Ministry of Education Moldova State University Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures English Philology Department

Graduation Thesis

A Linguistic Analysis of Political Euphemisms

Written by Melentieva Aliona,group 313

Research adviser Marcela Calchei, MA

Chiinu 2010

Summary
kajsdhaksjd

Table of Contents
Table of Contents.........................................................................4 Chapter One. ...............................................................................5 1.1. A Study of Expressive Means and Stylistic Devices...................5 1.2. A Study of Euphemisms..........................................................7
1.2.1 The History of Euphemism...........................................................7 1.2.2. The Definition of Euphemism......................................................9 1.2.3. Classification of Euphemisms....................................................12

1.3. Euphemism as a Means of Achieving Political Correctness......14 1.4. Features of Newspaper Style................................................16

Chapter One. 1.1. A Study of Expressive Means and Stylistic Devices

The term style is connected very close with our everyday life, it imprints many fields of human activity, for instance: style in architecture, painting, literature, behavior, and fashion. The scholar I.R.Galperin shows the wide usage of the style in linguistics, he points out the following fields of investigation of this term: the aesthetic function of language, the expressive means in language, the synonymous ways of rendering one and the same idea, the emotional colouring in language, the stylistic devices, the splitting of the literary language into separate subsystems called styles, the interrelation between language and thought, the individual manner of an author in making use of language[;9]. The linguist P.Verdonk defines the style in language as distinctive linguistic expression, and stylistics, the study of style, as the analysis of distinctive expression in language, the description of its purpose and effect [;3]. Paul Simpson characterizes the stylistics (modern) as a prosperous one, witnessed in a spreading of sub-disciplines where stylistics methods are enriched and enabled by theories of discourse, culture and society. He claims that stylistics is a method of textual interpretation in which primacy of place is assigned to language and this means that the stylistics is interested in language as a function of texts in contexts: it acknowledges that utterances are produced in a time, a place, and in a cultural and cognitive context. Simpson states that to do stylistics is to explore creativity in language use, in other words, it offers a substantial purchase on the understanding of texts [;3]. One of the main subjects of the stylistics is the study of the particular means by which a writer obtains his effect. The linguists use different terms that denote these elements of style the expressive means, the stylistic means, the stylistic devices, and the others. The definition of the stylistic device also is differently interpreted by the linguist. Thus, Kucharenko defines stylistic device as the device having the main feature the binary opposition of two meanings of the employed unit, one of which is normatively fixed in the language and does not depend upon the context, while the other one originates within certain context and is contextual [;23]. The Genuisas, axed on a literary approach to stylistics, associates stylistic devices with images - the little word-pictures used by the poet or prose writer to illustrate, illuminate and embellish his thoughts[;11]. Thomas A.Sebeok mentions the stylistic devices as elements of the linguistic code that are

endowed with an emotive function, elements that serve to express the writers attitude toward his reader or to the thing written about. But Galperin has a different opinion concerning the stylistic means of the language, he consider that they can be divided into expressive means and stylistic devices. Galperin maintains that expressive means present the intensifying forms of the language, these are the phonetic means, morphological forms, means of word-building, and lexical, phraseological and syntactical forms which emotionally and logically intensify the utterance. The expressive means in most cases have corresponding neutral synonymous forms. The stylistic device is regarded by Galperin as a special device, a stylistic phenomenon, and defines it as a conscious and intentional use of some of the facts of the language in which the structural end semantic features of the language forms are raised to a generalized level. He considers the stylistic devices as aiming at the further intensification of the emotional or logical emphasis contained in the corresponding expressive means. Comparing these terms Galperin concludes that stylistic devices are patterns of the language, generative models whereas the expressive means are just like words themselves, they are facts of the language. He mentions that they have a difference concerning the degree of predictability. Expressive means are commonly used in language and are easily predictable, another thing is that stylistic devices carry greater amount of information and they must be regarded as a special code which has still to be deciphered, so stylistic devices are less predictable. Furthermore, Galperin believes that expressive means have a potential capacity of becoming stylistic devices, and for this reason there is one indispensable requirement to become a stylistic device - the expressive means should be so much used in one and the same function that it has become generalized in its functions [;23-27]. There is a variety of stylistic devices that enriched English language, that is why there is a confused situation concerning their classification. Galperin, for instance, analyzing the differences between expressive means and stylistic devices, does not make a certain taxonomy. The linguist just mentions them putting in evidence the expressive means (in the beginning), this means that Galperin describes more detailed expressive means in order to confirm their existence on the one hand, and because they are not so numerous on the other hand. She enumerates such expressive means as:

phonetic (pitch, melody, stress, drawling), morphological (the historical present, shall in the 2nd and 3rd person), word-building (diminutive suffixes, Greek roots), lexical(interjections, some qualitative adjectives, proverbs, sayings), syntactical(different syntactical patterns).

Further Galperin allots stylistic devices and expressive means together, and she mentions in the definition of the stylistic element what it is-device or expressive mean, for example: Irony is a stylistic device based on the simultaneous. So Galperins classification of expressive means and stylistic devices is following:

Lexical expressive means and stylistic devices (metaphor, metonymy, irony, zeugma and pun, interjection, epithet) Intensification of a certain feature or a thing or phenomenon (simile, periphrasis, hyperbole, euphemism) Syntactical expressive means and stylistic devices (repetition, detached constructions, parallel constructions, chiasmus) Phonetic expressive means and stylistic devices( asyndeton, ellipsis, break-in-thenarrative, litotes)

Galperin also analyzes the peculiarities of set expressions-proverbs, sayings, quotations, allusions. Another linguist V.A.Kukharenko, who doesnt distinguish stylistic devices and expressive means singles out the following main groups of stylistic devices: Lexical stylistic devices(anotomasia, metaphor, metonymy, irony, hyperbole, epithet)

Syntactical stylistic devices(inversion, ellipsis, suspense, repetition, parallel constructions)

Lexico-syntactical stylistic devices(climax, antithesis, simile, litotes, periphrasis) Graphical and phonetic syntactical means (punctuation, alliteration, onomatopeia) There is an interesting point that should be taken in consideration- Kukharenko doesnt mention the euphemism among his classification of stylistic devices.

1.2. A Study of Euphemisms 1.2.1 The History of Euphemism

The term euphemism came from the Ancient Greece eu-well, pheme- speaking. Also the Grand Larousse Encyclopedique points out the great importance of the euphemisms in the ancient world, mentioning that the ancient people avoided the words with the annoying and disagreeable meaning, considering them as a bad omen. Furthermore, they called Eumenides, i.e. well-wish, the geographical names Erinyes and

Pont-Euxin which mean the hospitalizing sea- a sea famous by its frequent shipwrecks. In addition to these facts V. Fromkin and her colleagues mention in their book the Greek historian Plutarch who wrote that the ancient Anthenians used to cover up the ugliness of things with auspicious and kindly terms, giving them polite and endearing names. Thus they called harlots companions, taxes contributions, and prison a chamber.Also these linguists present a folk song attributed to Wartime Royal Air Force of Great Britain which reveals in a way the essence of euphemisms: Banish the use of the four-letter words Whose meaning is never obscure. The Anglos, the Saxons, those bawdy old birds Were vulgar, obscene, and impure. But cherish the use of the weaseling phrase That never quite says what it means; Youd better be known for your hypocrite ways Than vulgar, impure, and obscene.[;444-445] Anglo-Saxon society was the golden age in the expression of language and the source of four-letter words which were many innuendos and direct reference to sex. Many of these taboos during the Anglo-Saxons era survived until the fourteenth century. Chaucers Pardoner in The Canterbury Tales rails against those who rend the body of Christ. On the contrary, Chaucer is free in his description of womens most intimate parts. In the sixteenth century, Shakespeare used an arsenal of sexual innuendos in his dramas and sonnets. He reflected his societys panache and its strange mixture of religious and irrelevance in his characters speech about swearing. For instance, Henry IV and King Lear there are so many swearing contests, reflecting mot merely a willingness to entertain and expand the invectives but also the importance of class structure in setting linguistic patterns. The coursers were the aristocrats aping the manners of the lower classes. The aristocracy developed their own elaborate court language, so called euphemism characterized by circumlocutions and excessive verbiage. It was perhaps significant that by the early 1580s, the author George Blount used the term euphemism in English, defining it as a

