. He was a man of character and not a straw in the wind.
He would keep his word because when he said something it was sacred. And if
he were persecuted for it it wouldn't matter to him because he had a clean
conscience. His late mamma on her very death-bed had asked him to swear that
he would never tell a lie in his life, and he had given her his hand of honour in
promise and an oath like that was a valid one. In his family no one at all had
told lies, and at school he had always had the best marks for moral conduct.
And so you can see from that that lots of things aren't allowed but yet can be
done, and that 'though our ways may be different, let our endeavours be the
same'."
"... Der Herr Karlík hat angefangen, überflüssing auf ihn zu brülln, dass
er ihm doch gesagt, dass er sich sie nicht nehmen darf, dass er ihm sie nicht gibt,
aber er hat ihm ganz richtig geantwortet, dass er sich sie auch nicht nehmen
wird und dass damals keine Rede davon war, was er mit ihr machen kann. Dass
sichs nicht drum gehandelt hat, und er, dass er Wort hält, sie solln ohne Sorge
sein, dass er sie nicht will, dass er ein Charakter is, dass er nicht is wie ein
Strohhalm im Wind und dass er Wort hält, dass, wenn er etwas sagt, so is es
heilig. ..."
This is an unusually complicated piece of talk. In it the narrator (N,
Svejk) of the whole direct speech (representing here a frame) is report
ing about a dialogue of two other speakers (S 1 , S2, Mr Karlik and Mr
Mikes); the reported speech of S2, in essence a long sequence of že/that-
clauses, is divided, in the Czech original, into three subsequences,
formally functioning as three utterance wholes (though not grammatic
ally independent sentences); in the print they are divided by means of
full stops, which would be rendered in an oral reproduction of the text
by means of a conclusive intonation cadence with a pause. The switch
from S1 to S 2 is not signalled in a fully distinctive, explicit way, though
on the whole sufficiently (cf. the next paragraph). The switch from S 2
back to N (whose talk function here as a narrative frame) is signalled
satisfactorily, by means of the phrase "Tedy tady vidíte"// "And so you

can see", contacting the audience and explicitly drawing a typically
Svejkian moral instruction from the related story. The linguistic and
stylistic features of this variety of Svejk's talk are very typical of popular
narrations, of "the loose, free talk such as will be practiced in pubs over
a few glasses of beer" (Fr. Langer).
Comparing now the two translations with the Czech version, we see
that the German is much closer to the original, whereas in the English
translation we find several discrepancies. The most conspicuous of them
is the dissection of the reported speech of S2 into several independent
sentences, which wipes out the fluent current of Svejk's talk; in the
Czech version the articulation and coherence of the talk is mostly
established on the content (thematic) level, on the "underlying" phonic
level (intonation, etc.), as well as on some points of the wording.6 The
second interesting discrepancy is represented by the substitution of the
anaphoric pronoun von (he) by the name Mr Mikes. It is true that
von/he appears in the preceding co-text several times, referring once to
Karlík, the other time to Mikes: nevertheless, in the given place, in the
context "ale von mu ... vodpovëdël" // "but he answered", the switch of
the speakers is signalled by the conjunction ale/but and, more explicitly,
by the verb vodpovĕdĕl/answered, so that the substitution by he for Mr
Mikes appears to be superfluous. (By the way, the equivalent "shout
ing" in the first sentence is distinctly weaker than the Czech verb rvát
or German brülln; apparently one of the instance of "a certain monot
ony in the words chosen", mentioned by the translator on page XXI.)
2.3. There are several further, minor points that should not be
overlooked in the process of the translation of Hasek's chef-d'oeuvre.
At least two of them will be briefly discussed in this section.
2.3.1. Among typical stylistic devices rank, in the novel, comparison
and contrast; the text is teeming with them. Some of Hasek's com
parisons, often of a contrasting character, are succint and simple,
others, again, rich and extensive, but in all cases concrete, vivid, and
easy to comprehend.
An example of a comprehensive comparison:
Nejvíc vyvalené oči ze vsech mĕl nedozera Baloun.
 asi se dívají lidozrouti s laskominami a chtivostí, jak z misionáre,
peceného na rozni, tece tuk, vydávaje príjemnou vûni pri skvaření. Balounovi
bylo asi tak jako mlékafskému psu táhnoucímu vozík, kolem kterého nese
uzenarsky pomocnik na hlavë kos s cerstvymi uzenkami z udirny, pri cemz retëz
uzenek visi mu z kose po zádech, takze jen skocit a chñapnout, kdyby nebylo
toho protivného femení, do kterého je ten ubohy pes zapfazen, a mizerného
náhubku.
A jitrnicovy prejt, prodelávající první období zrození, jitrnicové ohromné
embryo na hromadë na vále vonĕlo peprem, mastnotou, játry.
A Jurajda s vykasanymi rukávy byl tak vážnym, že by mohl sloužit za
model  obrazu, jak bûh z chaosu tvorí zemëkouli.
The eyes which goggled most were those of the insatiable Baloun.
He had the same lustful and longing look as cannibals must have when they
see a missionary roast on a spit and the fat runs down and gives out a pleasant
smell when it is being fried. Baloun felt like a dog leading a milk-cart when a
boy from the delicatessen shop goes past with a basket of pieces of freshly
smoked meat on his head. A string of smoked sausages hangs out of the basket
over his back and the dog would jump and snap at it, were it not for the nasty
straps in which it is harnessed and its horrible muzzle.
The initial phase of the jitrnice was the preparation of the sausagemeat,
and here it lay on the baking board - an enormous embryo smelling of pepper,
fat and liver.
And Jurajda with his rolled-up sleeves was so solemn that he could have
served as a model for a painting of how God created the world from Chaos.
Die heisshungrigsten Augen von allen jedoch hatte Nimmersatt Baloun.
So etwa schauen Menschenfresser lüstern und begierig zu, wenn von einem
auf dem Rost gebratenen Missionär das Fett träufelt und beim Schmoren einen
angenehmen Duft ausströmt. Baloun war ungefähr so zumute wie ein Hund,
der einen Wagen mit Milch zieht und an dem ein Selcherlehrling mit einem
Korb voll frisch geräucherter Würste auf dem Kopf vorbeigeht. Aus dem Korb
baumelt eine Kette von Würsten auf seinen Rücken herab, man brauchte nur
nach ihnen zu springen und zu schnappen, wenn nicht der verfluchte Maulkorb
und das widerwärtige Riemenzeug wäre, in das der bedauernswerte Hund
eingespannt ist.
Und die Leberwurstfülle, die die erste Epoche ihrer Geburt durchlebte, ein
ungeheures Leberwurstembryo, ein grosser Haufen auf dem Hackbrett, roch
nach Pfeffer, Fett und Leber.
Jurajda hantierte mit aufgestülpten Armein so ernsthaft, dass er dem Bilde
Gottes, wie dieser aus dem Chaos die Erdkugel schafft, hätte zum Modell
dienen können.
The second paragraph of the English version shows one of the
translational difficulties or nearly the impossibility to find an equiva-
lent, due to the material differences between the two cultures. In this
respect the German translator is in a far more favourable situation.
A series of comparisons based on contrasts may be found in the
fragment presented above, containing the description of the altar pic
ture. The comparisons are chosen from very different spheres, the
contrasting phenomena belonging to totaly dissimilar areas of the
world: religious terminology is contrasting with everyday expressions.
Contrast in Hasek's novel appears throughout the text, often
combined with irony, sometimes in the frame of one short utterance
only; cf.:
"Muj bratranec byl tak št'astny, ze mu urízli ruku pod loket, a dnes má s
celou vojnou pokoj."
"... My cousin was so fortunate as to have his arm cutt off under the elbow
and today he has no trouble for the rest of the war."
"... Mein Vetter war so glücklich, dass man ihm den Arm bis untern
Ellbogen abgenommen hat, und heut hat er vorm Militär Ruh".
The stylistic trick of this irony verging on sarcasm, bringing forth
a sharply pointed antimilitary idea, consists in the use of an adjective
in a context inducing countersense, absurdity. (Let us add that adjec
tives are used by Hasek very often and with ingenuity; they carry a
heavy semantic load and sometimes contain the point of the story.)
In some cases the ironical interpretation is prompted only indirect
ly; the author reckons with the readers' common sense, their humanis
tic, antimilitary attitude. Cf. the following talkative demonstration by
Svejk of war enthusiasm, containing a list of cruel, nearly absurd war
happenings. It rests with the reader to detect the unsincerity, falsity, of
this demonstration and the lightly sarcastic subtext (with the aid of
co-text, to be sure).
"Já taky myslím, že je to moc hezky dát se probodnout bajonetem", rekl
Svejk, "a taky to není spatny dostat kouli do břicha a jestĕ pëknĕjsí, když clovëka
přerazí granát, a clovëk se kouká, že jeho nohy i s brichem jsou nëjak od nëho
vzdáleny, a je mu to tak divny, ze z toho umre dřiv, než mu to nëkdo muže
vysvĕtlit."
"I think that it's splendid to get oneself run through with a bayonet", said
Svejk,"and also that it's not bad to get a bullet in the stomach. It's even grander
when you're torn to pieces by a shell and you see that your legs and belly are
somehow remote from you. It's very funny and you die before anyone can
explain it to you."
(Again we witness in the English version the syntactic "normalization"

and the "pruning" of vocabulary and phraseology.)
2.3.2. In the text of Hasek's novel there appear shorter passages or
individual words or phrases in foreign languages: German (for the most
part), Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Latin, Tartar. This fact represents a
serious translation problem especially for a German translator. But
general difficulties are connected with talk delivered in "broken" lan
guages: broken Czech spoken by a German speaker, broken German
spoken by a Czech, broken Russian spoken by a Tartar and a Circas
sian. In principle there exist two different possibilities how to deal with
these facts: either to try to contrive analogical "broken speech" on the
basis of the target language, or to render the speech in the normal target
language and the "broken" character of the speech simply mention in
the form of a parenthetical explanatory note. (Even Hasek himself
made use of the second device, when commenting on the speech of a
sergeant-major with the words "mluvil misto rusky lámanou sloven-
cinou" (instead of Russian he spoke only broken Slovak, 672), or of a
member of the military secret police with the words "mluvil cesky s
polskym přízvukem"(the man spoke Czech with a Polish accent, 685);
in the latter case Hasek hinted at this fact by using, in the direct speech
of this character, a Polish adjective form penkneho instead of the Czech
form pëkného.
The English translator employed both of these possibilities. Thus,
e.g., broken Czech spoken by the German Baroness von Botzenheim
"Ja čist vsekno f nófiny, já vám psinest pápat, kousat, kurit, cúcat, cesky
fójak, toprá fójak. Johann, kommen Sie her!" has ingeniously been
rendered in English as "I reat eferyzing in ze newspapers, I brink you
yum, zomzink to bite, to skmoke, to zuck, Tschech zoldier, goot zoldier.
Johann, come here". (Unfortunately, a comment that the last sentence
was spoken in German, is lacking.) - In the case of broken Russian
spoken by a Circassian, the English translator used broken English,
with an inserted note that it was said "half in Russian". Similarly
Svejk's broken German has been rendered (366) in broken English and
commented on with an interpolated note "Svejk asked in broken Ger
man".
3. Our more or less cursory remarks on the translation problems of

Hasek's famous novel only attest and particularize what anyone ac-
quainted with this peculiar and ingenious literary achievement would

expect, namely that its translation appears as a really hard nut, anyway.
In conclusion I should like to emphasize at least three points. Firstly, in
"The Good Soldier Svejk", more than in a great majority of other
literary works, the differences between particular languages, their (so
cial) stratifications, along with cultural, historical and ethnical specifici
ties are highly involved, so that to find or contrive truthful translational
equivalents is in many instances extremely difficult and in part simply
impossible. Secondly, this being so, the translator is expected to have
acquired a more than commonly deep and extensive knowledge of both
languages, a "contrastive knowledge" of their systems and how they are
used, as well as the differential rules of text construction. No less
important appears the translator's analytical understanding of the
stylistic character and inner make-up of the source text. Moreover, he
has to know the position of the novel in the overall structure of Czech
literature and its historical development (including the readers' accept
ance) and to deliberately decide between different possible types of
(approaches to) the translation, in respect to the literary world of the
target language and the taste of the assumed public. And last but not
least, an adequate and successful translation of Hasek's novel presup
poses a very high degree of creative inventiveness and resourcefulness,
as well as plenty of painstaking effort.
"The Good Soldier Svejk" has been transposed into a great num
ber of languages, into some of them more than once. The translations
display different translational properties and qualities, different kinds
and degrees of translational equivalence. Some of them have retained
the specific expressive qualities of the Czech original to a great extent,
in others this peculiar charm and sometimes a keen "brushstroke" have
more or less been obscured. But regardless of the differences or partial
infidelities, this masterpiece will be widely accepted (and in some cases
also used as a pattern) all over the world not only for its overwhelming
humour, but also because it "conveys poignantly not only the ugliness
of war but the utter futility of anything connected with it" (as its
English translator very aptly stated on p. XVIII).
Notes
1 The present article is a thoroughly revised and enlarged version of a paper read at the
international symposium at Dobrís (1973), held in honour of the 50th anniversary of
Hasek's death. It makes use of some of the author's analytical findings published in
Danes (1954).
2 Here and further below reference is made to Langer's long letter written to the present
author in 1954, as a rejoinder to his study on Hasek's language and style (Danes, 1954).
3 The further fate of such expressions in Czech can be traced in studies written by
Oberpfalcer (1934), Rippl (1943), Nekvapil (1979b) and Penáz (1987). Concerning
problems connected with translating expressions of this sort see general remarks in
Nekvapil (1979a).
4 An old man tells the story of his life to a young girl. The author makes use of Common
Czech, with ingredients of some standard forms, in a way similar to Hasek's manner
(whose literary tradition he keeps up in several respects) as well as to the manner of
many other contemporary writers (and analogically to the habits of current everyday
Czech discourse). - In the postscript to his short story Hrabal, commenting on the
language of characters in the works of J. Steinbeck, E. Caldwell, W. Faulkner and some
others, "full of slang, argot and barbarisms", characterizes this trend interestingly as
"a shift of the language to its foundation", having been brought about "in a time, when
all the heavens tumbled down and the man and human society has been thrown upon
its own resources...". According to him, Hasek is "a vivid instance of the shifting
downward and thus in the direction to a certain sublimity", and Svejk "by means of
his discourse, acting as a magician, is disclosing the degenerated world and overthrows
it." (p. lOOf.).
5 The German version here and further below is quoted from G. Reiner's translation
(1960), the English version from Parrott's translation (1973). The German translation
was critically analyzed by Trost (1968).
6 The phonic phenomena certainly had been operative in the process of Hasek's writing.
And mostly even the reader connects in his mind the text with certain phonic proper
ties, prompted by the text. The English translator apparently relied rather on syntactic
and graphic devices.
References
DANES, F. (1954), Příspĕvek  poznání jazyka a slohu Haskovych sudu do-

