Today, not everyone can answer the question that this is idiocy. We can often find this term in scientific works on the style of speech and the style of literary text. Idiostyle is a phenomenon that characterizes the individual style of creativity of a writer. In addition, this may be a characteristic manner of exposing the text in the work of a poet or publicist. For the first time, the idiostyle, language styles and speech styles began to be studied in the works of the famous domestic linguist V.V. Vinogradov.
About the term
Idiostyle is a linguistic term, which is an abbreviation for the phrase “individual style,” meaning a complex of meaningful linguistic characteristics that are symbolic for the style of an author. Usually, the term “idiostyle” is used in the analysis of fiction and denotes a unique style of the author, whose works are very different from the total mass of other works both in the style of narration and in the lexical composition.
Some scholars tend to view idiostyle as a combination of “language styles” and “speech styles,” but this hypothesis has not been adequately disseminated.
Analogs of the concept
In recent years, the concept of “discourse” has become new in linguistics, which partly coincides in meaning with the concept of “idiostyle,” but it has a broader meaning. If the literary features of one writer or poet are called idiostyle, then the discourse denotes a set of unique authorial styles of any direction, era, time period.
The manifestation of idiostyle in a book is, first of all, an indicator of its uniqueness in terms of a literary phenomenon.
For example, the work of Vladimir Mayakovsky will be the subject of the study of idiostyle, and the work of the symbolist poets of the early 20th century will be considered as part of the discourse.
From the point of view of theoretical linguistics, discourse cannot be a broader designation of idiostyle, since these phenomena consider various objects of artistic self-expression of a person, however, in practical style, when analyzing literary texts directly, these terms are similar in meaning.
Idiostyle and idiolect
The term "idiolect", which appeared in linguistic circles in the mid-90s of the last century, was for a long time unofficial and was not considered by serious scientists as a linguistic phenomenon. However, later, thanks to the work of Academician Yuri Nikolaevich Karaulov, he was recognized by domestic linguists and underwent a detailed study. For a long time, the term "idiolect" was considered only a feature of "idiostyle" or one of its manifestations. Examples of the term also did not stand out in a separate category for a long time.
An idiolect, as a phenomenon, denotes the language of all the texts of an author. If the subject of the study of idiostyle is directly the literary texts of a writer, then the idiolect includes all text materials created by the author throughout his life. This category includes: works of art, journalism, documentary works, scientific works, correspondence, notes. In the modern interpretation, the concept of "idiolect" is much broader and also includes Internet publications, as well as personal correspondence of the author on social networks.
It should be noted that the main criterion for defining texts in the category of idiol is considered to be their chronological sequence, since due to the arrangement of the texts in the order they were created by the author, you can get a more accurate picture of the dynamics of the development of the author's language.
An important difference between these two phenomena is the fact that idiostyle refers to an analysis of works officially published by the author and in the public domain. The subject of the study of the idiolect is in part works that can only be authorized after the death of the author or with his direct permission.
Language personality and idiostyle
There is no such thing in world linguistics that does not have anything to do with the term “linguistic personality”. The term “linguistic personality” was coined by academician Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov, and the concept denoted by him is still at the head of the list of questions of linguistics being studied.
In Russian philology, any speaker of a certain language is called a linguistic person, however, most scholars are inclined to understand the term not as a designation of a particular person, but as the totality of all texts reproduced by him during the period of existence and the totality of all speech acts of a given individual, on the basis of which it can be concluded that what language level is available to him.
The study of the linguistic level is, first of all, of a sociocultural value, because, using statistics of people's use of certain words, we can draw conclusions about the state of the language in a given period.
The term "state of the language" means the characteristic of its features. For example, a sign of a language may be the percentage of borrowed words or the number of swear words, the number of vernaculars, the number of neologisms, etc. Based on the general picture, you can see what state the language is in, whether it has retained its lexical composition or is filled with borrowings and low vocabulary .
Obviously, the practical part of the concept of “linguistic personality”, which includes literary texts, is partly identical to the concepts of “idiostyle” and “idiolect”. However, if an idiostyle and an idiolect consider texts in the context of the author, paying more attention to the author of the works and his personal philosophy, then the linguistic personality is based on the study of texts, audio and video materials directly, putting the language itself at the head of the study, without considering any texts in the context author's worldview.
