English language: history and dialects. Specified language phenomena and their un\importance. Differences between the varieties of the English language and dialects. Differences and the stylistic devices in in newspapers articles, them evaluation.
Аннотация к работе
So it proves our idea: the varieties of the English language can be denied and be considered as dialects, another disadvantage of the definition is the term “small localities” because in this case the UK is small locality while the USA and India big ones. Another Russian scientist, who tried to shed some light upon the problem, was Arnold. The opinion of the scientist is as follows: “local dialects are varieties of the English language peculiar to some districts and having no normalised literary form” [11:262]. It means if a district has literary norm its total sum of peculiarities can be considered as “variety”, we can prove the idea through the next definition by Arnold: “regional varieties possessing a literary form are called variants” [11:262]. Taking into account the globalization and level of the education we can suppose a scenario where more and more authors from different countries can create their works in English creating the kind of literary norm and new and new variants of English what can really overload the lexicology and so on. Now having acquainted with the Russian scientists’ points of view and found them as improbable we can analyze some foreign works. The way of defining the differences in foreign works is more “smooth” and more accurate. Among all the scientists the most successful definition was introduced by Schneider, who says: “the neutral term that has come to be used normally for such group specific language forms is “a variety.” Any set of language habits that is shared by a certain group of speakers for use in certain contexts constitutes such a variety” [7: 15]. His definition was not careless but just the opposite, he uses such qualities as “neutral term”, and he doesn’t point out what are the specified different features: “set of language habits”, such a way is not very accurate and defined but at least error-free one. The authors point of view is “shrewd” in a way and moreover almost correlates with our position because: “the term is closely related to that of a “dialect,” which also denotes a language form associated with a certain group of people but is usually associated with a given region (hence a “regional dialect”) or a social class or group (a “social dialect”)” [7: 15].