brého vojáka Svejka (A Contribution to the Study of the Language and Style
of Hasek's Novel The Fortunes of the Good Soldier Svejk). Nase řeč, 37,
124-139.
HASEK, J. (1960), Die Abenteuer des braven Soldaten Schwejk während des
Weltkrieges. Gesamtausgabe in 2 Bänden. Übertr. von Grete Reiner. 4. Auf
lage. Berlin.
HASEK, J. (1973), The Good Soldier Svejk and His Fortunes in the World War.
A New and Unabridged Translation from the Czech by Cecil Parrott. Lon
don.
HAUSEN BLAS, . (1969), Cestina v dilech slovesného uméni (The Czech
Language in Literary Works). In: Kultura ceského jazyka, Liberec, 89-102.
HAUSENBLAS, . (1971), Vystavba jazykovych projevu a styl (The Structure
of Discourse and Style). Praha.
HRABAL, B. (1965), Autoruv doslov (The Author's Epilogue). In: B. Hrabal,
Tanecní hodiny pro starsi a pokrocilé (Dancing Lessons for Elderly and
Advanced Couples). Praha, 97-102.
NEKVAPIL, J. (1979a), Argot, autor, překladatel (On Translating Argot).
Svetová literatura, 24, No 5, 252-254.
NEKVAPIL, J. (1979b),  dnesnimu stavu vojenského slangu (On the Present-
Day State of Military Slang). Nase řec, 62, 130-141.
OBERPFALCER, F. (1934), Argot a slangy (Argot and Slang). In: Ceskosloven-
ská vlastivëda III (Jazyk). Praha, 311-375.
PARROTT, C. (1973), Introduction. In: J. Hasek, The Good Soldier Svejk...
Transl, by C. Parrott. London, VII-XXIL
PENAZ, P. (1987), Poznámky  cestinë ve vojenskémprostředí(Notes on Czech
in the Military Environment). Nase řec, 70, 131-140.
PROCHÁZKA, V. (1958), Doslov  novému vydání "Hroznù hnëvu" (Postcript
to the New Edition of 'The Grapes of Wrath"). In: J. Steinbeck, Hrozny
hnëvu. Transl, by V. Procházka. Praha, 541-552.
RIPPL, E. (1943), Die Soldatensprache der Deutschen in ehemaligen tschecho
slowakischen Heer. Liberec, Leipzig.
TROST, P. (1968), Zur deutschen Übersetzung des Hasekschen "Švejks". In:
Deutsch-tschechische Beziehungen im Bereich der Sprache und Kultur. Ber
lin, 47-49.
Conversion of "Key Words" of English Song Lyrics
into Czech
Jiří Nekvapil and Jiří Zeman
Some cultural phenomena are typical product of the ideo-political

and technical conditions of contemporary life.
it was not difficult, on the whole, for anyone living in Czechoslova
kia before 1989 to follow the latest developments in Western pop-music;
it was a matter of tuning in, for instance, to Luxembourg or - depending
on the area - watching Austrian or West German television. But apart
from rare exceptions, one was unable to go into a Czech shop and buy
a record of a song one had heard and liked. Western hits found their way
into Czech pop-music (and into record shops) mostly after having
undergone a certain process of assimilation: they were recorded by
various Czech singers and pop-groups, and most of the time they
acquired Czech (or Slovak) lyrics. As we shall see later, at the semiotic
level this can produce almost bizarre effects.
In this paper the authors will concentrate above all on investigating
the relation between the key words of the original lyric, in this case
chiefly English, and those of the target language, Czech.1
By "key words" (Cz. slogan) of a song is understood the verbal
expression of a specific musical motive, which often recurs throughout
the song and therefore is the focus of the listener's attention. It is in itself
an extract of the entire text and serves the lyricist as a core around
which to build his text. The key words may be identical with the title of
the song or the title may represent part of the key words.
The present analysis is concerned with the lyrics particularly from
"pop-music" - one of the dominant spheres of modern popular music.
CONVERSION OF "KEY WORDS" 249
1. The song as a specific semiotic heterogenous message

Before embarking upon a contrast of the sound and semantic
aspects of English and Czech key words, some simple remarks regard
ing the lyrics and the songs themselves should be made. In converting
the lyric of the source language (L1) into that of the target language
(L2), the relations owe their character to the specifity of the song as a
semiotic heterogenous message. The L2 lyric can often hardly be called
a translation or transformation2 of the lyric from L1 - especially when
its subject matter is looked into. This is evident from the manner in
which the action is usually described; it is seldom said that the lyricist
translated the original text, but rather that he "provided" the words for
the original melody. The frequent occurrence of this manner of conver
sion, which goes under the name of substitution, is made possible by the
fact that the song is a musico-verbal organization divisible into two
semiotic systems, the lyric and the music. The co-existence of the two
systems in the song is to a certain extent conditioned by some isomorph
ic elements of the music and the language (i.e. above all in the length of
the vowels, basic to which is tone, and further, pauses, stress, pitch
contour, and others).3 According to the nature of the song, one of the
systems can of course dominate. Consequently, in practice the lyricist is
obliged to respect the composition of the melody (this being elemen
tary) or, on the contrary, the composer must respect the composition of
the text (this being again elementary).
An important fact is that the two systems are divisible from each
other and can at times function autonomously. And this does happen:
there being only a musical presentation, i.e. without the words, as in
some evergreens (e.g., the Beatles songs) or, conversely, only verbal
presentation in some collections of lyrics by leading Czech lyricists (Jiří
Suchy, Pavel Kopta, Jirina Fikejzová). The potential for autonomy of
the two systems of the heterogenous message is also shown by the fact
that both literary and musical poetics employ this autonomous genre
(in the first place the verbal, in the second the musical) which is known
by the general term of 'song'.
We believe that the features described above establish the song as
a specific type of semiotic heterogenous message. It is also plain that
only in a few types of such a semiotic heterogenous message can the
degree of autonomy of this or that system be so high. For instance, a
250 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL AND JIŘÍ ZEMAN
painting may exist as a complete entity, but its co-existent verbal

component, its title, cannot as a rule attain an independent existence of
its own; taken by itself it cannot function as an autonomous artistic
reality. This is because its functional relation to the non-verbal com
ponent is much closer than that between the semiotic systems of the
musico-verbal song.4
What has been said above is of paramount importance in the
conversion of the verbal component of the semiotic heterogenous mes
sage. Whereas the message to be conveyed by a work in the visual arts
necessitates the actual translation of the verbal component (e.g. in an
illustrated publication or at an exhibition abroad), this necessity does
not arise with the verbal component of the message, the semiotic
systems of which have a high degree of autonomy - here substitution
suffices. The identification of the original semiotic heterogenous mes
sage is then made possible by the other autonomous system, in this case
the music - or more precisely, melody - which in principle is an invari
able.
There can be another attitude to this question of the transforma
tion (translation) or substitution of the lyrics. In analyzing a given kind
of song, it is important to approach it with two sets of meaning in mind:
a) discrete, i.e. meanings linked to a concrete language form (their linear
organization indicates to us the subject matter of the lyric); b) vague,
"mood forming", related to the musical structure. Where the musical
component predominates it is enough in the conversion into another
language that the L2 lyric be in harmony with the musical meanings.
These being vague, a number of lyrics of a very heterogenous content
may be in harmony with them. Such a case does not in principle require
that the subject matter of the L1 lyric should be transformed into L2;
here a substitution of the subject matter is enough.
2. Sound and meaning of key words in intertextual relations

We shall further consider only the verbal component of the song -
the lyric - and assume that the melody will remain unchanged in the
conversion of the song from L1 to L2 (This is valid only to a certain
extent, but it can be left aside.) This means that we shall be looking at
the lyrics - in this case English - in which we distinguish the sound and
the semantic organization, and Czech texts converted from the English,
which will also be divided into sound and semantic organization.
Between the semantic organization of the English and Czech lyrics we
can observe various kinds of relations from substitution to transforma
tion (translation).
When comparing texts, it is seen that in the majority of cases their
sound components differ. However, quite a notable number of Czech
lyrics can be found that have almost the same or somewhat similar
sounds as the English originals. It is remarkable that these sound
sequences, small in their range, occupy the same position in the align
ment of the words in both languages. Such sound sequences represent,
in fact, the key words of the song. It obviously follows that when the
same or very similar sounds occur in the lyrics of various languages
there will be in the majority of cases a divergence of meaning. (We do
not insist of course that the difference in meaning of the key words of
a lyric means that the Czech text cannot be a translation of the English;
cf. l.a, 3.a in Table 1.)
From the point of view of similarity of sound, the key words of
both English and Czech lyrics can be divided into three groups:
A. Where the sound sequence of the key words in Czech is very
similar to that of the original. This usually occurs where there is only
one key word: Original key words (OKW): When - Czech key words
(CKW): Ven [ven] (= Out)5; OKW: Misty - CKW: Misty [mksti] ( =
Here and there). Only rarely are multiple key words in the English lyric
converted into Czech in this way: OKW: Ain't She Sweet - CKW: Anci,
sviti [antSi svit,] ( = Annie, keep the light on). Understandably, here the
sound shapes of OKW and CKW are frequently similar only to a
certain extent, compare OKW: My Oh My - CKW: Máj je rnáj [ma:j je
ma:j] ( = May is May).
B. In this group we meet much more often with similarity of sound
only in the last word of OKW and CKW; the other sounds remain
distinct from one another: OKW: You Drive Me Crazy - CKW: (ze jsem
jen) Krejcí [3e sem jen krejtSi:] ( = That I'm just a tailor); OKW: It's a
Heartache - CKW: Jen se hádej [jen se ha:dej] ( = Go on, argue).
C. This group includes such cases where in the Czech lyric only the
quality of the English vowels is preserved, the quality of the consonants
only partly or not at all: OKW: Let Your Love Flow - CKW: Bĕz za svou
láskou [bjeS za svou la:skou] ( = Go to your love); OKW: Lady - CKW:
Nejsi [nejsi] (= You aren't).
We can now arrange the key words of English and Czech songs into
the following table according to the relations given above (see next page).
Table 1
English key words Relation Relation Czech k 252

between Czech between Czech
and English and English
key words lyrics
Za Psí b
1. a) In the Ghetto M: - S: - +
( = Beh
Jó, tresn
b) Jailer, Give Me Water M: - S: - -
Ah, whe
Nikdy n
2. a) You'll Never Walk Alone M: + S: - +
( = You
(Zluty)
b) The Yellow Rose of Texas M: + S: - -
sasu] ( =
3. a) Jessie M: - S: + + Kde jsi