That is why the analysis of the writer’s idiostyle is carried out within the framework of the discipline “style of literary text”.
History of the concept
The term “idiostyle” was proposed by academician Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov in 1958 as an alternative to the concept of “linguistic personality”, but it did not take root in Russian linguistics until 1998, when a second life was given to the definition with the light hand of academician Yuri Nikolaevich Karaulov.
It was Yu. N. Karaulov who was the first to propose not to replace one term with another, but to delimit the spheres of their influence, which will allow for a more detailed study of the stylistic phenomenon of human speech.
Since the late 90s of the last century, the term has been actively used in advanced research in the field of linguo-stylistics, linguo-libiology, as well as in the field of linguocultural analysis, and in the early 2000s it has been firmly included in Russian linguistics as one of the fundamental phenomena of linguistics.
Definitions
Despite the stability in the field of linguistic analysis, the term “idiostyle” still does not have a full-fledged and well-established definition, which allows different scholars to interpret it differently in their monographs.
For example, academician Vyacheslav Ivanov is inclined to believe that the term “writer’s idiostyle” can be understood as the totality of semiotic games, that is, the totality of all language variants of the same word, considered from the perspective of analyzing its semantic part.
Doctor of Sciences Sergey Ivanovich Gindin was not in solidarity with V.V. Ivanov and believed that idiostyle was nothing more than a wide range of speech transformations, sharply contrasting with the norms and phenomena of the literary language.
Also, S.I. Gindin believed that the term should not be considered writing styles of fiction, since texts containing an artistic element obey the rules of artistic stylistics, and not stylistics proper, within which the concept should be considered.
He also noted that the work of only some great classics falls under the category of “author's idiom”, and the introduction of the term, due to the small amount of material corresponding to it, makes no practical sense whatsoever. Moreover, such a “terminological leapfrog” will only complicate the study of both literary texts and the speech basis of the language.
Researchers
The first studies of idiostyle signs directly as part of the terminological system were carried out by Yuri Nikolayevich Tynyanov, Yuri Nikolayevich Karaulov, and Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov. It is in the works of these famous scientists for the first time that a definition and theoretical justification of both the term and the sphere of its influence are given.
V.V. Vinogradov was the first to suggest that idiostyle examples be a sign of a specific part of fiction, and several years later he connected it with his new term - a linguistic personality, trying to combine the concepts they designate into one language analysis system.
Later, Yu. N. Karaulov proposed dividing the linguistic personality into three levels: verbal-semantic, cognitive, and also motivational, which led to the separation of the concept of “linguistic personality” and its design into a separate linguistic category for research, because an idiolect is, by assurance academician, not part of the linguistic personality, but only its manifestation.
The theoretical works of these scientists made it possible to exclude this term from the sphere of studying the stylistics of the language and create a new discipline - "The style of the literary text", the basis of which was the study of the concepts of "discourse", "linguistic personality", etc.
Currently, the style of literary text is a rapidly developing scientific direction from the family of practical linguistics. It should be noted that most of the works published in this discipline can be understood and interesting not only to a narrow circle of specialists, but also to an ordinary reader who does not have special linguistic training.
Recently, an example of the concept of idiostyle has become identical to the term “concept”. The concept of “concept” is intended to denote the totality of unique author’s ideas, meanings, theories manifested in each of its texts, whether it is an artwork or any other kind of text fragment.
In this case, these key concepts may turn out to be only a characteristic of the idiostyle, but not a phenomenon equal in importance to it, as the outstanding linguist Oleg Yuryevich Desyukevich notes in his works, recognizing that with the advent of the concept of “concept”, many studies not only ceased to have meaning, but also the moral perception of discourse in linguistics is morally outdated.
His position is not shared by philologist Irina Ilinichna Babenko, who believes that the concept is a continuation of the discourse, but does not contradict it with an element of linguistic analysis, because idiostyle is, like a concept, a criterion for analyzing the text.
In general, Russian studies of the late XX - early XXI centuries are characterized by a tendency to develop an individual approach to the text, in which the subject of analysis is not so much the text itself and its formal criteria as the author’s vision of this work. The author as an object of analysis is more interesting to researchers than his work, which serves as a tool for linguists to perceive and convey individuality.
