In March 1994, a decision was made on radio and TV, supported by the Institute of the Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences, to consistently return to the previous names: “No language can dictate to the Russian language its rules for pronunciation and spelling of proper names, as this humiliates and distorts it” (Pr. , 18.3.94). “People, even far from the problems of linguistics, were perplexed, knowing that in any language a borrowed word always obeys new grammatical and sound laws and is almost never preserved in its original form. After all, the British have Russia - Russia, the French - Russ, the Germans - Russland, the Moldovans - Russia, the Ingush - Rossi. Native Russian speakers have the same right to traditionally pronounce and write Ashgabat, Alma-Ata, Chuvashia. This question has nothing to do with the problems of sovereignty and respect for national dignity” (MP, 15.3.94).
It is impossible, however, not to ignore the triumphant fashion, the mood of the people. One cannot but reckon with today's taste for change, for the rejection of the familiar, or at least for variability: even such innovations that contradict the Russian language system will be more likely to be accepted than rejected. In any case, it would be ridiculous to quarrel with Estonians over a letter, like the Czechs and Slovaks, whose differences over the hyphen in the name of the country became one of the reasons for divorce. One should also take into account the huge Russian diaspora, which is forced to obey the laws of the country of residence; this means that a lot of variable place names will inevitably appear in the Russian language. Sometimes one has to put up with the most naive political and national thinking: there are things higher than the inviolable purity of the literary and linguistic canon.
0.4. The examples given allow us to express some theoretical considerations regarding taste as a category of speech culture (see: V. G. Kostomarov. Questions of speech culture in the training of Russian teachers. In the book: “Theory and Practice of Teaching the Russian Language and Literature. The Role of the Teacher in the Process teaching". M., Russian language, 1979).
Taste in general is the ability to evaluate, the understanding of what is right and beautiful; these are passions and inclinations that determine the culture of a person in thought and work, in behavior, including speech. Taste can be understood as a system of ideological, psychological, aesthetic and other attitudes of a person or social group in relation to language and speech in this language. These attitudes determine one or another value attitude of a person to language, the ability to intuitively evaluate the correctness, relevance, aesthetics of speech expression.
Taste is a complex fusion of social requirements and assessments, as well as the individuality of a native speaker, his artistic inclinations, upbringing, education (which is why the phrase “Tastes differ”). However, this individuality is also formed in the course of assimilation of social knowledge, norms, rules, and traditions. Therefore, taste always has a concrete-social and concrete-historical basis; therefore, manifesting itself individually, taste reflects in its development the dynamics of social consciousness and unites the members of a given society at a given stage of its history (it is not for nothing that one speaks of the tastes of a society and an era).
The most important condition of taste is social in nature, assimilated by every native speaker, the so-called feeling, or intuition of the language, which is the result of speech and general social experience, the assimilation of knowledge of the language and knowledge about the language, the unconscious assessment of its tendencies, the paths of progress.
In the words of L. V. Shcherba, “this feeling in a normal member of society is socially justified, being a function of the language system” (L. V. Shcherba. On the triple aspect of linguistic phenomena and on the experiment in linguistics. In the book: “Language system and speech activity”, L., 1974, p. 32). The very flair for language is a kind of system of unconscious assessments that reflects the systemic nature of language in speech and social linguistic ideals.
A sense of language forms the basis for a global assessment, acceptance or rejection of certain development trends, certain layers of vocabulary, for assessing the appropriateness of certain stylistic and, in general, functional-stylistic varieties of the language under the prevailing conditions and for these purposes. In this sense, it is very dependent on the systemic and normative features of the language, on its "spirit" and "willfulness", its origin, history and ideals of progress, acceptable and desirable sources of enrichment, the originality of its structure and composition. So, let's say, inflection, the formal expression of connections in a sentence makes the Russian language sense much more intolerant of a heap of identical forms than English or French, which is why, for example, consecutive constructions with of or de are more permissible than Russian ones. genitives(outside the limited special spheres; see the works of O. D. Mitrofanova on "scientific language").