JIRÍ NEKVAPIL AND JIRÍ ZEMAN
Anci, sv
b) Ain't She Sweet M: - S: + -
the ligh
4. a) Maria M: + S: + + Maria [
Klemen
b) Clementine M: + S: + -
tine)
The first column presents the examples of English key words (as it happens, also the titles
of the songs). In the second column the relation in meaning (M) and sound (S) between
the English and Czech key words is marked by + (presence of relation) or - (absence of
relation). The third column gives the relation between English and Czech lyrics: + means
that the lyric is a transformation (translation) of the English; - that the Czech lyric is a
substitution of the English. The fourth column presents examples of Czech key words
corresponding to the English key words in the first column.
This table shows clearly that Czech and English key words can be
divided into four groups according to their relation to each other:
(1) there is no relation, either in meaning or sound
(2) there is a relation in meaning, not in sound
(3) there is a relation in sound, not in meaning
(4) there is a relation both in meaning and sound. In practice this
is met with when the key word is:
(a) a proper name;6
(b) an interjection:7 OKW: Mein Tuut Tuut - CKW: Tútú [tu:tu:]
( = Toot, toot)
(c) a word used internationally: OKW: Mon ideal - CKW:
Muj ideál [mu:j idea:l] ( = My ideal)
(d) the original key word, or a citation, appearing in the Czech
lyrics.
The Czech lyrics given in all four groups represent either a trans
formation from the English lyric (sub-group a) or its substitution
(sub-group b).
The choice of possibilities from those above that the Czech lyricist
takes, when rendering the English lyric into Czech, depends on a number
of conditions: on his skill as a lyricist, on the type of music, on the singer
for whom the lyric is intended, and so on. For this reason, a lyric can be
transformed into Czech in several ways: the original key words (in this
case an English abbreviation) Y.M.C.A. = the Czech key words
1. Dávno te znám [da:vno t,e zna:m] (= I've known you long) (see
l.b),
2. Pásek mi dej [pa:sek mi dej] (== Give me the tape) (see 3.b).
From a semiotic point of view, most remarkable are those Czech key
words which are similar in sound (cf. ., . b).8
254 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL AND JIŘÍv ZEMAN
3. The reason for the imitation of sound of the

original lyric
This is of a three-fold nature, but clearly having a mutual effect:
(1) linguo-musical
(2) psychological
(3) socio-cultural
(1) The creation of the Czech lyricist is determined by the structure
of the original melody, that is, he is to a certain extent obliged to respect
the number of tones, their length, and the spacing of the main beats, etc.
His taking over the sound aspect of the original key words usually
means that it suits the confines laid down by the melody.
(2) The sound of the key words serves as a source of inspiration,
as the impulse for the semantic construction of the Czech lyric.
(3) Here the potential listener of the Czech version of the English
lyric is taken into account. As already mentioned, he is sometimes first
made familiar with the English original by means of radio, television or
records (for instance, at discotheques). It is not assumed that he is
always capable of understanding the meaning of the words of the
original lyric - this is difficult even for a student of English, indeed
sometimes even for a native speaker of English - but he is fully sensitive
to the frequently repeated sound sequence and this remains fixed in his
mind. (In regard to this it is possible, in agreement with Levy (1983), to
speak of the mnemotechnic function of the key words.) The Czech
lyricist can count on it and offer the Czech listener a very similar sound
sequence. Of course, this also carries with it great commercial profit.
It is also necessary to take into consideration the function of songs
in "pop-music". The question arises here as to whether the verbal
component has not taken second place in many of these songs; for
instance, there exists the opinion that they serve only as a sort of
back-drop. Naturally, the reaction of the Czech lyricist then is that he
is more likely to concentrate on the sound when converting the song.
4. Conclusions
From the broad spectrum of problems to do with modern popular
music, we have dealt only with some aspects of the lyric, most par
ticularly with those pertaining to the conversion of the key words of the
song. That this is indeed only one of a number of problems is confirmed

by the fact that in many songs key words do not appear at all, especially
in some genres such as cabaret or ballads. This indicates that the lyrics
in a song in various kinds of popular music are designated to serve
various functions.
The main incentive for this paper has been the linguistic theory of
translation. The authors have left aside factors such as cultural con
notation, interpretative norms (including the visual aspects) and the
psychology of the listeners of modern popular music. They may say, at
the risk of hyperbole, that their position throughout has been that of a
singer performing behind the curtain and without instrumental accom
paniment. Clearly, there is a pressing need to find a mutually interacting
connection between the factors described above and others.
The authors believe that this paper has shown the necessity for an
elaboration of the typology of semiotic heterogenous messages; linguis
tics should deal with at least those types comprising the verbal com
ponent; no theory of communication can afford to ignore any of these.9
Notes
1 It is our pleasure to thank one of the leading Czech lyricists, Jiřína Fikejzová, for her
stimulating comments in the first version of this paper. We are also grateful to David
Short for his remarks on the English translation of Czech key words.
2 Hausenblas (1971) speaks of translation as "transformation". In this sense we have
used the expressions to transform and transformation. As the opposite to transforma
tion, the present authors use the concept of substitution (see further). Both these
concepts are subordinated to the expressions conversion or convert. Transformation
and substitution are then two specific cases of conversion.
3 The hypothesis that can be pointed out here is that the existence of the functional
relationship between the lyric and its music is prior to the existence of verse without
music or music without verse (Jakobson, 1985).
4 A high degree of functional relationship could be exemplified by the message
"illustrated anecdote with subtitles", in other words, a cartoon.
5 In citing the key words of songs the authors use the abbreviations: OKW = original
(especially English) key words; CKW = the equivalent Czech key words. Square
brackets enclose the sound shape of CKW as heard in Czech recordings. OKW are
in each case the title of the song. Where the part of CKW is given in brackets, they
are meant to mark words corresponding to OKW, but which are not part of the title
of the Czech song. The data for the songs were taken from the Czech journals
Gramorevue and Melodie and then confirmed by listening to the records.
256 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL AND JIŘÍ ZEMAN
6 It does not mean, however, that proper names in the English key words also always
appear in the Czech key words; in some cases the English proper name is substituted
in the Czech lyric by general words: OKW: Jessie - CKW: Kde jsi [gde si] ( = Where
are you); OKW: Kansas City - CKW: Moje hity [moje hiti] ( = My hits).
7 In cases of b) and c) we have no English examples at hand and so Gèrman and French
examples are given. This, however, only serves to confirm the general validity of the
subject dealt with here.
8 As above, similarity of sound between key words taken over, for instance, from
French compositions can be exemplified: OKW: Je suis malade - CKW: To mam tak
ràda [to ma:m tak ra:da] ( = 1 like that so much); from German: OKW: Ich liebe die
Liebe - CKW: Když stráne jsou bilé [gdiS stra:n,e sou bi:le:] (= When the hillsides
are white). It is worth mentioning here, too, that sound imitation of key words can
also serve as a text-forming principle when transforming a Czech lyric into English
or any other target language. This is obvious in a number of Czech recordings
exported by the Czechoslovak company Artia, one example being: OKW: Kanagom
[kanagom] ( = Adhesive) and the English conversion, Can I Go.
9 This paper is a revised version of the article Sémiotiché poznámky ke vzniku ceskych
písñovych textu, published in Slovo a slovesnost, 48, 1987, 30-34.
References
HAUSENBLAS, K. (1971), Vystavba jazykovych projevu a styl (The Structure

JAKOBSON, R. (1985), Jazyk v otnosenii  drugim sistemam " komunikacii
(Language in Relation to Other Communication Systems). In: R. Jakobson,
Izbrannye raboty. Moskva, 319-330.
LEVY, J. (1983), Umëní překladu (The Art of Translation). Praha (2nd edition).
On the Concept of Language Culture
Alexandr Stich
Here we do not present a systematic descriptive account of lan

guage culture, but offer instead a brief sketch of some of the topical
problems revealed by the study of contemporary Czech language cul
ture and its development as part of the scientific study of language and
its practical socio-linguistic applications. On this point of epistemology
we may note with Lessing that correct problem-formulation proves to
be far more important and productive than a hasty effort to arrive at a
set of apodictically formulated theses whose tenability and adequacy for
all languages would still be largely dubious.
A retrospective view of the type of problems generally subsumed
under the cover-term 'language culture' reveals the fairly indeterminate
content of the term, the lack of clarity characterizing its delimitation
with regard to thematic areas which, though related to, are not coexten
sive with language culture. True, the referential vagueness of the term
has not obstructed theoretical exploration. Nor has the study of ap
plications been hampered in any appreciable way. But in the final
analysis the combined impact of all these circumstances could hardly
have produced a beneficial effect. Despite all these constraints language
culture did receive a certain amount of analytical attention and it must
be admitted that such analysis frequently produced good partial results.
This and the ensuing application of the principles of language culture
in actual communication practice are a natural corollary of the fact that
our concept of language culture is defined, at least in rough contour-
lines, by empirical, social and linguistic usage. Now which aspects
should we regard as crucial in our search for the distinctive features of
language culture?
Language (envisaged as a complex aggregate of systems, norms
and activities) is characterized - in relation to man and the community
258 ALEXANDR STICH
- primarily by its instrumental nature. The instrumental aspect of

language is evident both in mental activities and in communication
activities. At the same time, however, language - in its nature and modes
of existence - involves far more than mere instrumentality. A number of
other partial and secondary functions (largely exponential of 'parole')
meet today with general recognition.
Approaching language from the viewpoint of language culture, we
are of course interested in further characteristics. Man and the com
munity do not employ language solely for the performance of certain
mental and communication activities. For them, in actual fact, language
- functioning as an instrument of communication and a system of norms
- represents one of the objects of reality, a reality which is both objective
and subjective.1 In the absolute majority of cases language is perceived
and made an object of conscious reflection if it is apprehended by the
observing subject as a phenomenon existing outside the subject. Refor
mulated in simpler yet simplifying terms: man is able to bring close to
the threshold of his full consciousness largely those perceived features
of language that are connected with the speech activity of other users
of language - and less so (in fact only in relatively exceptional cases)
does he make his own mastery of language as a system and his own
speech activity the object of his fully conscious reflection. In other
words, language and speech are perceived and, to a certain extent, made
an object of conscious reflection by society, although such conscious
ness may at times acquire a somewhat illusory character.
Man (in his individuality and collectivity) outsteps the confines of
unbiassed observation and perception of language. In nearly all contin
gencies man in fact evaluates the phenomena observed. This is where we
come close to a theme that is intrinsically connected with the true
nature of language culture, for here we actually touch upon the very
roots and moorings of language culture. Language culture, viewed in
the totality of its development, reveals the fact that in it language is
somehow related to the sphere of axiology - the world of values. What
can ultimately be regarded as language culture emerges in a discernible
shape only where language is interpreted or envisaged as a value in its
own right, or where it is incorporated into a system of other values. At
the same time, it is irrelevant that for long centuries language culture
may have existed only in a rudimentary form, not yet emerging in the
shape of a fully crystallized theory possessing its own inner structural
pattern.
ON THE CONCEPT OF LANGUAGE CULTURE 259
A terminological note is necessary at this point to avoid the con

fusion and misunderstanding that terminological homonymy is likely to
generate. The term 'value', in the sense exemplified above, refers to
extra-linguistic values in the form identified, described and classified by
axiology representing an autonomous field of study. This sense is
distinct from that conveyed by the term 'linguistic value' (pertinent to
the theory of linguistic signs and their values as developed by Ferdinand
de Saussure - cf. his "valeur").2 Where the notion of linguistic value is
inspired by, and related to, political economy, we are confronted with
a phenomenon of internal linguistic relevance, with one of the con
stituents of the language system. In contrast, the values current in the
sphere of language culture are, linguistically speaking, extraneous val
ues, i.e. values related to language from the outside. True, both value-
types are interrelated (language can be ascribed certain external values,
i.e. it can be made the object of value-classification effected, in some
cases, according to the specific type of internal values of the sign
system). Nevertheless it is necessary to distinguish between the two
contingencies, since they involve phenomena that have an autonomous
existence and, at the same time, phenomena of different orders.
The concept of language culture as a field of axiological values and
axiological evaluations sui generis brings into focus yet another sub
stantial feature. The perception of language and the ascription of values
to language and to its constituent aspects are processes that rule out
unbiassed rationality, processes that have nothing to do with cool
analytical detachment. This is because the very system of axiological
values is intrinsically connected with human existence as something we
are interested in, something we experience emotionally, something that,
in fact, we apprehend as the epitome of our existence. What is evaluated
here becomes at the same time the object of human activity, a target of
deliberate human action. Language (in the broadest sense of the term)
thus becomes the object of human intervention, the object of specifically
conceived regulation. Man and society use language not as a matter of
course, not as a mere datum that is here simply to be used, but as
something open to influence, transformation or, vice versa, conserva
tion.
Now these two features are, I believe, distinctive of language
culture - namely that language is an object reflecting values, and a field
of evaluation; that it is an object of human activity working - now
260 ALEXANDR STICH
towards its transformation, now towards the forestallment of change. I

do not maintain that these two features would suffice for a complete
delimitation of the language-culture concept in the classical type of
definition, but if we try to express this notion at least in descriptive
terms, then the two features come first on the priority list.
Further implications are obvious. It is precisely in the sphere of
language culture that language appears to be a social phenomenon par
excellence. Language as a system and an instrument of communication
is a social fact in its own right. Now at this point an additional dimen
sion becomes obvious - language, consciously experienced, reflected,
evaluated and, in some way, manipulated, is drawn into the complex
interaction of social systems as one of their constituents.3 In this in
teraction, language is exposed to the impact of a wide variety of social
forces, their influence being either direct or mediated. The mediation
process is frequently so complex and involved that it may obscure the
original motivation and make its conscious apprehension and decoding
a formidable problem even for linguistics. Hence in language culture,
too, we have to count with situations that could perhaps best be
described as "false language awareness". In the welter of such relations,
language functions vis-à-vis axiologically substantiated social realities
not merely as a passive partner, is not merely influenced by such
realities, and does not merely reflect them passively, but in fact performs
an active role (language may, for example, help to create the stability of
social structures, anticipate transformations in the hierarchy of cultural
values, give shape to hitherto inarticulate socio-psychological and
ideological attitudes of specific; social groups, etc.). Finally, an analysis
of the development of language culture yields confirmatory evidence
that the processes in progress in the field of language culture could
merely signal the presence and operation of non-linguistic social proces
ses; that language may reveal totally different social realities (e.g. the
orthographic battles fought in Bohemia in the first half of the 19th
century seem to lack a rational purpose and, viewed in purely linguistic
terms, they may strike us as comic, but they emerge in a totally different
light, once we regard them as cryptograms of substantial changes and
reappraisals of the ideological and cultural sensibility).
Social phenomena in contact with language form a basically infi
nite set. They are as infinite as the concrete expressions of social
existence and social development. Nevertheless, for language culture,
some of them carry a weight and relevance that is particularly striking.