Academician V.V. Vinogradov is traditionally considered the founder of an individual approach to the study of the text and its lexical component, although the academician himself admitted that in his studies he relied on more serious work by academicians Roman Osipovich Jacobson, Yuri Nikolaevich Tynyanov, Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, Boris Moiseevich Eichenbaum, as well as Vladimir Mikhailovich Zhirmunsky.
Literary examples
From the point of view of practical stylistics, authors whose work to one degree or another meets the concept can be not only classics of literature, but also authors who give their own work a conceptual linguistic coloring.
Features of the idiostyle of Russian writers of the XX century are manifested primarily in the presence of a set of signs confirming the uniqueness and uniqueness of their texts.
For example, the work of V.V. Mayakovsky may correspond to the concept, since:
- all works of the author are designed in the same style;
- author’s works are characterized by the use of words of the same type;
- the author creates his own reality, the rules of which are the same for all his works;
- author’s works are characterized by the use of neologisms and other lexical types of words characterizing his universe and providing the atmosphere of the text.
By analogy, the criteria are similar to the features of the works of L. N. Tolstoy, M. Ya. Fedorov, N. V. Gogol and many other authors.
The writer’s idiom is, first of all, the totality of the lexical features of his texts.
Groups of scientists
It is obvious that the discussion around the concepts of “idiostyle” and “linguistic personality” has long turned into a confrontation between scientific communities, each of which renowned scientists come up with their own positions.
Currently, there are two positions officially approved in linguistic circles regarding the issue of considering idiostyle as a separate linguistic criterion.
The first version is presented by the hypothesis that the idiolect and idiostyle are deeper and less deep levels of analysis of the text structure, respectively. Such hypotheses are supported by such well-known scientists as Alexander Konstantinovich Zholkovsky, Yuri Kirillovich Scheglov and Vladimir Petrovich Grigoriev.
V.P. Grigoriev believes that all the functions of the analysis of idiostyle as a linguistic phenomenon should be aimed at describing, first of all, the deep connectedness of the elements of the literary world of the writer, which, in turn, should lead to a reflection study that describes the linguistic structure of the body of texts of which any author.
The writer’s idiostyle is, in turn, a complex of texts that meet the criteria for idiostyle and are the totality of all the author’s creative works.
It is known that any literary text and speech example are the result of genetic language memory, which allows the author to create individual images in his mind, using the speech experience of his ancestors.
Thus, the idiocy of a writer is a concept that, as a criterion of a literary text, is a manifestation of genetic linguistic thinking.
Similar views, rooted in the discipline of "Anthropological Linguistics", are found in the works of Stepan Timofeevich Zolyan, Lev Semenovich Vygotsky and many other linguists.
Literary bilingualism
In 1999, Professor Vladimir Petrovich Grigoriev wondered about a categorical group of texts written in one language and translated into another.
It is known that idiostyle in literature is a characteristic of a unique author's beginning in the text. This gives rise to a heated discussion in the linguistic community about the idiostyle of translation, the essence of which lies in the following theses:
- Can we analyze translated texts with the same tools that we use for ordinary linguistic analysis?
- By means of which language is it worth analyzing the text - by means of the original language or the language of translation?
- When working with translated texts, should we distinguish between the author’s own translation and the translation made by another person?
- Is the analysis of such texts part of the style of the text, or should we attribute this phenomenon to the discipline of "Theory of Translation"?
These and many other questions still remain open, allowing various scholars to interpret the linguistic analysis of the translated texts according to their scientific concepts.
The term “idiostyle of translation” does not yet have an exact definition, as well as characteristic features, but this does not prevent it from being used when analyzing texts and identifying differences in approaches to understanding the structure of the text.
The well-known translator Vladimir Mikhailovich Kiselev believes that the idiostyle in the book is an indicator of the accuracy of the translation, a sign of the translator’s unique perception of the author’s reality.
In the discipline “Style of a literary text”, the concept of the idiostyle of translation is extremely necessary, since many authors of the classical period of Russian literature were bilingual by the type of their language thinking.
The prose and poetry of these creative people form a single “linguistic reality”, which is not divided into separate parts for analysis. V.V. Vinogradov is inclined to believe that the idiostyle of translation, as a phenomenon, should be studied and investigated along with the artistic idiostyle, without conducting analysis under special conditions.
Idiostyle in literature is a manifestation of its essence, the totality of all that without which literature cannot exist.