The category of formality in English

In contrast to the last example, there are many instances where the clipped form of a word is used in all but the most formal styles: (tele) phone, photo (graph). What is more, it should be remembered that inversion is characteristic of formal style as well as the use of lest. On the contrary, in informal style was may be used instead of were for the singular: We wish Mr. Leigh wasn't ill.
Following an informal graduate seminar at a major university, a black student approached the instructor, who was about to leave the room accompanied by several other black and white students, and said:
a Could I talk to you for a minute? I'm gonna apply for a fellowship and I was wondering if I could get a recommendation? The instructor replied:
b OK. Come along to the office and tell me what you want to do. As the instructor and the rest of the group left the room, the black student said, turning his head ever so slightly to the other students:
с Ahma git me a gig! (Rough gloss: "I'm going to get myself some support.")
As we can see from the given example, it is a report of an actual interchange. In addition to what is said (lines a, b, and c), the example itself includes the context of the interchange (the physical setting, social roles, relationship of speech to other activity) and other information about what participants are doing (the physical stance of the interactants). The example also replicates what is said in a way that reveals the use of a particular variety of speech.
Gumperz's analysis of the utterance Ahma git me a gig! focuses upon how interpretations of the speaker's intent are related to different linguistic qualities of the utterance (phonological and lexical variants) as well as the way the utterance is contextually embedded (what activities it follows, to whom it is directed). These interpretations are gathered by asking listeners (including, but not limited to, those present during the actual interchange) what they thought the speaker meant to convey, and relating those situated inferences to the means by which the speaker actually presented the utterance. As it thus illustrates, the interactional approach relies upon actual utterances in social context: the focus of analysis is how interpretation and interaction are based upon the interrelationship of social and linguistic meanings.
The ethnography of communicationis an approach to discourse that is based in anthropology, and it shares with much traditional anthropology a concern for holistic explanations of meaning and behavior. Much of the impetus for this approach was Dell Hymes's challenge to Chomsky's well known refocusing of linguistic theory on the explanation of competence, tacit knowledge of the abstract rules of language. What Hymes proposed instead was that scholarship focus on communicative competence: the tacit social, psychological, cultural, and linguistic knowledge governing appropriate use of language (including, but not limited to, grammar). Communicative competence includes knowledge of how to engage in everyday conversation as well as other culturally constructed speech events (e.g. prayer, public oratory). (3) is an example that illustrates the inclusive thrust of the ethnography of communication - so inclusive that cultural interpretation and difference permeates even what seems to be so basic a notion as what ‘counts as’ communication.
Conclusion


As a result, we should emphasize that the category of formality of the English language does exist. It is extremely significant to distinguish various registers and be able to find out the best communicative strategy according to every particular communicative situation. There are five intonational styles in the English language: Informational style, Conversational style or Familiar, Publicistic style, Academic style or Scientific, Declamatory style or Artistic. This particular division is supported by different degrees of formality or rather familiarity among the speaker and the listener.
Additionally, neutral, formal and informal English have their own features resulted both in phonetics and grammar which should be studied with special attention.
The list of the used sources


1. Chomutova T. N. (2008) Reading in the theory of English Grammar.
2. Popowa O.V. (2006) Theoretical phonetics of English.
3. Shakhbagova D.A. (1982) Varieties of English Pronunciation.
4. Trudgill P., Hannah J. (1994) International English: A Guide to varieties of Standard English.
5. Quirk R. (1985) Grammar of the English Language.
6. Vassilyev V.A. (1990) English Phonetics: A Theoretical Course.


Vassilyev V.A. (1990) English Phonetics: A Theoretical Course.
Trudgill P., Hannah J. (1994) International English: A Guide to varieties of Standard English.
Shakhbagova D.A. (1982) Varieties of English Pronunciation.
Popowa O.V. (2006) Theoretical phonetics of English. – Pp. 10-11.
Quirk R. (1985) Grammar of the English Language.
Quirk R. (1985) Grammar of the English Language. – Pp. 25-26.
Chomutova T. N. (2008) Reading in the theory of English Grammar. – Pp. 83-115.
Chomutova T. N. (2008) Reading in the theory of English Grammar. – Pp. 166-169.












10