good or favourable interpretation of a bad word. Euphemisms were in full flourish among the English middle classes since the seventeenth century. They were very conservative enough to avoid the direct references to sex, God, death, and excretory functions and the like, while the aristocracy served as an inventive force creating the new language. It was the middle class Victorian in the nineteenth century who amplified the euphemistic traditions both in England and in America. Polite Victorians would no refer to legs but to limbs. The Victorian lexicon of frillies, unmentionable and inexpressible reflect the shock that the general population felt at encountering subjects that had been considered private. It was the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries that British euphemisms we developing abroad as well as at home. Although Americans would coin euphemisms with the local colour of their new land and lives, and patterns of formation would follow those of the English middle class. American euphemism reflected the desires of them for both piety and gentility. Puritans were well known for their concern with language, enacting laws against profanity. As their status was enhanced, they increased their powerful influence that led not only to genteelizing but also to sentimentalizing the language. This sentimental influence generated large lexicon of euphemism for both love and death. [;]

1.2.2. The Definition of Euphemism

Nowadays the meaning and the function of the euphemisms are preserved, even many linguists define this notion almost in the same way: There is no big difference between dictionaries of linguistic terms and explanatory dictionaries. Both types of dictionaries mention the evasive function of the euphemism. Oxford Dictionary of English Language sustains that euphemism is a mild or vague expression substituted for one thought to be to harsh or direct. [;] Whereas the Oxford Companion to the English Language states that euphemism is a substitution of a word that has a negative or offensive connotation or meaning: a mild, comforting or evasive expression that

takes the place of one that is taboo, negative, offensive or too direct.[;] In the exhaustive Websters New Encyclopedic Dictionary, euphemism is defined as the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant.[;] The dictionary of linguistic terms Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics defines euphemism as a word used in a place of one avoided as offensive, indecent, or alarming. [;]This definition does not differ greatly from the above-mentioned ones and surprisingly does not contain any linguistic terms that would help us place euphemism in the taxonomy of lexical expressive means or stylistic devices. Few linguists define the notion of euphemism. The American linguist A. Genuisas stated that euphemism entails substitution of a mild, vague or periphrastic expression for blunt precision or disagreeable truth. Thus, he mentions that euphemism is based on periphrasis. The Russian scholar Y .M.Skrebnev affirms that euphemism implies the social practice of replacing the tabooed words by words and phrases that seem less straightforward, milder, more harmless (or at least les offensive). Hence, this research points to the fact that euphemism has a sociolinguistic function. Apart of this, the scholar Allen Keith propounds a sophisticated variant of the euphemisms definition: Euphemisms are the words or phrases used as an alternative to a disprefered expression which avoid possible loss of face by the speaker, and also the hearer or some third party. Another scholar Lakoff has a more colloquial approach in order to define the euphemisms: Euphemism is a convention for pretending you are not talking about what you know you are talking about, which would be embarrassing to confront directly. Albert H. Marckwardt defines euphemism as verbal prudery or the avoidance of unpleasant word in his book American English[;122] Lakoff also added that the euphemism is the linguistic equivalent of the giggle and blush[;43], Keith, however uses as the equivalent the ironic expression sweet talking[;29], Galperin mentions a figurative synonym for the euphemism- a whitewashimg device[;170]. Geoffrey Leech, in his Semantics [;] discussed euphemism as the linguistic equivalent of disinfectant.