Without attempting to enumerate all such cases, let us quote some of
them here. What is at stake here is, obviously, the social structure of
society, its hierarchically differentiated pattern and the changes affect
ing such hierarchic patterning. Now, in contrast to the purely sociologi
cal approach, we recognize the relevance of inquiries into the type of
average attitude that members of different social groups adopt towards
language - i.e. the interest they have in language and the concern they
show for language (which are two different things), the kind of values
they attach to language. Furthermore, there are facts of ideological and
cultural import and - less distinctly, yet no less powerfully - facts of an
ethical, socio-psychological nature, facts associated with national econ
omy and technology, facts of social organization and management
(receiving increasing emphasis in the most recent period of our history),
etc.
If the theory of language culture is to cope with all such realities
efficiently, it must, of course, progress towards the very frontiers of
linguistics and venture out into fields, areas and territories that come
within the scope of disciplines which, studying the social phenomena in
question, can supply linguistics with reliable and exhaustive reports.
The theory of language culture can thus be shown to represent a field
of study maintaining close contacts not only with sociology, but also
with the theory of culture and axiology. To a certain extent, it is indeed
possible to envisage the theory of language culture as a specific area of
transition, mediating contact between these disciplines and linguistics,
although ultimately the theory of language culture is and remains
primarily a linguistic discipline.
For the sake of completeness, the following point deserves explicit
mention: the expression potential of language, too, may motivate activ
ity in the sphere of language culture. What we have in mind here is the
capacity and power of language to communicate all the shades and
nuances of the ideational wealth created by the users of language. This
factor, too, is not - as one might be tempted to believe - a matter of
internal linguistic relevance, but in fact displays a distinctly social
character since it is connected with all areas of human activity (cf. the
new requirements arising from the development of cybernetics, space
travel, etc. and their terminological coverage). Yet even such totally
rational requirements of verbal expression, giving impetus to activity in
262 ALEXANDR STICH
the sphere of language culture, frequently mobilize other sources of

motivation (e.g. the new terminology coined in response to such needs
is sometimes shaped by ethnic pressures, etc.).
Now considering the amount of emphasis we have placed on the
social nature and social moorings of language, perhaps it will not be
irrelevant to say a few words here about language culture seen in
relation to the individual. This relation is a fait accompli and one that
possesses primary psycho-anthropological relevance (cf. Karel Horá-
lek's thesis on the specific image that the standard literary language
acquires in the mind of the individual). Obviously, for the human
individual, language is never merely an instrument pure and simple,
even though his attitude may create an impression of indifference. Each
individual develops through language, language expresses his personal
ity, language epitomizes his human existence. Language helps to create
and express different human attitudes and horizons of human life. For
language culture - both as a social fact and a linguistic discipline - this
phenomenon acquires relevance only if attaining the status of a collec
tive social fact shared by the entire community, i.e. in cases where the
sum total of individual attitudes of the same type has acquired the force
and character of a social factor, or where an individual attitude exerts
an influence of such intensity and magnitude that it finally becomes
accepted by other individuals and is hence transformed into a supra-
individual attitude.4
A diachronic view of the social valence and sociological ramifica
tions of language culture reveals another important fact that may have
escaped our attention. The changing social reality in which language
exists and functions is paralleled by concurrent changes in the inner
content of the language-culture concept. It remains true to say that so
far we have tended towards a somewhat static view of language culture.
Language culture, the way we interpreted its existence, was somehow
reminiscent of a Platonic idea lacking definite anchorage in space and
time. However, once we apply the diachronic approach, the transforma
tions affecting language culture are very much in evidence. They can in
fact be recorded not only in the major sweeps of secular history, but also
in the alternation of remarkably short periods, during the lifetime of
individual generations and often within the span of a few decades. With
regard to the Czech scene, this fact is confirmed by a confrontation of
the first and the second generations of the National Revival, by a
confrontation of the situation prevailing in the period spanning the

1860s, 1880s and 1890s (the time when the value-hierarchy of linguo-
cultural attitudes experienced a thorough reversal). What's more, per
ceptible changes can be traced in the Czech language culture of the
moment, e.g. in the linguo-cultural attitudes and the linguistic usage of
the young and the middle-age generations - changes that are particular
ly conspicuous in specific strata of intellectuals, in their attitude towards
the standard language and its spoken form.
Language functioning and meeting with social application in the
dimensions of language culture becomes the frequent target of diver
gent or downright opposed strivings of different social groups. The
situation is further complicated by the fact that cutting across the social
stratification pattern are the distinctions setting apart different genera
tions.
Language culture integrated within the nexus of social relations -
sketched here in brief outline - is not confined to the sphere of standard
literary language (nor does this restriction apply to stylistic differentia
tion). Apparently each specific community reflects language, evaluates
language and attempts to regulate language. This applies both to the
closed rural community of the traditional type, where dialect is used,
and to the contemporary urban civilization and its complex group-
pattern. In the sphere of standard literary language, however, language
culture acquires further special qualities. This is because here more
significant values are ascribed to the community of which the language
is representative, and also because the values current here are more
specific (values connected with higher levels of the administrative and
cultural life of the national community as a whole). An additional
specificity of language culture in this particular sphere is its reliance
upon institutional structures (the oldest of which historically is the
school). A confrontation of the past with our age, however, reveals one
radical change: our age (the 20th century) has established language
culture on a substantially different basis in that it has intensified and
broadened the range of institutionalization. This trend is most pro
minent in the socialist countries, although the same process has oc
curred, with lesser prominence and intensity, elsewhere. Obviously, this
is being caused by the steadily increasing degree of complexity charac
terizing the functioning of social structures and by the all-pervasive
impact of standard literary communication which today (owing to
264 ALEXANDR STICH
social and technological changes) begins to affect the undifferentiated

totality of the language community. The consequences are both theore
tical and practical (cf. the emergence of entirely new strategies in
language policy, education, popularization, in the organization of such
activities, etc.)
Let us now briefly discuss the terminological aspect of the problem
area considered here. Strong emphasis on language culture has charac
terized linguistics since the very inception of the study of language. The
entire linguistic production of antiquity and the Middle Ages was to a
great extent motivated by prescriptive, regulative aspirations. This bias
was taken for granted to such an extent that no need was felt to give
such aspirations an explicit programmatic formulation. The purely
descriptive approach, dispensing with any kind of intervention with
regard to the language system and its functioning, was in fact the
spiritual fruit of much later labours reflecting sophisticated linguistic
thought.
Way back in the period of Humanism the expression "pulérování",
(cf. German "Polieren" - literally meaning 'language polishing') gained
a semi-terminological status.
It is clear that here the activity-aspect of language culture is
brought into prominence. The metaphor evokes, and is in fact psy
chologically rooted in, the notion of "resplendence" of language, a
certain magnificence and smoothness (obviously a Ciceronian ideal).
Thus Viktorin Kornel of Vsehrdy, a Czech Humanist, proceeds to detail
the notion as follows: the aim is a profusion of linguistic resources,
ornamentation, i.e. thorough elaboration of metaphorical imagery, of
the poetical devices of language, rhetorical tropes and figures; then the
purely aesthetic appeal (gracefulness) and, finally, balance and regular
ity (i.e. "perspicuity").
Perpetuated by the sheer weight and authority of Humanist educa
tion, these notions took firm root in the native mind and their surviving
reflexes are still distinctly observable today, despite the fact that lan
guage culture as a specialized field of linguistic study has advanced a
conception in certain respects substantially different from the Humanist
doctrine of style. As is obvious, tradition is a powerful force that has
shaped the layman's view of language culture for long centuries. The
earliest genuinely terminological reflex of language culture functioning
as part of linguistics is probably the expression "lima" first emerging in
the Czech Lands in the 2nd half of the 17th century, at a time when the
first alarming symptoms of dysfunction - brought about by grave social
and cultural upheavals - appeared in literary Czech."Lima" is the Latin
for "file" and in its native metaphorical extension that likewise gained
currency in Czech - an expression denoting the "grindstone"(in Czech
'brus'). The tertium comparationis this metaphor spells out is revealing
- grinding (or "filing" - in Czech: 'brousení', 'pilování'), the process of
smoothing rough surfaces to perfection is here compared to the lin
guist's craft. The envisaged end-product is not language as an efficient
instrument, but language as an object polished to perfection, elegant
and flawless - in other words, an object of primarily aesthetic appeal.
The conception flourished and the terms 'brus' (grindstone) and
'brousení' (grinding) took firm hold in the Czech language. Their
popularity continued unabated and, meeting with full application in the
19th century, they have in fact survived as part of the popular linguistic
lore of today. 19th century usage added a new connotation - viz. that
of purity of language - cistota - the result being a blend of the original
intention with a new notion - purification (cf. German "Sprach
reinigung", Czech "péce o cistotu jazyka"). "Smoothness" of language
was an ideal primarily designed to prevent contact with other lan
guages, to secure protection against the encroachment of foreign ele
ments. This notion continues to have a wide currency among the
non-specialist public of today and survives with remarkable persistence,
I believe, not only in Czechoslovakia.
A completely different view of language gave rise to the term
language culture, which - contrary to popular belief - is by no means
new. Its first emergence in the Czech Lands can be traced back to the
late 18th century. Symptomatically, the notion of language culture
originated in the spiritual climate of Enlightenment Rationalism. The
term 'Kultur der tschechischen Sprache' (culture of the Czech language)
occurs early in Dobrovsky's Böhmische Literatur auf das Jahr 1779.
Interestingly, Dobrovsky uses this expression in reference to his effort
to counter the upsurge of lexical neologisms, orthographic changes and
the encroachment of dialectal expressions into printed public com
munication. In its original intention the term had a clearly defensive
sense.5 Dobrovsky reverted to the same designation in the 3rd edition
of his Geschichte der böhmischen Sprache und (älteren) Literatur (1818)
during his reflections on the indirect influence that the foundation of a
266 ALEXANDR STICH
native university had on standard literary Czech. In this context he used

the term "language culture" to express the elevation of the Czech
language to the status of a medium serving all public functions. It is by
no means accidental that the term fell into disrepute with the subse
quent generations. The Romantic generation, in particular, no longer
favoured the term "language culture" and revived instead the older
principles of "grinding" and "purification" of language. The term
"language culture" regained its legitimacy in the 20th century - of
course, in a totally different social climate and, most definitely, in a
spirit excluding any conscious attempt to continue the original venture
of Enlightenment Rationalism, although the revival was spurred on by
similar motivations, viz. the efffort aimed at rationality and a functional
view of language.
Language culture in the form cultivated and developed by the
Prague School since the 1930s marked a continuation of the work begun
by Soviet scholars in Russian studies whose most productive period -
the 1920s - proved to be a powerful source of inspiration and incentive
meeting with general response.6 The very titles of the Soviet publica
tions of the 1920s give a good intimation of the central problem of the
day: Is language culture an appurtenance of 'langue' or 'parole'? Czech
and Slovak linguists postponed their attempt to answer this question
until the 1960s. Within the broad field of language culture {Sprachkul
tur) they distinguished on the one hand - the culture of language {Kultur
der Sprache) and the cultivation of language {Kultivierung der Sprache -
Sprachpflege) and, on the other hand - speech culture {Sprechkultur) and
cultivation of speech {Kultivierung des Sprechens). The first member in
each relational pair refers to the objective state of language and/or its
taxonomic linguistic description. The second member is actional and
implies linguistic intervention, the regulation of language and speech
(communication), namely professional regulation and non-professional
regulation.7
The contemporary Czechoslovak theory of language culture pro
ceeds from the tenets of the classical theory formulated by B. Havránek
in the 1930s.8 According to Havránek's theory, language culture invol
ves a conscious theoretical cultivation of language from which standard
literary language is to benefit and attain a higher level of perfection. The
criteria of this activity - as defined in Havránek's theory - are function
ally differentiated expedience and adequacy of purpose; similarly the
theses formulated by the Prague Linguistic Circle in 1929 defined