Due to the specifics of Russian grammar, Russian speech turns out to be flexible and diverse in terms of intonation and word order, which in turn makes the possibilities of expressive actual articulation of statements more diverse. Homonymy is weakly characteristic of it, which, by the way, is why Russians love to look for it, stumble over it, although, of course, ambiguity is usually easily extinguished by the text.
The very composition of the Russian language, as well as its structure, affects the taste. Thus, each new look at the historical relationship between Old Slavonic literacy and the original East Slavic folk-speech element significantly modifies our stylistic ideas. Slavicisms, on the one hand, are organically part of the literary language, on the other hand, for many decades they have been perceived as ponderous and pompous, often ridiculous archaisms. With a change in the target settings in the use of the language and the emergence of its new functions, brought to life by a changed attitude towards Orthodox Church, to religion in general, the attitude towards the old (church) Slavism is also changing dramatically.
Every now and then, folklore poetics, dialectal oppositions of north and south, medieval “weaving of words”, business speech and urban koine dating back to Moscow orders - colloquial speech, influxes of German, French, and today American foreignness - are the most diverse phenomena of different stages of the history of the Russian language.
The disputes between “Shishkovists” and “Karamzinists”, “Slavophiles” and “Westernizers”, not to mention the synthetic activity of the founder of the modern literary language A. S. Pushkin and other classics of the 19th century, are alive and in many ways educate today's taste. Cultural and national memory is reflected in the flair of the language, layers of different heritages, different poetic and speech concepts are dissolved. An important role in the formation of Russian language sense and taste has been and is played by the ratio of bookish and non-bookish speech, which often takes on the character of rivalry between the literary and “folk” language.
In the Soviet period, high rates of development and abruptly changing tastes accumulated a significant stock of heterogeneous changes and deformations, which today, with the beginning of the post-Soviet era, are being tested and reassessed. Accordingly, now we should expect (and the actual material of the subsequent chapters confirms this) a search for "fresh" linguistic material, a redistribution of stylistic layers, a new synthesis of means of expression.
Taste is thus essentially a changing ideal of the use of language according to the character of the age. “General norms of linguistic taste”, coinciding or not coinciding with the language of the writer, fall, according to G. O. Vinokur, “on the bridge leading from language, as something impersonal, general, supra-individual, to the very personality of the writer” (G O. Vinokur On the study of language literary works. "Selected Works on the Russian Language". M., 1959, p. 278).
Taste often loses its historical validity and follows opportunistic, random aspirations. It then becomes bad taste. He then loses even the naturally mediated connection with the thought-content aspect of communication and with the natural aesthetic limiting framework. In other words, taste appears as the extremes of fashion. Speech in this case goes out of the range between the “unattainable ideal” and “not yet a mistake”, loses the evaluative and taste qualities of “good speech” (see: B. N. Golovin. Fundamentals of the theory of speech culture. Gorky, 1977; N. A Plenkin, Criteria for Good Speech, Russian Language at School, 1978, 6). Let us note, looking ahead, that such a quality of “good speech” as freshness, i.e., the desire to update the familiar means and methods of expression, is especially relevant for our time.
With all the natural desire to objectify the concept of taste as a cultural-speech category, one cannot, of course, deny it subjective individuality either. Without developing this thought now, let us cite only the curious reflections of a prominent modern poet and writer: “You cannot hang a screw to a flower in the form of an addition. It is impossible to attach paper clips in the form of pendants to a string of pearls on a woman's neck. You cannot add the word marriage to the word palace. It is also impossible to explain why this cannot be done. It comes down to linguistic hearing, to taste, to the feeling of language, and ultimately to the level of culture ”(V. Soloukhin. Autumn Leaves).
The qualities of “good speech” are relative, sometimes even internally contradictory - and not only because of their general subjective-taste character and close dependence on the specific meaning expressed in a particular case, on the conditions and goals of a given communicative act, but primarily because of strict determinism of any speech in cash in literary language norms. However, in the current situation, these normative means of expression and the established methods of their use with typical content, in statements similar in content, goals and conditions, turn out to be very often not corresponding to the new taste and are resolutely revised.
