how linguistic theory could be accommodated to the task ofj describing such rhetorical figures as metaphor, parallelism, allit-l eration, personification and others in the present-day study ofj literature. Proceeding from the popular definition of literature as the creative use of language Leech claims that this can be equated with the use of deviant forms of language. According to his theory the] first principle with which a linguist should approach literature isj the degree of generality of statement about language. There are] two particularly important ways in which the description of language entails generalization. In the first place language operates by what may be called descriptive generalization. For example, a grammarian may! give descriptions of such pronouns as /, they, it, him, etc. as objective personal pronouns with the following categories: first/third person, singular/plural, masculine, non-reflexive, animate/inanimate. Although they require many ways of description they are all pronouns and each of them may be explicitly described in this fashion. The other type of generalization is implicit and would be appropriate in the case of such words as language and dialect. This sort of description would be composed of individual events of speaking, writing, hearing and reading. From these events generalization may cover the linguistic behaviour of whole populations. In this connection Leech maintains 1 the importance of distinguishing two scales in the language. He calls them «register scale» and «dialect scale». «Register scale» distinguishes spoken language from written language, the language of respect from that of condescension, advertising from science, etc. The term covers linguistic activity within society. «Dialect scale» differentiates language of people of different age, sex, social strata, geographical area or individual linguistic habits (ideolect). According to Leech the literary work of a particular author must be studied with reference to both—«dialect scale» and «register scale». The notion of generality essential to Leech's criteria of classifying stylistic devices has to do with linguistic deviation. He points out that it's a commonplace to say that writers and poets use language in an unorthodox way and are allowed a certain degree of «poetic licence». «Poetic licence» relates to the scales of descriptive and institutional delicacy. Words like thou, thee, thine, thy not only involve description by number and person but in social meaning have «a strangeness value» or connotative value because they are charged with overtones of piety, historical period, poetics, etc. The language of literature is on the whole marked by a number of deviant features. Thus Leech builds his classification on the principle of distinction between the normal and deviant features in the language of literature. Among deviant features he distinguishes paradigmatic and syntagmatic deviations. All figures can be initially divided into syntagmatic or paradigmatic. Linguistic units are connected syntagmatically when they combine sequentially in a linear linguistic form. Paradigmatic items enter into a system of possible selections at one Point of the chain. Syntagmatic items can be viewed horizontally, Paradigmatic—vertically. Paradigmatic figures give the writer a choice from equivalent items, which are contrasted to the normal range of choices. For instance, certain nouns can normally be followed by certain adverbs, the choice Basically the difference drawn by Leech between syntagmatic and Paradigmatic deviations comes down to the redundancy of choice in the first case and a gap in the predicted pattern in the second.