language culture as the furtherance of those aspects of language that are
required by the special functions of language, the aim being stability,
adequacy of expression and individuality of language. This theoretical
framework provided a viable basis for wide-ranging and socially useful
application. As years went by, "individuality" - as an aim of the cultiva
tion of language and communication - was dropped from the theoretical
scheme. A certain lack of clarity characterizes the notions of perfection
and benefit in language (benefit can, arguably, be conceived with a good
deal of subjectivity). The experience derived from the promotion of
language culture by the Institute for the Czech Language and the
difficulties encountered in the pragmatic sphere of language use (educa
tion, publishing, etc) lend plausibility to the thesis that a cultured use
of language will benefit from a codification in which formal differences
are based - as unambiguously as possible - on synchronic and topically
apprehended semantic distinctions and, on the contrary, no benefit can
ensue from the retention of formal distinctions in cases where corres
ponding semantic distinctions are non-existent for the average user of
contemporary Czech, or where such distinctions are so complex that the
user is unable to control them on a formal level, without seeking
recourse to a complicated logical procedure. One principle that seems
to have retained its full validity is that language culture entails activity
(promotion, furtherance), but here, too, the statai aspect ought to be
duly stressed. The state of language and communication, their linguistic
description and reflection and their reflection by the broad community
of language-users should all be seen as constituent aspects of language
culture. In the theory formulated in the 1930s, language culture figured
as a domain primarily reserved for linguistics and the linguists. It was
conceded that the community of language users has the priority right
to give shape and substance to language culture (through the acquisi
tion of knowledge on language and the operational skill to use the
resources of language in a functional way). Nevertheless, this theory
paid less attention to the fact that, apart from this, the language
community is an active agent in this respect, since it helps to shape the
notions of language and the types of attitude adopted towards lan
guage. Whatever view we may adopt, language culture is and remains
a phenomenon, a reality existing outside linguistics, a field affording
scope for the activity, intervention and opinion of the non-specialist
268 ALEXANDR STICH
public. The developments over the past forty years bear witness to the
pre-eminent need to respect this reality.
This brings us to the question as to which mechanisms actually
manifest the regulatory approach to language. As far as linguistics and
professional linguists are concerned, codification, linguistic training
(curricular and extra-curricular) and popularization will no doubt have
to be listed as first priorities.
The linguistic theory of language culture is built - in Dobrovsky's
conception in anticipatory marginal detail, in the system of the Prague
School programmatically and with full consistency - upon rationality as
one of the possible attitudes to reality; the same is true of other theories
of language culture evolved in other socialist countries (let us recall
Vinokur's "technology" - which is particularly symptomatic of the
model we have in mind here).
In the non-specialist sphere outside the range of linguistics, this is
not always the case. Here the values assigned to language are frequently
derived from emotional sources, from all manner of 'ressentiment' and
from linguistic fallacies of all kinds; xenophobia or aesthetic bias may
generate such notions. Nevertheless all this is part of social reality, a fact
that was often ignored in our daily practice. The linguist, in his public
involvement, should duly consider the motivations of such attitudes,
make them an object of his critical scrutiny prior to formulating at
titudes that we regard as correct and beneficial. This approach might
help to combat, counter or at least mitigate the effects of irrational
conceptions of language (usually relying on such notions as the "na
ture" of language, the "spirit" of language, "linguistic intuition", etc.).
Nor is the non-specialist public a mere passive recipient here. On
the contrary, in the sphere of language culture, the non-specialist is a
fairly active figure - whether this applies to distinguished individuals
commanding public respect or to their publicly proclaimed views on
language. No less relevant are factors such as current public opinion on
language, the systems of non-specialist, non-linguistic value scores and
value judgments and public attitudes to language. This is a sphere in
which the theory of language culture is confronted with the need to
explore and study new phenomena, a task which brings a whole range
of related issues into topical focus: the methods of linguistic taxonomy
to be employed and the practical necessities of language culture, namely
the need to encourage and promote a systematic, forward-looking and
purposeful dialogue between linguistics and the community of language

users. Failing to comply with such requirements, linguistics and lan
guage culture (as a theoretical sub-discipline) would hardly succeed in
fulfilling their social role and function.
To sum up:
1. The conceptual content of language culture is still in a state of
flux.
2. Language is perceived both as an object of reality and as a
constituent aspect of the subjectivity of each individual user. At the
same time, language is associated with extra-linguistic values. This
axiological fact is the basis on which language culture develops.
3. The language community has a special concern in language and
shares a compulsive drive to intervene in matters of language. This
intervention is guided by notions and designs that have both rational
and emotional grounds.
4. Language is integrated into social structures and, being deter
mined by them, exerts at the same time an active influence upon them
and/or represents them. Cutting across the social stratification pattern
of attitudes towards language are distinctions setting apart different
generations. The consonance or clash of these socio-linguistic relations,
too, may function as a source of language evaluation.
5. From the point of view of language culture, language is a
supra-individual, collective phenomenon (although the role played by
the individual may be intensified in specific historical settings).
6. The language culture phenomenon is not confined to standard
literary language. Nevertheless, standard literary language is the most
conspicuous area of application for language culture - for here language
culture receives institutional backing. This fact, reflecting a new quality
of language culture, acquires special prominence at present and is
symptomatic of the language situation in the socialist countries.
7. In its formative period, language culture was marked by a strong
aesthetic bias. Linguistics has long since abandoned this conception, yet
aesthetic notions of language culture still survive in the public's lan
guage awareness.
8. In the sphere of linguistics, the theory of language culture
continues to employ operational concepts and notions of perfection and
benefit in language which still lack precision.9
270 ALEXANDR STICH
Notes
1 The objectivity-subjectivity opposition is considered here in a context different from
that analyzed in publications discussing the ontological and epistemological principles
connected with the language system (cf. G.V. Kolsanskij (1975)); what we have in mind
here is the fact that an individual user perceives language and its realizations partly as
constituent aspects of external reality, partly as the constituent and product of his own
psychological, subjective reality.
2 This aspect of the Saussurean theory - receiving no appreciable attention in the Prague
School - has of late been revived and is in fact seen as the focal aspect and main asset
of the theory evolved by the Geneva School of Linguistics (cf. N.A. Sljusareva (1975,
p. 46) and ibid, in passim G. Derossi and R. Amacker, cf. also K. Horálek (1975, pp.
163-172)).
3 Cf. A. Stich (1979, pp. 1-14).
4 The underlying idea is in itself merely one of the constituent aspects of the multi-faceted
problem of the reciprocal existential relation between the individual and society on the
one hand, and language on the other. No less relevant are the social consequences of
this relationship - particularly in the crucial periods of language history, e.g. during the
linguistic constitution of modern ethnic communities. Problems of this kind gave rise
to heated controversies in the Czech Lands; the earliest dispute can be traced back to
the late 18th and early 19th centuries and although in the subsequent periods of history
the issue was obscured by the essentially positivist approaches and technicist biases of
linguistics, a definitive answer is yet to be provided. This fact emerges clearly from the
discussions on the historical value of Jungmann's and Bolzano's projects designed to
solve the linguistic and national dilemmas in the bilingual Czech Lands of the early
19th century, cf. J. Louzil's (1971, p. 9f.; 1976, p. 167f.) reflections on the subject.
5 Cf. J. Dobrovsky (1953, pp. 63 and 42).
6 Cf. especially G.O. Vinokur (1924).
7 Cf. J. Ruzicka (1969, pp. 158-159).
8 Cf. . Havránek (1963, pp. 30, 52, 58-59), Teze Prazského lingvistického krouzku
(Theses of the Prague Linguistic Circle) (1929).
9 This paper is an abridged version of the article  pojmu jazykové kultury ajeho obsahu
(In: Aktuální otázky jazykové kultury v socialistické spolecnosti. Praha 1979, 98-108).
References
DOBROVSKY, J. (1953), Vybor z dila (Selected Works). Praha.

HAVRÁNEK, . (1963), Studie o spisovném jazyce (Studies in Standard Lan
guage). Praha.
HORALEK, K. (1975), Kritieké poznámky  sémantice Ferdinanda de Saussura
(Critical Comments on Ferdinand de Saussure's Semantics). Bulletin ruského
jazyka a literatury, 19, 163-173.
KOLSANSKIJ, G.V. (1975), Sootnosenie sub'jektivnych i ob'jektivnych faktorov

v jazyke (The Relation of Subjective and Objective Factors in Language).
Moskva.
LOUZIL, J. (1971), Preface to F.T. Bratranek, Des Lebens Urworte. Studie a
prameny  dejinám ceského myslení, 2. Praha: Ústav pro filozofii a sociologii
CSAV, 9ff.
LOUZIL, J. (1976), Josef Jungmanns Begriff der Sprachnation und seine Gefah
ren. In: Ost-West-Begegnungen in Österreich. Wien, Köln, Graz, 167ff.
RUZICKA, J. (1967), Problémy jazykovej kultúry (Problems of Language
Culture). In: Kultúra spisovnej slovenciny. Bratislava, 9-22.
SLJUSAREVA, N.A. (1975), Teorija F. de Sossjura v svete sovremennoj lingvis-
tiki (F. de Saussure's Theory in the Light of Contemporary Linguistics).
Moskva.
STICH, A. (1969), Soucasné úkoly jazykové kultury (The Present-Day Tasks of
Language Culture). Nase řec, 52, 155-166.
STICH, A. (1979), Z dëjin ceského jazykového prava (Chapters from the History
of Czech Language Legislation). In: Zprávy Kruhu přátel ceského jazyka,
leden. Praha, 1-14.
Thèses présentées au Premier Congrès des philologues slaves (1929). In: Travaux
du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 1, 5-29 (English translation in Praguiana.
Some Basic and Less Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistic School. Ed. by
J. Vachek. Prague, Amsterdam, 1983).
VINOKUR, G.O. (1924), Kul'tura jazyka. Opyt lingvisticeskoj technologii (Lan
guage Culture. Essay in Linguistic Technology). Moskva.
Rhetoric, Functional Stylistics and Theory of
Language Culture
Jiří Kraus
Since antiquity the manuals of rhetoric have been characterized

not only by many careful and detailed classifications of style, language
and text phenomena, but also by a many-sided approach to the process
of language communication. In accordance with Quintilian's triad de
arte, de artifice, de opere this approach concentrates on the text struc
ture and its setting, on cultural, political and aesthetical functions of
speech as well as on social and ethical properties of an orator (vir bonus)
and his audience. The attention of the theorists of functional stylistics
in Czechoslovakia in the thirties and later on after the World War II
paid to the mutual relations of some of these components, the so-called
style-forming factors, may be considered - together with practical com
municative needs of modern society - a dominant cause for the later
renewal of the interest in rhetoric and its history (Kraus, 1981; Tříska,
1987), even if rhetorical tradition has apparently been neglected by
many representatives of present-day functional linguistics.
The relations between rhetoric and linguistic theory and language-
reform practice in the sphere of the theory of language culture were
rather contradictory. The main initiators of Prague functionalism, B.
Havránek, V. Mathesius etc., attacked vehemently a traditional rhetori
cal notion of the purity of language (puritas). Since the period of
Theofrastos, disciple and inheritor of Aristotle, the notion of puritas
was incessantly elaborated as one of the dominant virtues (arétai tés
lexeós, virtutes elocutionis) of public speech or literary work. Purity does
not belong to the natural features of speech, it was, however, esteemed
as a result of troublesome work with the text. The ancient authors
compared this work to the labour of a peasant or an artisan. In
Horatius' Ars versificatoia it is the activity of grinding (limae labor); the
grinding, filing being a necessary part of elocutio. Quintilian mentions
RHETORIC, STYLISTICS AND LANGUAGE CULTURE 273
pressum limatumque genus dicendi (2, 8, 4) and parvus limatumque genus

(11, 1, 3). This laborious activity results in oratio polita, which is
esteemed by Cicero (Brut. 95, 326: erat oratio accurata et polita) as well
as by Quintilian (10, 4, 4: sit ergo aliquando quod placeat aut certe, quod
sufficiat, et opus policet lima, non exterat). The process of grinding, filing
and - according to Nicodem Frischlin's Grammatica strigilis from 1596
- currying of horses has been considered a necessary presupposition of
the finishing touch to a literary work. The first part of this process called
ingenium by Quintilian (10, 2, 12) and esprit, génie by French classicists
(Boileau 1, 166), was a result of the orator's talent and phantasy, the
second part, iudicium (Quint. 10, 1, 130), jugement (Boileau 1, 166), was
based on the author's diligence and theoretical knowledge as well as on
his ability to conform his work to classical models. Both ingenium and
iudicium resulted in an ideal virtue - puritas sermonis.
In Czech grammatical and stylistical theories the criterion of pur
itas (together with proprietas and ornatus) appeared for the first time in
Jan Blahoslav's Czech grammar (Gramatika ceskä) of 1571. The author,
a religious reformer who studied rhetoric with Melanchton in Wittem-
berg and Basle, summed up his views on style partly in the above-cited
grammar, partly in two books on pulpit oratory. The first one, Virtutes
concionatorum, has been lost, but the second book, Vitia concionatorum,
has been well-known because of its important horticultural instructions
concerned with language and style of homiletic oratory. Its contents are
divided in two parts - vices in things, i.e. within the sphere of invention
and disposition, and vices in speech - elocution. The latter part com
prises a description of language and stylistic errors, pronunciation
errors, violation of accepted patterns of speech etc. The violation of
puritas has been considered one of the most frequent and at the same
time dangerous vices in speech.
The first Czech normative grammar and stylistics from the categ
ory of the so-called grindstones was written simultaneously in Czech
and Latin by the Jesuit Jiři Konstanc under the title Lima linguae
bohemicae in 1667 (see Kraus, 1985). In this book resembling very
popular ciceronians and elegances (see Murphy, 1974) by its arrange
ment and disposition two dominant tendencies of the future care for
national language manifest themselves. The first one, extremely puristic,
was continued by later authors of grindstone grammars of Czech at the
end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. These au-
274 JIŘÍ KRAUS
thoritative and extremely puristic manuals, however, lacked the marked

tolerance of Konstanc's first Lima, especially his view of foreign bor
rowings and word formation as well as his sense of the role of variation
within a literary norm. That is why these manuals were strictly rejected
by the functional linguistics in the thirties. On the other side, functional
linguistics developed the rhetorical notions of proprietas and aptum, i.e.
the respect to the function and to the setting of speech (see Thèses,
1929). Nevertheless, direct relations between rhetoric and Prague func
tional linguistics have been mostly denied with the exception of V.
Mathesius' analysis of rhetorical perspective of a sentence (Mathesius,
1947).
The humanist period of ciceronians, elegances, manuals of rhetoric
and grindstone grammars also gave birth to the term of language
culture. At the same time, it was a period of the foundations of Acade
mies in European countries with the aim to take care of national
languages, to promote them to privileged functions, formerly reserved
for the languages of higher status as Latin, Old Slavonic etc. The term
language culture appeared in the works of Leibniz, Adelung in Ger
many, Josef Dobrovsky (1753-1829) in Bohemia (Cultur der Sprache),
Miklós Révai (1750-1807) in Hungary (nyelvmüvelés) etc. There is a
wide gap between this period and the reappearance of this notion in the
works of the Soviet linguist Vinokur (Vinokur, 1923) and in the Prague
functional approach to the language with its tasks of theoretical analy
sis of language and of practical codification.
A strongly axiological attitude to language and style respecting
both the virtue of puritas and communicative persuasive function of
preaching is characteristic of the Czech Jezuit of the 17th century
Bohuslav Balbín (1621-1688). The most important and still-ltving work
of this younger contemporary of Jan Amos Comenius (1592-1670) is
the Defence of the Czech Language. This work is a passionate and
pathetic protest against the retrenchment of the political and cultural
functions of the Czech national language in the period of Counter-
Reformation. It has rather a socio-political than strictly philological
character. It considers the mother tongue (as du Bellay for French,
Wagner for German etc. did) a symbol of the Czech glorious history and
attributes to it such virtues as regularity, euphony, purity, richness,
clarity etc. Balbin, who irrespective of his fervent patriotism wrote all
his extensive work exclusively in Latin, was an outstanding teacher of
rhetoric and the author of two manuals - Quaesita oratoria and De