In general the use of euphemisms plays an important role in social communication. According to Fromkina the general function of the euphemism is that it serves to avoid frightening or unpleasant subjects. An U.S. journalist, Hugh Rawson, maintains that the euphemisms represents the societys basic lingua non franca outward and visible signs of our inward anxieties, conflicts, fears, and shames.[;387]. A.Keith studying the euphemisms concludes that they are used to avoid the speaker being embarrassed and at the same time, to avoid embarrassing or offending the person or persons addressed, in other words he draws a parallel between the euphemisms use and politeness. Galperin mentions the linguistic peculiarity of the euphemism - every euphemism must call up a definite synonym in the mind of the reader or listener, she suggests that this synonym must be like a shadow. Moreover, the linguist Arnold characterizes the euphemisms as a worthy source of synonymy, and he states that the euphemisms and dysphemisms (direct expressions) co-exist in the language and form a synonymic opposition [;207]. But euphemisms always tend to be a source of new synonymic formations, this means that their euphemisms life is short, they very soon become closely associated with the referent [;171]. Due to this peculiarity, it is important to mention that the euphemisms are a part of the language-asa-system and as Galperin explains the euphemisms are expressive means and they cannot be regarded as stylistic devices because they refer the mind to the concept directly, not through the medium of another word [;170]. So the euphemisms are be found in all good dictionaries but it is not specified that they are euphemisms. The only linguist that states that euphemism is a figure of speech is Gilbert L. Brook In his monograph A History of English Language he affirms that euphemism is the figure of speech by which one seeks to disguise the real nature of an unpleasant idea by giving it an inoffensive name Apart from this some linguists speak about the euphemism power, and they maintain if there were a scale of euphemism power, for example from 1 to 10, where the higher the number the harsher the reality being hidden, the phrase final solution (extermination of the Jews) would probably get a ten, and pass wind(fart) would get a one.

1.2.3. Classification of Euphemisms

Regarding the taxonomy of the euphemisms, according to Galperin we have: 1. 2. 3. 4. religious euphemisms moral euphemisms medical euphemisms parliamentary euphemisms John Manole distinguishes two types of euphemisms: 1. Language euphemisms(Pacific Ocean, pass away) 2. Individual euphemisms( the ones found in the literary texts and being created in stylistic aims)[;110]. Allan Keith speaks about euphemistic dysphemisms and dysphemistic euphemisms defining them as expressions at odds with the intentions that lurk behind them. The euphemistic dysphemisms are linguistic fig leaves for a thought that can be castigated as dusphemistic. They are connected with the social stuff, i. e,. a person may feel the inner urge to swear, but at the same time may not wish to appear overly coarse in their behavior, thus the society provides a way out- a conventionalized euphemistic dysphemism ,for instance, Gosh!, Sugar!, Shoot! or Shivers! for the expressive exclamation Shit!( which of course is a dysphemism). There are expressions, which are dysphemistic while the expressive point is euphemistic, so these are the dysphemistic euphemisms. As examples can be old bastard, or silly little dag for a good mate, also other examples of dysphemistic euphemisms are terms for menstruation such as have the curse, womans complaint, off the roof, flying the red flag and surfing the red wave.[;39-40] There is a type of euphemisms mentioned and analyzed by the linguists particularly from other types, because of its specific fields of investigation, features, and functions. These are the political euphemisms which have a close connection with the terms political correctness-used to describe language, ideas and policies that minimize offence to racial, cultural or any other identity group, and doublespeak- a deliberately constructed language that is used to disguise thoughts and it is associated with governmental, corporate and military institutions.

I.R.Galperin defines the political euphemisms as understatements the aim of which is to mislead public opinion and to express what is unpleasant in a more delicate manner. For the most part people have a negative attitude towards the political euphemisms. Thus George Orwell, an English author and journalist known by his articles and satirical novels concerning politics, pointed out that the euphemism, characterized by replacing direct expressions with implicative, obscure and vague ones, plays a quite essential role in demystifying the connotation of political discourse when serving political purposes. He maintained that political language was designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable. This statement represents the disguising and deceptive function of the political euphemisms. So political euphemism is an effective tool for political leaders to control the quality and quantity of information transmission, with which some disgraceful behaviors or motivations will be glorified or hidden, hence avoiding public accusation. The second function of the political euphemisms is the persuasive function. For this reason, Lakoff claims that politics is language and language is politics and political euphemism is similar to political propaganda in that both aim at persuading and influencing the public. Furthermore, it is stated by many linguists that language is not a true reflection of the reality, they maintain that political leaders try to shape peoples recognition and knowledge of the world with the use of euphemism, hence influencing their view of world and intervening their knowledge of the world and sense of right and wrong. Returning to the subject of negative attitude towards political euphemisms, it is necessary to mention that George Orwells works, ideas have many supporters, by this means some Canadian journalists analyzes in an editorial the corrupting influence of the euphemisms. Making the reference to the Orwells satirical work Animal farm they states that the essence of the euphemisms, of this double-think technique is to clothe a harsh, unpleasant fact or a supposed political necessity in such a vague language as to give it a favourable presentation. They maintains that a promise made on a political platform, a statement of government policy or even an act of legislation can be produced in which the authors intention is to the literal meaning offered for public approval. In response to this attitude Allen Keith claims : In the mouth or pen of a political satirist can be deliberately provoking. He added that the political euphemism aims not to disguise or conceal unpleasant reality, but to help remove the stigma of negative social stereotypes by compelling its audience to go beyond the simple content of the message and challenge embodied in language.[;97] In addition to this a BBC-journalist says: Before we are too judgmental on politicians propensity to euphemism, we should remember that everyone does the same thing in their everyday life. Whether talking about taboo

