Speech characterization provides more ground to make judgments about the protagonists, though instances of dialogues are not numerous. The narrator uses primarily elaborate vocabulary, proving the fact that he is a man from the high-brow society, his language structures are rather formal: “a friend of whom”: “in the course of”; “in a hesitating manner”. The vocabulary is neutral with instances of bookish words and phrases: “rare, ingenious thoughts”; “in astonishment”; “a thought struck”; “a state of mental torpor”; “to compliment on”. In dialogues colloquialisms are frequent: “That is my den”; exclamations: “Ah, ah!”; “By Jove!”; the structures are simple, simple sentences are frequent: “Good living, a good table and good nights!”.

In order to portray the characters and describe the setting vividly and convincingly the author of the analyzed story resorts to various expressive means and syntactic devices. Lexical devices are not numerous in the text. Epithets are found in the text and perform various functions: describe Simon Radevin as a close friend of the narrator as he recollects him, epithets with a positive meaning are presented: “most intimate friend”; “rare, ingenious, delicate thoughts”; “intelligent, clever young fellow”; “an active, living and vibrating man”; “lively, witty, light- hearted”; describe Simon from the point of view of his simple provincial life: “vague contempt”; “vainglorious and simple reproducer”; describe Simon’s wife as fair girl from the province: “little thin, insipidly fair girl”; “weak hands”; “light, vacant eyes”; “clear, silly voice”; “long-enduring happiness”; “a good, tender and faithful woman”; the description of Madame Radevin changes in the course of 15 years, epithets are negatively coloured: “ladies of uncertain age”; “a stout, commonplace mother”; epithets are used to describe the setting, the setting reflects the mode of life of the Radevins family: “a dull, sleepy, gloomy town”; “a dreary, interminable plain”; “a striking and melancholy picture of the life which they must be leading in that house.” The narrator uses a number of metaphors to express his attitude towards his friend and family: “the thought struck me”; “that dream of all those who bury themselves in the provinces”; “I held my tongue”. Metaphors are used in the following functions: render the setting (“an ocean of grass”, “of wheat and of oats”); give characterization to Simon and wife as a unity of a provincial machine (“simple reproducer of his species”; “a human breeding machine which procreates without any other preoccupation but her children and her cook-book.”). A simile is used: “who was exactly like a hundred thousand marriageable dolls”. The narrator is ironic, when it comes to speak about his friend Simon who’s changed a lot and lost a lot of his prominent qualities: “You have not grown thin”.

The majority of epithets and metaphors are used in the context with grandpa: “his trembling clutches at them”; “the piteous appeal of his whole nature”; “inarticulate grunts”; “a tiny morsel”; “he ate with feverish gluttony”. Metaphors, applied to the grandpa, highlight his position in the family, the attitude of the family members towards him: “He is a treasure, that old man”; “he almost kills himself at every meal”; “He devoured the dishes on the table with his eyes”; “at this horrible and grotesque scene.” Similes are few and are used in connection with the grandpa: “the soup, that it was scattered like a spray all over the table and over his neighbors”; “and a movement with his neck as ducks do when they swallow too large a morsel”. All the ridiculousness and misery of the grandpa’s position in the family is highlighted by the following allusion: “saddening and ridiculous Tantalus”. Tantalus was a Greek mythological figure, most famous for his eternal punishment in Tartarus. Similar to the Greek character, the grandpa goes through the same round of torture every day, he is eager to devour all the tasty food, but he is given only a tiny morsel, so he cannot be satisfied, all the tasty food is out of his reach. A periphrasis is used to describe the grandpa: “I saw something trembling”, such description only heightens the pitifulness of his physical abilities and position in the family. Onomatopoeia is used in the context with the old man, when he tries to utter some words: “"Oua, oua, oua," it is no longer a human’s speech, but some kind of a sound imitation.

The characteristics of the children are few in number, though important to consider. A metaphor is used to render the feeling of pride Simon has towards his numerous children: “in a proud, self-satisfied, almost triumphant manner”. A simile: “where three children, ranged according to their height, seemed set out for review, like firemen before a mayor”, which describes the hierarchy in the family. There is a direct description of the eldest children: “A girl of fourteen, who was almost a woman, and a boy of thirteen, in the dress of a boy from a Lycee, came forward in a hesitating and awkward manner”. The clothing of the boy gives a hint, that Simon’s wife tries to look better in the eyes of the narrator, that is why she dresses her son in a uniform, similar to those, which are worn during secondary education for children between the ages of 15 and 18 in France. What’s more, Simon’s wife plays her role of a decent woman, having “dressed for company, and with company phrases all ready prepared”.

Syntactical devices are also not so numerous in the story and are represented by various means. A case of a catch repetition is found within the text: “Then he married. He married, quite suddenly”, it points the suddenness of Simon’s decision. A simple repetition is detected within the inner thoughts of the narrator: “sad, sad, sad”, the repetition highlights a feeling of deep sorrow and contempt, which the narrator feels altogether.  Zeugma is used while describing the quiet life in the provincial town: “where nothing was moving in the streets except a few dogs and two or three maidservants”. Climax contributes to the understanding of the message of the short story: “How many days? Ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred?” Parallel construction is used, when nominative sentences with the same structures are repeated: “Oh, ethics! Oh, logic! Oh, wisdom!”

Rhetorical questions and rhetorical exclamations are very numerous in the story, which make it more subjective and create an effect of closeness and direct orientation to the reader. In the beginning the narrator meditates about the changes, which can take place in the appearance and inner state of his friend, his thoughts end up with a rhetoric exclamatory sentence: “What would he be like when I met him again? Still lively, witty, light- hearted and enthusiastic, or in a state of mental torpor induced by provincial life? A man may change greatly in the course of fifteen years!” Highly emotional passage is situated closely to the end of the story, and it indicates the sharpest episode of the story: “Oh, ethics! Oh, logic! Oh, wisdom! At his age! So they deprived him of his only remaining pleasure out of regard for his health! His health! What would he do with it, inert and trembling wreck that he was? They were taking care of his life, so they said. His life? How many days? Ten, twenty, fifty, or a hundred? Why? For his own sake?” The main idea of the short story is expressed in the following rhetorical question: “He had one single wish left, one sole pleasure; why not grant him that last solace until he died?”

Punctuation is preserved according to the norms of language, except for the accidental exclamatory mark within the sentence: “I was low-spirited and sad, sad, sad! and I sat at my window.”

To cut it short, the short story is deprived of numerous stylistic devices and the main idea of it is expressed in a laconic, but very evident and strong way. The most prominent stylistic devices used by the author are metaphors and rhetorical constructions, which help to reveal the main character’s nature and bring to the reader the main idea of the text.

While reading the short story by Guy de Maupassant, I recollect a famous quotation from Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina”: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” A little tragedy always hides within the surface of a good family. But in the story “A Family” two main problems come out: the first one is connected with the illiberality and deficiency of the life in province, which narrows people’s imagination and simplifies their desires and ambitions; the second one is about intolerance towards old people, the mocking over their inability. And if the first problem can be understood and accepted somehow, the second one is completely unacceptable and should be eradicated.