oratoria amplificatione (see Richterova, 1988). The main thoughts of
these manuals are generalized in an educational treatise Verisimilia
humaniorum disciplinarum (1671).
An aesthetic and at the same time ethic creed of Balbín's ideas is
the classical principle of proportionality and simplicity. According to
Balbin, sermons must be supremely simple that the listener may believe
in the sincerity of preacher's words. One kind of simplicity is that of
style and speech, the other is that of matter and arguments. Like
Quintilian, who sharply criticized the "new" style of Seneca, Balbin in
his Quaesita oratoria attacked the new style of Apuleius distorting the
eleborate canon of Ciceronian Latin and thus endangering public
morals. Balbin rejects hard and complicated words, deeply symbolical
notions, sophisticated allegories and affected fineries and cadencies.
Sermons may be regarded as convincing only when they are sincere and
quite intelligible. This is why Balbin shows deference to his great
opponent in faith Comenius, the author of the Manual of Preaching
(Opera omnia,4,1983), written in Czech (Zpráva o naucení a kazatelství,
1651 (?)), as well as of a Latin treatise entitled Ars ornatoria sive
grammatica elegans. Both Balbin and Comenius emphasized the need
for the clarity of the main idea of the preacher's words and tried to
prune the style of oratory of all vanities and conceited affectations. It
is this accent on practical communicative functions of public speech
which continued in later thoughts on style in Bohemia.
Another remarkable parallelism between rhetoric and functional
stylistics consists in the conception of style as a complex of selective
preferences of lexical and grammatical means, tropes, figures etc.
(Kraus, 1986). The notion of style in functional linguistics as well as of
genus dicendi in rhetoric (cf. Mayenowa, 1979) is attributed not only to
a specific text, but also to classes or types of texts. These classes or types
differ both linguistically and extralinguistically, i.e. by idiosyncratic
choice and arrangement of the units of a given repertory and by the
setting of a message.
In an important theoretical and normative manual on stylistics,
eloquence and theory of literature, Slovesnost of 1836 (the title may be
translated as both Poetic and Rhetoric), written by an outstanding
representative of the Czech National Revival Josef Jungmann (1773-
1847), two traditional criteria of classification of the types of discourse
276 JIŘÍ KRAUS
are introduced. The first one, horizontal, distinguishes literary prose,

poetry and eloquence; eloquence, e.g., is divided into profane and holy,
the profane rhetorical genres being in turn divided into political, milit
ary, forensic, scholar, funeral, demonstrative etc. This horizontal clas
sification marked by a rich hierarchy gave impetus to later classifica
tions of functional styles (Kraus, 1986). The second ancient classifica
tion, vertical, distinguishes styles according to the axis high - middle -
low style. This classification elaborated by the author of rhetoric ad
Herennium is reflected in the contemporary distinction between high,
archaic, bookish means, neutral means and finally means of informal
speech used in the confidential, intimate sphere (Hausenblas, 1973).
The growing interest in rhetoric - both in its long history in
Bohemia and in its present-day situation - is apparent not only in the
linguistic theory, but also in the sphere of public language conciousness.
Many people no longer consider rhetoric a tool for teaching fallacious
argumentation or an unnatural oration devoid of ideas and full of
literary clichés but an effective instrument helping to develop the culture
of language as well as the culture of everyday communication.
References
HAUSENBLAS, K. (1973), Vysoky - středni - nízky styl a diferenciace stylu dnes

(High - Middle - Low Style and Present-Day Differentiation of Styles). Slovo
a slovesnost, 34, 85-91.
KRAUS, J. (1981), Rétorika v dejinách jazykové komunikace (Rhetoric in the
History of Language Communication). Praha.
KRAUS, J. (1985),  zdrojüm normativnosti ceskych gramatik 16. -17. stolen
(On the Sources of Normativeness in Czech Grammars of 16 - 17 century).
In: Práce z dëjin slavistiky X. Praha, 143-154.
KRAUS, J. (1986), On the Sociolinguistic Aspects of the Notion of Functional
Style. In: Reader in Czech Sociolinguistics. Praha, 83-93.
MATHESIUS, V. (1947), Jazykozpytné poznámky  fecnické vystavbĕ souvislého
vykladu (Linguistic Remarks on Rhetorical Perspective of Coherent Text). In:
Cestina a obecny jazykozpyt. Praha, 380-414.
MAYENOWA, M.R. (1979), Poetyka teoretyczna - Zagadnienia jezyka. War-
szawa, Wroclaw, Krakow.
MURPHY, J.J. (1974), Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London.
RICHTEROVA, A. (1988), Soupis autografu . Balbína z fondu Státní knihovny

CSR (List of . Balbín's Autographs Deposited in the Czech State Library).
Praha.
THÈSES (1929), In: Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague, 1, 5-29.
TRISKA, J. (1987), Rhetorica Pragensis. Praha.
QUINTILIANUS, Institutionis oratoriae libri XII(Ed. by H. Rahn). Darmstadt
1972 (I-VI), 1975 (VII-XII).
VINOKUR, G. O. (1923), Kul'tura jazyka (Zadaci sovremennogo jazyho-
znanija) (Language Culture - The Tasks of Present-Day Linguistics). Moskva.
Epilogue
On the Way to a General Stylistics of Human

Activity
Jiří Nekvapil
We are living in an age when individual scholarly disciplines and

sub-disciplines do not exist in isolation (this is true whether it concerns
the objects of their research, the methods they employ, or their patterns
of organization), but, with varying degrees of success, reach out beyond
their own confines. Linguistics has also been extensively drawn into this
process (Nekvapil, 1986), especially in some of its branches, and here we
shall be concentrating our attention on stylistics.
The lines along which I am thinking may be indicated by such
questions as:
(1) How might we construct a general stylistics, i.e. a stylistics
which does not concern itself merely with the selection and organization
of linguistic means?
(2) Is it possible to construct a general stylistics by employing the
knowledge acquired from the construction of linguistic stylistics?
(3) Can the construction of a general stylistics have a reverse
influence upon the structure of linguistic stylistics?
(4) Is it best to construct a general stylistics by the progressive
construction of individual systems, for instance, linguistic and various
non-linguistic stylistics, or is it more suitable from the beginning to
construct individual systems within a particular general framework?
(5) Is it possible in constructing non-linguistic systems of stylistics
to employ the knowledge acquired from constructing linguistic stylis
tics?
Linguists themselves have touched marginally on these questions
in noting the supra-linguistic nature of the concept of style; for instance,
the Prague linguist Karel Hausenblas (1971, 4If.) connects the sphere
of style with that of human activity in general and defines style as a
certain mode of activity, that is, a principle of how this activity pro-
GENERAL STYLISTICS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY 279
ceeds, which is just one of a number of possible principles. Likewise,

Barbara Sandig (1986) based her theory of style on the general theory
of action {Handlung) and defined style as a "Art der Handlungsdurch
führung" (p.23). What is hinted at in these works can be summarized
as follows. Fundamentally, style is bound up with human activity in
general; human activity is logically on a higher plane than verbal
activity and therefore whatever we can discover about activity as a
whole will also be relevant to verbal activity, and of course, this also
applies to problems of style. This line of thinking would clearly lead us
to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to create a general
stylistics within a certain general framework, e.g. in the form, these
days, of a theory of human activity or action {Handlung).
We can, however, set our sights lower. In the various types of
human activity certain isomorphic features can undoubtedly be found.
But not all descriptions of types of human activity have been afforded
the same thoroughness, and it is probably a worthwhile enterprise to
scrutinize some not widely studied spheres of activity through the prism
of the epistemological structures elaborated in some other already
developed scientific discipline, for example, linguistics, and only then to
attempt a more general statement on specific types of activity. This
would amount to a search for the answer to question five, and is the
object of the present work.
It has been proclaimed by many authors that linguistics has a
special standing among the social sciences because of its relative exact
ness and wealth of methodologies. Practical application of the concep
tual apparatus of linguistics to other spheres of social phenomena was
then attempted, as in the case of some models elaborated in classical
structural phonology, morphology, Saussurean semiology and, later,
generative grammar (cf. Marcus, 1975). It would also be useful to
attempt to apply the conceptual apparatus of Prague functional linguis
tic stylistics (for this variant of stylistics see, e.g., Dubsky, 1972; Dolezel
and Kraus, 1972; Kraus, 1986).
Here we shall be dealing with the functional analysis of a specific
type of activity, that is, with an outline of the stylistics of dress (Cz.
odívání). An analysis of this kind is immediately prompted by just
flicking through any standard fashion journal in which the concept of
style occurs frequently. In the context of linguistics, matters of dress are
nothing new; we might mention here the Russian ethnographer, Petr
280 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
Bogatyrev, who published in the journal of the Prague Linguistic Circle

(cf. Bogatyrev, 1936), or the monograph of 1967 by the French scholar
of semiotics, Roland Barthes, on system in fashion, wherein he followed
up the conceptual apparatus of Ferdinand de Saussure, or some of the
results of, in particular, French linguistics. But the question of dress in
this respect should not be overlooked even by today's linguists. When
endeavouring - even in connection with the formulation of a general
semiotic theory - to make a complex analysis of communicative events,
the linguist must include in his research both linguistic and non-linguis
tic signs, for instance, the means of expression employed in dress. An
analysis of the information potential of the latter (cf., e.g., Hoffmann,
1981) is important because such means may serve in principle in any
day-to-day communicative event (in contrast to the frequently re
searched, but more or less exclusive, signs of art). It is worth mentioning
too, that fashion theorists themselves would be only too pleased to use
the conceptual apparatus of linguistics for their own ends - as evidenced
by, for example, Marc-Alain Descamps (1979, esp. p. 53).
Let us now turn back to stylistics in dress; in constructing this we
shall begin with the conceptual apparatus of functional stylistics set out
by Alois Jedlicka and others (1970) in the spirit of the tradition of the
Prague School of Linguistics. This particular publication is selected in
part for its systematic character and in part because it is not overloaded
- from the point of view of our present purpose - with terminological
detail. In this analysis of modes of dress it is highly possible to employ
such concepts as are derived from functional linguistic stylistics or
indeed whole sub-systems of it, in particular: individual and objective
style-forming factors, style-sphere, style stratum, stylistic type, system of
functional styles, marked and unmarked means, synonymy (variation),
stratification of means and the stylistic use of means. It can be seen that
these concepts are not narrowly connected with particular types of
activity, but that they are of more general validity.
We shall now look briefly at the concept of means, conceived here
in the same way as in Prague functionalism (cf. Danes, 1987). The
general concept 'means' has the reflex 'linguistic means' only in linguis
tics, while in the sphere which interests us here it becomes 'dress means'.
The general concept of means can, analogously with the concept of
linguistic means, be understood at various levels of complex-
ity; in the field of dress, for instance, as an element of dress or as some

varyingly complex construction. It is clear that the stylistics of dress
operates here over a certain grammar of dress, which could take the
form - in the same way as the grammar of a language - of a multilevel
hierarchy. It would then be reasonable to speak of the different internal
functions of the variously complex components of dress and of its
global external functions (to quote, for instance, Danes's model of
language, 1971).
The subject of a general stylistic analysis is, then, the manifestation
of any type of activity, selected at random, say manifestation of language
or a manifestation of dress.
What follows now is a more concrete illustration, based on exam
ples of some of the above concepts, of how a stylistics of dress could be
created. We shall start from that which has the main influence on the
creation of a particular style, that is, "style-forming factors". It is surely
beyond doubt that manifestations of dress are influenced by individual
style-forming factors such as the intellectual maturity of the individual,
his nature and temperament, sensitivity, his personal inclinations and
psychological attitudes (the linguistic aspects of these factors are dealt
with by Jedlicka et al., 1970). As far as objective style-forming factors
are concerned, it is plain that styles, whether linguistic or in dress, are
constituted by the operation of various style-forming factors in varying
degrees. For instance, age and sex differences are fundamental to style
in dress but far less so to linguistic style. The stylistics of language have
so far dealt little with the somatic factor, and yet this is one of the most
important style-forming factors in dress. Important to style in both
language and dress are environment and situation which are connected
with the most pertinent style-forming factor, namely the function of the
particular manifestation.
There are (in agreement with Skarlantová and Zárecká, 1978) three
main style-spheres in dress:
(1) according to age and sex - men's, women's, children's and
teenagers' wear;
(2) according to function - homewear, workwear, casual and sports
wear, and formal attire;
(3) according to the somatic factor - clothes to suit various types
of figure.
282 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
In addition we might also consider the seasonal aspect (cf. Barthes,