End of introductory segment.
Text provided by LitRes LLC.
You can safely pay for the book bank card Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, from account mobile phone, from a payment terminal, in the MTS or Svyaznoy salon, via PayPal, WebMoney, Yandex.Money, QIWI Wallet, bonus cards or in another way convenient for you.
Here is an excerpt from the book.
Only part of the text is open for free reading (restriction of the copyright holder). If you liked the book, the full text can be obtained from our partner's website.
And accent rules. Lexical and phraseological norms
Plan
1. The concept of a language norm, its features.
2. Variants of norms.
3. Degrees of normativity of language units.
4. Types of norms.
5. Norms of oral speech.
5.1. orthoepic norms.
5.2. Accent rules.
6. Norms of oral and writing.
6.1. Lexical norms.
6.2. Phraseological norms.
The culture of speech, as mentioned earlier, is a multidimensional concept. It is based on the idea that exists in the mind of a person about the “speech ideal”, a model in accordance with which correct, literate speech should be built.
The norm is the dominant concept of the culture of speech. In the Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language D.N. Ushakova word meaning norm is defined as follows: "legalized establishment, ordinary obligatory order, state." Thus, the norm reflects, first of all, customs, traditions, streamlines communication and is the result of a socio-historical selection of one option from several possible ones.
Language norms- these are the rules for using linguistic means in a certain period of development of the literary language (rules for pronunciation, word usage, the use of morphological forms of different parts of speech, syntactic constructions, etc.). This is a historically established uniform, exemplary, generally accepted use of elements of the language, recorded in grammars and normative dictionaries.
Language norms are characterized by a number of features:
1) relative stability;
2) general usage;
3) general obligatoriness;
4) compliance with the use, tradition and capabilities of the language system.
Norms reflect regular processes and phenomena occurring in the language and are supported by language practice.
Speech is the source of norms. educated people, works of writers, as well as the most authoritative media.
Norm functions:
1) ensures the correct understanding of each other by speakers of a given language;
2) hinders the penetration of dialect, colloquial, vernacular, slang elements into the literary language;
3) educates language taste.
Language norms are a historical phenomenon. They change over time, reflecting changes in the use of language tools. Sources for changing norms are:
Colloquial speech (cf., for example, colloquial variants such as calls- along with Lit. calls; cottage cheese- along with Lit. cottage cheese; [de]kan along with lit. [d'e]kan);
Vernacular (for example, in some dictionaries they are fixed as valid colloquial stress options contract, phenomenon, until recently, vernacular, non-normative options);
Dialects (for example, in the Russian literary language there are a number of words that are dialectal in origin: spider, snowstorm, taiga, life);
Professional jargons (cf. stress options actively penetrating into modern everyday speech whooping cough, syringes, accepted in the speech of health workers).
The change in norms is preceded by the appearance of their variants that exist in the language at a certain stage of its development and are actively used by native speakers. Language Options- these are two or more ways of pronunciation, stress, formation of grammatical form, etc. The emergence of variants is explained by the development of the language: some linguistic phenomena become obsolete, go out of use, others appear.
However, the options may be equal - normative, acceptable in literary speech ( bakery and bulo [shn] th; barge and barge; Mordvin and Mordvin ov ).
More often, only one of the options is recognized as normative, while others are assessed as unacceptable, incorrect, violating the literary norm ( drivers and wrong. chauffeurA; catholOg and wrong. catalog).
Unequal options. As a rule, variants of the norm are specialized in one way or another. Very often the options are stylistic specialization: neutral - high; literary - colloquial ( stylistic options ). Wed stylistically neutral pronunciation of the reduced vowel in words like s[a] no, n[a] floor, m[a] turf and the pronunciation of the sound [o] in the same words, characteristic of a high, specifically bookish style: s[o] no, p[o] floor, m[o] turf; neutral (soft) pronunciation of sounds [g], [k], [x] in words like shake up [g’i] wag, wave [x’i] wat, jump up [k’i] wat and the bookish, characteristic of the old Moscow noma, the firm pronunciation of these sounds: shudder [gy] walt, wave [hy] walt, jump [ky] walt. Wed also lit. contract, locksmith and and unfold contract, locksmith I.