subjects like death and illness or breaking bad news to people we do not want to hurt, we are often willing to sugar-coat the truth. [;]

1.3. Euphemism as a Means of Achieving Political Correctness

The society is beset by the language of politics which surrounds it, people meet it every day in diverse forms and sources, in radio and television broadcasts, in newspapers, etc. So, Ronald Carter mentions, politics is a substantial part of life, and peoples involvements in life are interpretable as political processes[;130]. The term of political correctness comes from the United States of America. The earliest mention of the term comes from the Supreme court decision in the case of Chisholm v.Georgia in 1793. It had a different meaning from nowadays one: The States, rather than the people, for whose sakes the States exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attentionsentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? The United States, instead of the People of the United States, is the toast given. This is not politically correct It suggested that using the term The United States instead of the People of the United States did not correlate with the way the ideals and goals of politics of the United States were generally seen and defined by then. In other words , it said that the former term was not politically correct as the state was there for the people rather than the other round. Allan Keith comments also that in 1990 political correctness was being described as responsible for corruption of English language on a truly Orwellian scale, and it was criticized for trivializing important issues precisely because it focused on insignificant language matters, and not on importants political ones. Some years later, as Keith states the label political correctness had turned into a powerful rhetorical stick to beat your political opponents with; a way of bringing contumely on someone you didnt like; an effective strategy of short-circuit serious debate [;93-94]. Nowadays , political correctness refers to behavior, especially verbal behavior, rather than to a political position. According to Keith, the emphasis of political correctness has now moved to civil gentility. He considers political correctness as a brainwashing programme and as simple as good manners. Keith assumes that political correct language reflects and also seeks to enforce social change. He mentions a definition of political correctness from the Macquarie Dictionary: political correctness is a conformity to current beliefs about correctness in language and

behavior with regard to politics on sexism, racism, ageism, etc. In other words as V Fromkina observes referring to political correctness : you know how to use your language appropriately, even if you sometimes choose not to[;438]. Political correctness is usually criticized by some politicians and linguists because it limits the language choice and speech freedom. It certainly cannot be denied that political correctness bears a certain degree of resemblance to censorship. Keith also considers that political correctness creates a kind of tacit censorship. He added that one reason for hostility towards political correctness is that a breach of political correct protocol can quickly become an inquiry into a miscreants character. The well-known journalist George Orwell criticized very harsh the political language claiming that it is the defense of the indefensible. He maintained that the great enemy of clear language is insincerity represented by the corrupting euphemisms, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness form political language. Orwell believed that all issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, nad schizophrenia. In response to Orwells view, Robert Hughes, a critic of political correctness, describes political correct language as a linguistic Laerdes, where evil and misfortune are dispelled by a dip in the waters of euphemism. Actually as A.Keith points out, political correctness gets the peple to focus on the claims of different groups, it prescribes and proscribes public language for ethnicity, race, gender, sexual preference, appearance, religion, (dis)ability, etc. he adds that political correctness ensures a fair go for all, but mixed in with it is a twist of fear and anxiety[;105]. In general Allan Keith studying the taboos and forbidden words of English language, analyzes very carefully and profoundly the subject concerning the language of political correctness. He concludes that verbal taboos are imposed by social conventions, they strengthen social cohesion and serve human interests by censoring out bald mention of things which threaten danger, distress and offence. He considers the language of political correctness is no more a threat to freedom of speech than other types of verbal taboos. In fact the political correct restrictions on speech are mostly self-imposed with speakers unwilling to run the risk of being judged to violate the accepted code for their context of utterance. Moreover Keith pays attention to the problem regarding the relations between political correctness and euphemisms terms. Mentioning the fact that modern dictionaries of euphemisms like Neaman and Silver, Ayto include political correct expressions among their entries, he maintains that they put forward the view that political correct usage call for a more precise and accurate use of language. Apart from this, there is the emphasis on the role of political correct language as a form of public action. Keith agrees that political correct language is euphemistic, but in this emotive discourse,

