Dr. Martin Joos (1907-1978) was a distinguished professor of German at the University of对自己未来的期望 Wisconsin–Madison. Holding broad interests in veral fields of linguistics, he also rved as a Visiting Professor at the Universities of Alberta, Belgrade, and Edinburgh. One of his veral books, 本科自考The Five Clocks: A Linguistic
Excursion into the Five Styles of English Usage (1962, revid in 1967), found many readers among the general天凉了注意保暖的句子 public.
83年属什么生肖Martin Joos（1961斑羚飞渡好词好句）在《五只时钟》中将语言的使用分成5个级别：冷冻体（frozen style）、正式体（formal style）、询议体（consultative style）、随便体（casual style）和亲密体（intimate style）。
Language varies for many reasons. Joos particularly points out veral scales: age (baby talk, teenage slang, for example), breadth (from provincial to standard to genteel adj. 文雅的，有教养的 ), responsibility (bad to good),etc. The scale that he dwells on is style; he identifies five variations or “clocks,” all of which are appropriate (indeed, almost required) in certain situations.
The first three of Joos’s “clocks” are all informal: (1) intimate, the language ud between, say, a husband and wife, almost nonverbal; (2) casual, for friends, acquaintances, insiders, making u of slang, ellips, and verbal formulas (“Been there; done that!”); (3) consultative, language ud in negotiating with strangers, distant acquaintances, or colleagues of unequal rank. The fourth clock, formal, is required when the group becomes too large to permit participation, and the speaker is uncertain how much the audience already knows or how they might react. Hence, the language must become more cohesive, more detached adj. 超然的，分离的，独立的, more carefully informative. The fifth, and most enigmatic青蛙怎么养 微信IDadj. 谜的，莫明其妙的，不可思议的clock, Joos labels as “frozen” language, or a “formative clock.” It is language ud in a text that is read and re-read, that must stand intact, that must address an audience of absolute strangers, that cannot depend upon the speaker’s intonation or the reader/hearer’s asking for clarification. Literary texts, religious rituals, historic documents exemplify “frozen” language: Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the Lord’s Prayer, the Preamble to the US Constitution.
文明安全手抄报
“Good intimate style fus two personalities. Good casual style integrates disparate personalities into a social group . . . [in which] the personalities complement each other instead of clashing. Good consultative style produces cooperation . . . . Good formal style informs the individual parately, so that his future planning may be the more discriminate. Good frozen style, finally, lures him into educating himlf, so that he may the more confidently e what role he choos.”
So is one style right or wrong? Is one style better than another? Do educated folk avoid colloquialisms? Are ntence fragments always a sign of incompetence? Skillful urs of language will adjust their style to each situation. Informal styles reward spontaneity. (That makes language u difficult for the reticent adj. 无言的，沉默的，谨慎的.) Formal style rewards planning and empathy. (That makes language u difficult for tho who are impatient or lf centered.) Frozen style rewards multiple drafts and linguistic choices that will engage an unknown reader. (That makes language u difficult for the unimaginative person.)