1967, 252f.) and select as an instance the style-sphere of winter wear.
These spheres have, of course, been construed on a high level of
generalization. In practice, style-spheres of a lower order of generaliza
tion apply. For instance, out of the global style-sphere of men's wear we
might extract the partial sphere of winter casual and sportswear for men
of such and such statistics. It is clear, then, that in creating a stylistics
of dress we would have to come to grips with the problem - all too
familiar in the functional stylistics of language as well - of the level of
generalization at which the style-spheres (or styles) are to be constitut
ed.
For each of the above style-spheres in dress there surely exists a
typical stylistic stratum of means. In the style-sphere of formal attire we
have today, for instance, ruching, flounces and flares. The choice and
organization of these means as manifested in the above spheres of dress
are governed by appropriate stylistic norms which shape a given type of
style. A case in point: today, in the style-sphere of formal attire, we see
a recourse to historical elements. A stylistics of dress could then pursue
the question of the stylistic features of the individual means of varying
complexity, employed in dress and of the relations - especially those of
synonymy - existing between them. In this a number of stylistic catego
ries known from functional linguistic stylistics (cf. Jedlicka et al., 1970)
can be applied. For instance, means in dress can be differentiated
according to territory, social constraints, relation to the stylistic stra
tum, the period of their incidence, frequency, expressivity, and origin.
Some of these categories would not, of course, be of such cogency in a
stylistics of dress as in linguistic stylistics.
Let us now consider in what way the stylistics of dress and that of
language converge and what possibilities a comparison of the two
offers. It would seem to be due to the closeness of the two types of
activity: not so much for their both being of a creative nature or that
there are rational factors in both, but because the formation of manifes
tations of both language and dress is something common to all and a
part of the everyday life of man. This is why, in the spheres of both
language and dress, a tension between the individual and social aspects
can be so clearly observed (cf. the problem of the individualisation of
expression in both language and, in particular, fashion in the conditions
prevailing in Czechoslovakia today).
There are, naturally, huge differences between the stylistics of

language and that of dress - due mostly to the fact that a linguistic
system and stylistic norms of language expression evolve less dynamic
ally than systems of means in dress and stylistic norms of manifesta
tions in dress.
It is certainly not the linguist's job to write stylistics of various
types of non-verbal activity, or even to write a general stylistics. How
ever, faced by these, he is better able to appreciate the specific nature of
his own subject as well as some areas of overlap. It also gives a little
thrill to have discovered that the results of linguistic study can be of use
in solving questions of a non-linguistic nature and that they may even
provide the foundations for ambitious generalizations on the essentials
of human activity as such.
Of course, the questions formulated at the start of this paper will
have to be investigated by specialists other than linguists: philosophers,
methodologists of science, semioticists and by specialists in more specif
ic fields, for instance, fashion theorists themselves.1
Notes
1 I would like to express my special thanks to David Short from the University of London
for his valuable suggestions concerning the English equivalents of Czech functionalist
terminology.
References
BARTHES, R. (1967), Système de la mode. Paris.

BOGATYREV, P. (1936), Kroj jako znak (Costume as a Sign). Slovo a sloves-
nost, 2, 43-47.
DANES, F. (1971), On Linguistic Strata (Levels). Travaux linguistiques de
Prague, 4, 127-143.
DANES, F. (1987), On Prague School Functionalism. In: Functionalism in
Linguistics. Ed. by Dirven, R. and V. Fried. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 3-38.
DESCAMPS, M.-A. (1979), Psychosociologie de la mode. Paris.
DOLEZEL, L. and J. KRAUS (1972), Prague School Stylistics. In: Current
Trends in Stylistics. Ed. by Kachru, B.B. and H.F.W. Stahlke. Edmonton,
37-48.
284 JIŘÍ NEKVAPIL
DUBSKY, J. (1972), The Prague Conception of Functional Style. In: The Prague
School of Linguistics and Language Teaching. Ed. by V. Fried. London,
112-127.
HAUSENBLAS, K. (1971), Vystavba jazykovych projevu a styl (The Structure
HOFFMANN, H.-J. (1981), Kommunikation mit Kleidung. In: Communica
tions (Sankt Augustin), 7, 269-290.
JEDLICKA, A. et al. (1970), Základy ceské stylistiky (An Outline of Czech
Stylistics). Praha.
KRAUS, J. (1986), On the Sociolinguistic Aspects of the Notion of Functional
Style. In: Reader in Czech Sociolinguistics. Ed. by Chloupek, J. and J.
Nekvapil. Praha, 83-93.
MARCUS, S. (1975), Linguistics as a Pilot Science. In: Current Trends in
Linguistics, 12. Haag, 2871-2887.
NEKVAPIL, J. (1986), Nëkteré mechanismy a moznosti interdisciplinarity jazy-
kovĕdy (Some Mechanisms and Possibilities of the Interdisciplinarity of
Linguistics). In: Teoretické otázky jazykovëdy. Ed. by Nekvapil, J. and O.
Soltys. Linguistica XVI. Praha, 129-159.
SANDIG, . (1986), Stilistik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin/New York.
SKARLANTOVÁ, J. and J. ZÁRECKÁ (1978), Základy odëvnîho vytvarnictví
(A Manual of Dress Design). Praha.
CONTRIBUTORS
List of Contributors
JAN CHLOUPEK JIRÍ NEKVAPIL

Ústav ceského jazyka Katedra lingvistiky
a slovanské jazykovëdy a fonetiky
Masarykova univerzita Karlova univerzita
Arne Nováka l nám. Jana Palacha 2
CS-66088 Brno CS-11638 Praha
FRANTISEK DANES ALEXANDR STICH

Ústav pro jazyk cesky Katedra ceského
Letenská 4 a slovenského jazyka
CS-11851 Praha Karlova univerzita
nám. Jana Palacha 2
CS-11638 Praha
KAREL HAUSENBLAS OTAKAR SOLTYS

Katedra ceského Katedra jazyku
a slovenského jazyka Karlova univerzita
Karlova univerzita Smetanovo nábřeží
nam. Jana Palacha 2 CS - 10101 Praha
CS-11638 Praha
JIRÍ KRAUS JIRÍ ZEMAN

Ústav pro jazyk cesky Katedra ceského jazyka
Letenská 4 a literatury
CS-11851 Praha Pedagogická fakulta
nám. Svobody 301
CS - 50191 Hradec Králové
OLDRICH LESKA
Slovansky ústav
Valentinská l
CS-11000 Praha
Index of Names
Adelung, J. Ch. 274 Chloupek, J. 100

Agricola, E. 146 Cicero, M. T. 273
Amacker, R. 270 Comenius, J. A. 274f
Anderson, S. 161 Conte, M.-E. 151, 159
Aristotle 272 Curtius, E. R. 65
Artymovyc, A. 28, 47 Cuřín, E 126
Arutjunova, N. D. 216 Capek, K. 180f
Capek-Chod, .  . 232
Balbin, B. 274f Cecil, L. 38
Bally, Ch. 20, 41, 45, 58, 65 Cervenka, M. 130, 144
Barthes, R. 57, 280, 282 Cort, V. 184
Bass, E. 225
Baudouin de Courtenay, J. 20, 41 Danes, E 65, 144, 146, 159f, 188f, 192, 203,
Bauer, J. 201 224, 246, 280f
Beaugrande, R. de 152, 159 Delbrück, B. 39, 41
, J. V. 126 Derossi, G. 270
Beer, A. 43 Descamps, M.-A. 280
Bĕlic, J. 94, 97 Dijk, T. A. van 162
Bellay, du 274 Dirven, R. 283
Berneker 37 Dobrovsky, J. 35, 92, 96f, 265, 268, 270,
Bierwisch, M. 162 274
Bílovsky, .. 95 Doležel, L. 214, 279
Bily, F. 38 Dubsky, J. 279
Blahoslav, J. 273 Dusek, C. 38
Bogatyrev, P. 280 Dusek, V. 216
Brentano, F. 12 Dusková, L. 43
Broch, O. 39 Eberhard, J. A. 164
Bĕezina, O. 53f, 138-140 Ellis, J. 58
Bühler, K. 16, 43, 165 Ertl, V. 100, 114
Bulygina, T. V. 37
Buráñová, E. 194, 197f Faulkner, W. 158, 246
Fikejzová, J. 249, 255
Caldwell, E. 246 Firbas, J. 194, 196f
Cejp, L. 110 Fischer, O. 10, 165
Cherry, . 58, 65 Flajšhans, V. 92
288 INDEX OF NAMES
Formánková, V. 67 Jedlicka, A. 66, 280ff

Franková, H. 182 Jelinek, M. 66, 126
Fried, V. 284 Jespersen, O. 14, 39, 100-103, 105
Fucík, J. 229 Joyce, J. 156
Funke, . 12 Jungmann, J. 92f, 97, 163ff, 270, 275f
Kaburaki, E. 162
Gabelentz, G. von der 39
Kachru, B. B. 283
Gardiner, A. H. 27, 105
Kadlinsky, F 96
Gautier, L. 13
Kafka, F. 154f
Gebauer, J. 9, 35, 37
Kainar, J. 114
Goethe, J. W. 132
Kamis, A. 95
Grebenícková, R. 66
Karcevskij, S. 15, 17, 19, 25, 27f, 44, 46f,
Grepl, M. 201
150, 160
Groot, A. W. de 46
Kaye-Smith, S. 157
Guiraud, P. 132
Klaret 93
Klimes, L. 110
Hajicová, E. 194, 197f
Kolsanskij, G. V. 270
Halliday, M.A.K. 58
Konstanc, J. 273f
Hardy, W. G. 156f
Kopecny, F. 97
Harweg, R. 149
Kopta, P. 249
Hasek, J. 223-247
Kornel, V. ze Vsehrd 264
Hausenblas, K. 47, 54, 66, 94, 97, 133, 203,
Kořensky, J. 220
219, 224, 232, 255, 276, 278
Kořínek, J. M. 38, 45
Havránek, . 10, 17, 25, 29-36, 42, 44,
Kostomarov, V. G. 126
46-49, 92-94, 102, 105f, 266, 270, 272
Kovář, E. 9
Heidolph, . E. 160, 162
Kraus, A. 10
Hemingway, E. 153, 157
Kraus, J. 272f, 275f, 279
Heydrich, W. 161
Krcmová, M. 91
Hoffmann, H.-J. 280
Kruszewski, N. 39
Hoffmannová, J. 220
Kubicka, J. 206
Hora, J. 136, 142
Kubka, F 215
Horálek, K. 143, 262, 270
Kuno, S. 151
Horatius, F. Q. 272
Hrabák, J. 83 Lakoff, G. 152
Hrabal, B. 66, 237, 246 Langer, F 225, 229, 233, 236-238, 241, 246
Hrubín, F. 132 Leech, G. 160
Hubácek, J. 99, 103 Leibniz, G. W. 274
Hujer, O. 38, 41 Lessing, G. E. 257
Hus, J. 114 Leska, O. 43, 46
Husserl, E. 165 Levy, J. 130, 254
Linhart, J. 207, 220
Jakobovits, L. 162 Loužil, J. 270
Jakobson, R. 16f, 19f, 22f, 25, 31, 37, Lukesová, M. 175
40-46, 130, 141, 255 Lurija, A. R. 219
Janousek, J. 51 Lyer, S. 44
Jarnik, J. U. 10 Lyons, J. 160, 220
INDEX OF NAMES 289
Mácha, . . 133, 136 Pohl, J. V. 92

Macourek, M. 182 Polívka, J. 10
Marcus, S. 279 Porák, J. 38
Marty, A. 12f, 18, 41, 43 Potužil, Z. 183
Marx, K. 12 Pražák, A. 65
Masaryk, T. G. 12, 92 Procházka, V. 232
Mathesius, V. 9-50, 97, 147, 175, 179, Pujmanová, M. 84
272, 274 Pytelka, J. 110
Mayenova, M. R. 275 Pytlík, R. 216
Mcintosh, A. 58
Meillet, A. 40 Quintilianus, M. F 272ff
Melanchton, Ph. 273
Michálková, V. 91 Reinbeck 164
Miko, F. 64,83, 114 Reiner, G. 246
Minářová, E. 126 Rejmánková, M. 67
Mistrík, J. 66, 217, 220 Rêvai, M. 274
Mourek, V. E. 9, 37 Richterová, A. 275
Mukařovsky, J. 46, 57, 165 Riedlinger, A. 41
Müllerová, O. 206 Rippl, E. 100, 246
Murdoch, I. 152 Rosa, V. J. 92f
Murphy, J. J. 273 Rot, S. 161
Russel, . 146
Nekvapil, J. 47, 99, 194, 220, 246, 278 Ruzicka, J. 270
Nemcová, B. 84
Sandig, . 279
Nĕmec, . 38
Saussure, F de 9-50, 105, 109, 259, 280
Neruda, J. 136
Searle, J. 159
Nescimenko, G. P. 11
Sechehaye, A. 20, 41, 44f
Novík, L. 44
Seidler, H. 58
Novák, P. 46
Seneca, L. A. 275
Novotny, J. 126
Sgall, P. 194, 197f
Oberpfalcer, F 42, 44, 100-110, 246 Short, D. 255, 283
Olbracht, I. 215 Sinclair, U. 148f, 152
Skalicka, V. 25, 28f, 44, 46f
Paduceva, E. V. 146, 159 Skarlantová, J. 281
Palek, B. 162 Skoumal, A. 66
Páral, V. 219 Sljusareva, N. A. 270
Parrot, C. 230-232, 235, 238, 246 Sokolov A. N. 58
Pastrnek, F 10 Spencer, J. 58
Paul, H. IIf, 39f, 43, 147 Stahlke, H. F. W. 283
Pavel, O. 114 Stary Z. 12, 40f
Peñáz, P. 246 Steinbeck, J. 232, 235, 246
Petöfi, J. S. 161 Steinberg, D. 162
Petrie, H. 220 Stich, A. 220, 270
Piaget, J. 167-169, 172 Strevens, P. 58
Poelic 164 Styron, W. 151, 156
290 INDEX OF NAMES
Suchy, J. 249 Uspensky, B. 152