words get politicized and used as ideological bludgeons. Whereas people generally use euphemisms for the sake of social etiquette, in the political arena it becomes a political gesture an euphemism with an attitude.

1.4. Features of Newspaper Style

The functional styles of English language was investigated by different scholars, each of them giving different interpretation concerning the taxonomy of styles. Many of them criticized each other or accepted some theories, whereas some nuances referring the functional styles remain unclear. I.R.Galperin defines the term of functional style as a patterned variety of literary text characterized by the greater or lesser deification of its constituent, supra-phrasal units, in which the choice and arrangement of interdependent and interwoven language media are calculated to secure the support of the communication I.V.Arnold defined a functional style from linguistic point of view as a system of expressive means peculiar to a specific sphere of communication. Apart from this Galperin states that a functional style of English language is a historical category each functional style is a relatively stable system at the given stage in the development of the literary language. She clamed also that the development of each style is predetermined by the changes in the norms of standard English, it is greatly influenced by changing social conditions, the progress of science and the development of cultural life in the country. So the Galperins classification of styles is following: 1.The belle-letters style Poetry proper Emotive prose Drama Speeches(oratory) Essays Articles in journals and newspapers. Newspaper headlines Brief news items and communiqus

2 .The publicistic style

3.The newspaper style

Advertisements

4 .The scientific prose style 5. The style of office documents Language of commercial documents Language of diplomatic documents Language of legal documents Language of military documents Yu.Skrebnev analyzes very thoroughly in much details many theories referring to functional styles of English language, especially he lays stress on the linguists classification of them. He denies Galperins belle-letters style, calling it something very vague , he notices also the absence of the colloquial style in her taxonomy. Further Skrebnev points out the M.D.Kuznets classification that is much less comprehensive, much more concise than the Galperins: A. Literary/ Bookish Style 1. Publicistic style 2. Scientific(Technological) style 3. Official documents style B. Free/ Colloquial Style 1. Literary colloquial style 2. Familiar colloquial style However Skrebnev accepts the taxonomy of I.V.Arnold, which includes four styles: 1. Poetic style 2. Scientific style 3. Newspaper style 4. Colloquial style He appreciates the fact that she recognized the colloquial style, but Skrebnev mentions also that Arnold overlooked a very important style-forming sphere: that of official intercoursebusiness correspondence, legal documents, municipal announcements, etc. These have much in common, yet they naturally cannot be classed as poetry, science, newspaper or colloquial speech. Apart from this, Skrebnev mentions the handbook by A.N. Morokhovsky Stylistics of English Language, which is very rich in information, with a number of new problems raised and solved. So Morokhovsky points out the following set of functional styles: 1. Official business style 2. Scientific-professional style