Svartvik, J. 160 Utĕseny, S. 91
Svoboda, A. 196
Svoboda, K. 62, 65, 184 Vachek, E. 233
Sweet, H. 39, 44 Vachek, J. 17, 32f, 37, 43f, 81
Sachmatov, A. A. 45 Váhala, F. 126
Simek, M. 92 Vancura, Z. 105-110
Soltys, O. 167 Vannikov, J. V. 215
Sotola, J. 183 Viehweger, D. 146, 150, 209
Stítny, T. ze Stítného 114 Viëtor, W. 37, 39
Svarckopf, B. S. 126 Vinogradov, A. A. 219
Svejda, J. 215f Vinogradov, V. V 59, 132
Vinokur, G. O. 268, 270, 274
Thám, V. 96 Vodicka, F. 131
Theofrastos 272 Vrchlicky, J. 136
Tichá, I. 47 Vygotskij, L. S. 167
Tolstoy, L. N. 121
Toman, K. 136f Wagner 274
Tomek, W. W. 92 Wall,  179
Tondi, L. 127 Wegener, Ph. 39
Trávnícek, F. 65 Weingart, M. 38
Trnka, . 16f, 43, 165, 179, 184 Wells, H. G. 158
Trost, P. 63, 100, 130, 246 Wertheimer, J. 13
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 19-22, 29, 44-46 Wundt, W 40, 43
Tříška, J. 272
Tucek, R. 95 Zárecká, J. 281
Zeyer, J. 38
Ure, J. N. 58 Zubaty, J. 9f, 15, 37f
Subject Index
administrative style 93, 116 Copenhagen School 37

allusions 130, 134f co reference 146ff
anaphora 156 cultivation of language (see also lan
argot 100, 103f, 109, 246 guage culture) 266f
argumentation 71f, 87, 115f, 276 Czech National Revival 35, 92-97, 163,
automatization 35, 49, 85, 87, 116, 121 262, 275
axiology 258ff, 274
deep-structure 166
Baroque literature 92ff dialect 15, 48, 58, 68-86, 94f, 103f, 123,
basic models of elementary textual de 231f
velopment 206, 210ff dialectology 25, 78, 86
belles-lettres 38, 70 dialogue 59, 84, 114, 171, 173, 181f, 240
Bible 73, 96, 118, 122, 124 differential as opposed to complex analy
bilingualism 230, 270 sis of text 107f
cartoon 255 differentiation of national language 48f,
cataphora 156 102, 108f, 226
centration 170ff, 178 differentiation of standard language 32,
child language 166ff 48f, 105
clichés 88, 121 diglossia 69, 82f, 230
codification 35, 68, 72, 81, 84, 96f, 113f, direct speech 77, 153, 205, 214f, 224,
267f 229ff
colloquial language 32, 70, 102f, 112, dis-automatization 35
230f discourse subject 146ff
colloquial style 70, 73, 83, 113, 184, 239 drama 70, 77, 84
Common Czech 68f, 73, 77, 84, 95, 114, economic linguistics 105f
123, 230ff, 246 eloquence 164, 275f
common language 102-104, 108f Enlightenment 96, 265f
communication 26, 31-33, 48, 51-66, "er"-form 205, 215
69-71, 75, 127 esthetic function 32, 48f
communicative dynamism 194ff expressive function 18, 43, 180f
communicative function 18, 31f, 43, 48f,
106 fabula 132
compound sentence 78, 203f fashion 279ff
292 SUBJECT INDEX
fiction 70, 72f, 77, 84 language of commerce 106f

figures of speech 54, 73, 117-119, 121 langue 17, 20-23, 26-37, 46-48, 63, 109f,
formal language 107, 108f 266
free direct speech 214f linguistic characterology 17, 19
free indirect speech 214f linguistic correctness 24, 34, 49
functional dialect 32f linguistic means 22, 34, 43, 48, 52f, 56, 59,
functional grammar 16f, 24, 46 62, 65, 278, 280
functional language 31-33, 48, 58, 103, linguistic refinement 34, 49
105 lyric 56, 248-256
functional onomatology 16, 43, 46
functional sentence perspective 38, 54, meaning (sense) of discourse 62ff, 127f
61, 78, 141, 194ff, 216, 219 metalinguistic evaluation of expression
functional syntax 16, 43, 46 87f, 118, 121-125
mixed speech 214f
generative grammar 279 Moravian interdialects 68
Geneva School 36, 270 morphology 16, 25, 43, 46, 78, 93, 279
glossematics 21, 44
morphonology 24
grammar of dress 281
music 55, 65f, 249ff, 255
grammatical sentence pattern 170ff,
188ff, 208ff, 220 naming units 99, 127, 130, 141, 146ff
grinding 265f, 272f narrator 132, 142, 152
"grindstones" 265, 273f narrator's speech 214f, 224ff
group language 103, 107ff Neogrammarian doctrine 9-12
Harvard School 24 neologism 24, 66, 92f, 265
human activity 59, 278ff nominative Ketten 146
Humanistic period 95, 268, 274 non-obligatory sentence elements 192ff
Humboldtian tradition 11, 39, 41 norm 31-36, 48, 63, 70, 75, 79, 82, 94f,
257f
implicit congruent attribute 119f, 124
individual style 30, 57-59, 63, 165 objective style-forming factors 280f
individual style-forming factors 280f ontogenetic development 166ff
informal language 107 ff oratory 273
information theory 51
intellectualization 36, 50, 179 painting 250
intelligence 167ff paralingual means 53
interdialect 76f, 82, 86 parcellation 198ff
intertextual relations 250ff parole 15, 17, 20-32, 36, 45-48, 63, 109f,
inverted commas 72, 123-125 258, 266
Isotopieketten 146 pause 208
phenomenology 12
jargon 72f, 76, 84, 123 phonetics 21f, 29, 31, 33, 39
journalistic style {see also publicist style) phonology 17, 19-25, 29, 31, 33, 41, 44,
216ff, 220 46,78, 93, 279
koiné 77, 96 poem 53
poetic function 31, 48
language culture 16, 29, 33-36, 49, 73, 84, poetic language 32, 48
257-271, 272ff poeticisation 71, 77, 85, 112, 114f
SUBJECT INDEX 293
poetics 54 style-forming factors 59, 63, 65, 69, 83,

pop-music 56, 248-256 272, 281
practical-specialist function 32, 48f, 106 style of speech 15, 30, 33, 59
Prague functionalism 272, 280 style-sphere 280ff
Prague Linguistic School 23-25, 29, 36f, style-stratum 83, 280, 282
45, 47, 85, 105, 166, 266, 268, 270, 280 stylistic norms 55, 112
predication 147f, 170, 178 stylistics of dress 279ff
prescription 163, 264 stylistic type 280, 282
prescriptive stylistics 33 subtext 134
professional language 32 sujet 131f
professional speech 101 supplementation 198ff
pronouns 148ff, 156, 159f, 174 synchromy and diachrony 11f, 17, 23f,
proper names 95, 149, 158 42,45
proverbs 121 syntactic whole 200ff
psycholinguistics 64 syntax 16, 25, 26-28, 46, 78, 86, 166ff,
psychology 18, 40, 43, 64, 165 201ff, 236f
publicist genres 115, 217
publicist style 71-73, 85, 87f, 112-126, 184 technical style 85, 87, 90, 112f, 115f
punctuation 187 tectonic means 54, 64, 128, 133, 140, 142
purity of language 265, 272ff teleology 18, 23, 30f, 33f, 37, 45
terminology 35f, 49, 73, 79, 87f, 102, 106,
question test 195ff 262
text grammar 28
reference 147, 159 text linguistics 158, 163
register 58 textual means 54
rhetoric 54f, 164, 272ff thematic means 53f, 63f, 66, 128
rhyme 135ff theoretical-specialist function 32, 48f,
106
semiology 279 theory of action 108, 279
semiotics 51, 110, 143, 168, 280 theory of communication 51ff
sentence 26-29, 46, 190 "third standard" 77, 82
sentence and utterance 16, 26, 28, 47, 190 transfer of images 88
sentence delimitation 207f translation 161, 165, 223-247, 249ff
sentence pattern 26-28, 47, 188ff triglossia 69
sign 14f, 18, 21, 44f, 57, 160, 280 tropes 54
slang 30, 72f, 76, 84, 88f, 99-111, 123, typology of semiotic heterogenous mes
231, 246 sages 249f, 255
sociolinguistic situation 223, 230ff
sociolinguistics 64, 76, 96 utterance 16, 26, 28, 47, 188ff, 205ff
specialized style {see also technical style) utterance planning 205ff
217 valence 170ff, 188, 208ff, 220
standard Czech 32-35, 48f, 72, 74, 85, value 34, 39, 259ff
92-97, 114, 230,232 verbless sentences 47, 163-185, 191
standard language 32-36, 48f, 68-70, visual arts 55f, 250
75-86, 102f, 106, 113, 223, 263, 269 vulgarisms 233ff
standardization 31, 35, 163
style offiction71, 83, 85, 87, 112-114, 214ff word-formative means 79, 89, 105

Chloupek Jan Nekvapil Jiri Editors Studies in Functional Sty PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chloupek Jan Nekvapil Jiri Editors Studies in Functional Sty PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

STUDIES IN FUNCTIONAL STYLISTICS

LINGUISTIC & LITERARY STUDIES IN EASTERN

The emphasis of this scholarly series is on recent

Founding Editor: John Odmark †

Jan Chloupek and Jiří Nekvapil (eds)

Studies in Functional Stylistics

JAN CHLOUPEK and JIRI NEKVAPIL

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY

Co-published with Academia, Publishing House of the Czech Academy of Sciences,

Library of Congress Catalogmg-iibPublication Data

ISBN 90 272 1545 6 (Europe)

Prologue: Ferdinand de Saussure and the Prague Linguistic Circle 9

The Language and Style of Hasek's Novel "The Good Soldier

List of Contributors 285

These Studies in Functional Stylistics are freely linked to the Reader in

Ferdinand de Saussure and the Prague Linguistic Circle

Oldřich Lšeka, Jiří Nekvapil and Otakar Soltys

and functional approach. It should be noted that in the same year

impressive factual richness and precision made it attractive to those

Notwendigkeiten aber bestehen nicht bloß in bezug auf die Entstehung,

defined by them. This new perspective is primarily reflected in the fact

consensus (identification) or a background against which to identify

rangement blended with Mathesius' own view of the functional inter­

J. Vachek. The urgent need for a discussion forum and coordinated

the difference between socially conventional and individual phenome­

actual realization in speech. It is preferable to choose a neutral expres­

the point of view of langue expression form just accidental. Trubetz-

Although some developmental changes do interdepend in that

affirm that diachrony enters into synchrony just because a parole-

As we have said above, de Saussure's stimulus to the formation of

writings suggesting the possibility of considering the analogous pair:

both by langue and, especially, parole features (to use de Saussure's

In the subsequent development of linguistic theory in Czechoslova­

word sentence discourse

The distinction langue ~ parole was, for de Saussure, cardinal.

V. Mathesius was at the birth of functional stylistics by distinguish­

developed de Saussure's relational distinction langue ~ parole in a way

Here the use of the Saussurean distinction between langue and

sary to distinguish between the phonematic norm ( ~ phonology) and

cal approach, with its natural inclination to develop a conception of the

century (especially by Jan Gebauer's grammars). The vocabulary of the

language is not made stable by the dictate of linguistic theory, its

ity. We have shown the importance of conceptual differentiation in the

"Die deskriptive Grammatik verzeichnet, was von grammatischen Formen und

dique de l'école boppienne à la fraîcheur de vue et à la notion de l'interdépendance

Saussure in bibliographical notes, but on particular points. In Note 2 ("From

54 See The List of Writings No 171, 177.

starting-points in the formulation of the author's linguistic outlook. Trubetzkoy

92 Cf. N. Trubetzkoy, Description phonologique du russe moderne, 2. Das mor-

109 Karcevskij's inspirational influence on the work of Mathesius remains, of course,

speech intellectual speech theoretical, formula-

124 Úkoly (Tasks), p. 67:

ad 2. uniform semantic plan; relation of lexical units to the communicated content

complex sentence patterns by precise formulations). Moreover, the intellectuahzation

CMF Casopis pro moderni filologii

of the following we may call them lingual means. It is particularly these

political propaganda, but also in normal everyday conversation. Quite

tive conditions play a decisive role in the formation of the style of a

ally known verses of poetry, lyrics to songs, pop-hits, arias, anthems,

- as an integrative principle of the use, i. e. of choice (or even modification)

Style, however, tends to be interpreted narrowly in other ways as

both style and phenomena similar in nature, which figure in treatments

Although there does exist a completely general principle, a schema

rangement blended with Mathesius' own view of the functional inter

the difference between socially conventional and individual phenome

actual realization in speech. It is preferable to choose a neutral expres

In the subsequent development of linguistic theory in Czechoslova

V. Mathesius was at the birth of functional stylistics by distinguish

With the appearance of the periodic press, a new area of com

HAUSENBLAS, . (1958), Vyvoj předmĕĕvtového genitivu v cestirĕ (Develop

A lot is discovered if we give our attention to Oberpfalcer's exam

falcer means the word-formative resources, substantivization of adjec

As can be seen, it is, in principle, a matter of the concepts in

connections, especially with a content complex that is otherwise unex