3. Publicistic style 4. Literary colloquial style 5. Familiar-colloquial style Skrebnev notes that A.N.Morokhovsky warns the reader that the five classes of what he calls speech activity are abstractions rather than realities, and can only seldom be observed in their pure forms: mixing styles is the prevailing practice. Skrebnev mentions the theory of V.A. Maltzev which as awhole is based on a detailed analusis of three linguists' concepts each allotted a separate chapter: R.Jacobsons Language functions, M.Kiffaterres Stylistic content and Yu.Skrebnevs Theory of Language styles.He states that the main division of lingual material for V.A.Maltzev is into informaland formal varieties. Skrebnev comments in an ironical way the books on stylistic analysis of V.A.Kucharenko which is naturally interested in fiction more than in scientific, technical, or legal texts. He considers that the Kucharenkos A Book of Practice in Stylistics is an outline composed more economically than is usually done. By the way I.V.Arnold shares the Morokhovsky point of view, she states that the functional styles of English language are in permanent development that is why the styles have a different degree of individuality. Sometimes it is hard to identify the borderlines of some of them or to distinguish some styles as such from literary genres. These difficulties are characteristic for Newspaper style where one can find a diversity of genres: along with the editorial the newspaper page gives a column to political observes, it leaves much space for sensational reports, newspapers are full of serious lengthy essays on economics, law, morals, art; they give the reader lots of briefly told news of local events, including rumours. And as Skrebnev mentions, one could go on enumerating newspaper genres, each having its own style. This is explained by the fact that Newspaper style is the latest of all the functional styles of English language, which was recognized as a specific form of writing standing apart from other forms. M.Brenda gives a complete information referring the newspapers history. Hence the news-sheets were first printed in the 16th century, describing a single, sensational event. By the early 17th century they were beginning to appear more frequently in Europe, and in 1620 was published the first regular news-sheets in English. It was the Weekly Newes From Italy, Germanie, Hungary, translated from a Dutch original. They were called courants or corantos. In England the first daily paper, The Daily Courant was brought out on March 11, 1702. At this period famous authors began to be associated with the press: Daniel Defoe, Jonathan Swift and Henry fielding all edited or wrote for the London newspapers.

According to Galperin the early English newspaper was principally a vehicle of information. Commentary as a regular feature found its way into the newspapers later. But in the middle of the 18-th century the British newspaper was very much like what is today, carrying on its pages news(foreign and domestic), advertisements, announcements and articles containing comments. The modern newspaper carries material of an extremely diverse character. On the pages of a newspaper one finds not only news and comment on it, press reports and articles, advertisements and announcements, but also stories and poems, crossword puzzles, chess problems and the like. In general newspapers have an advantage over radio and television as a means of providing information. One can select what he/she wants to read. Man Brenda mentions that in the United States, most newspapers are based on a city, and cover national and international news geared to their own region. The British are great newspaper-readers with twelve national and international dailies, eight national Sunday papers and flourishing local press. Returning to the notion of newspaper style I.R.Galperin defines it as a system of interrelated lexical, phraseological and grammatical means, which is perceived by the community as a separate linguistic unity that serves the purpose of informing and instructing the reader. The newspaper style is characterized by four basic features: 1. brief news items It states facts without giving explicit comments, and whatever evolution there is in news paragraphs is for the most part implicit and as a rule unemotional. The principal function of a brief news item is to inform the reader, and its language is stylistic neutral. 2. advertisements and announcements They have also an informative function, and there are two types of advertisements and announcements in the modern English newspaper: classified and non-classified. In classified advertisements and announcements various kinds of information are arranged according to subject matter into sections, each bearing an appropriate name. As for those non-classified, the variety of language form and subject-matter is very great. The readers attention is attracted by every possible means: typographical, graphical, and stylistic. 3. the headline The headline is a dependent form of newspaper writing. The specific functional and linguistic traits of the headline provide sufficient ground for isolating and analyzing it as a specific genre of journalism. The main function of the headline is to inform the reader briefly of what the text that follows is about.

4. the editorial The function of the editorial is to influence the reader by giving an interpretation of certain facts. Editorials comment on the political and other events of the day. Their purpose is to give the editors opinion and interpretations of the news published and suggest to the reader that it is the correct one. Galperin points out that the vocabulary used in newspaper writing is neutral and common literary. Generally speaking, the features of newspaper style are characterized by an abundance of emotionally words and phrases used to attract the readers attention. Thus emotional colouring in newspaper articles (especially in editorials) is achieved by various stylistic devices such as metaphor, epithet, periphrasis, similes, irony, allusions, parallel constructions, repetition, the breaking-up of set expressions. Galperin specifies that practically any stylistic device may be found in editorial, and many of them are trite. But apart from this, newspaper style has its specific vocabulary features and is characterized by an extensive use of special political and economic terms, non-term political vocabulary, newspaper clichs, abbreviations, and neologisms. Furthermore, alongside this list one can find colloquial words and expressions, slang and professionalisms. Hence, one of the features of newspaper style is the presence of euphemism, that are used mostly due to the fact that the target audience of this style is the general public and vocabulary layer that used as a rule is the literal layer.