Often options are specialized in terms of degree of their modernity(chronological options ). For example: modern creamy and outdated. plum [shn] th.
In addition, options may have differences in meaning ( semantic variants ): moves(move, move) and drives(set in motion, induce, force to act).
According to the ratio between the norm and the variant, three degrees of normativity of language units are distinguished.
Norm I degree. A strict, rigid norm that does not allow options. In such cases, variants in dictionaries are accompanied by prohibitive marks: choice s – wrong. choice a; shi [n'e] l - wrong. shi[ne]l; petition - wrong. petition; pampered - not rivers. spoiled. In relation to linguistic facts that are outside the literary norm, it is more correct to speak not about variants, but about speech errors.
Norm II degree. The norm is neutral, allowing equal options. For example: the loop and the loop; swimming pool and ba[sse]in; stack and stack. In dictionaries, similar options are connected by the union and.
Norm III degree. A mobile norm that allows the use of colloquial, obsolete forms. Variants of the norm in such cases are accompanied by marks add.(permissible), add. obsolete(allowable deprecation). For example: August - add. August; budo[h]ik and additional mouth budo[shn]ik.
Variants of norms in the modern Russian literary language are presented very widely. In order to choose the correct option, you need to refer to special dictionaries: orthoepic, stress dictionaries, difficulty dictionaries, explanatory dictionaries etc.
Language norms are obligatory for both oral and written speech. The typology of norms covers all levels of the language system: pronunciation, stress, word formation, morphology, syntax, spelling, and punctuation are subject to norms.
In accordance with the main levels of the language system and the areas of use of language means, they distinguish the following types norms.
Norm types
 |
||
| Norms of oral speech | Norms of written speech | Norms of oral and written speech |
| - accentological(norms of stress setting); - orthoepic(pronunciation norms) | - spelling(correct spelling); - punctuation(norms for punctuation marks) | - lexical(norms of word usage); - phraseological(norms for the use of phraseological units); - derivational(norms of word formation); - morphological(norms for the formation of word forms of various parts of speech); - syntactic(norms for constructing syntactic constructions) |
Oral speech is spoken speech. It uses a system phonetic means expressions, which include: speech sounds, word stress, phrasal stress, intonation.
Specific for oral speech are the norms of pronunciation (orthoepic) and the norms of stress (accentological).
The norms of oral speech are reflected in special dictionaries (see, for example: Orthoepic dictionary of the Russian language: pronunciation, stress, grammatical forms / edited by R.I. Avanesov. - M., 2001; Ageenko F.L., Zarva M.V. Dictionary of accents for radio and television workers. - M., 2000).
5.1. Orthoepic norms These are the norms of literary pronunciation.
Orthoepy (from the Greek. orphos - straight, correct and epic - speech) is a set of oral speech rules that ensure the unity of its sound design in accordance with the norms that have historically developed in the literary language.
The following groups of orthoepic norms are distinguished:
Vowel pronunciation: forest - in l[i]su; horn - r [a] ha;
Pronunciation of consonants: teeth - zu [p], o [t] take - o [d] give;
Pronunciation of individual combinations of consonants: in [zh’zh ’] and, [sh’sh’] astya; kone[shn]o;
Pronunciation of consonants in separate grammatical forms (in adjective forms: elastic [gy] th - elastic [g'y]; in verb forms: took [sa] - took [s'a], I remain [s] - I remain [s'];
Pronunciation of words of foreign origin: pu[re], [t’e]rror, b[o]a.
Let us dwell on individual, difficult, cases of pronunciation, when the speaker needs to choose the correct option from a number of existing ones.
The Russian literary language is characterized by the pronunciation of [g] explosive. The pronunciation of [γ] fricative is dialectal, non-normative. However, in a number of words, the norm requires the pronunciation of exactly the sound [γ], which, when stunned, turns into [x]: [ γ ]God, Bo[γ]a - Bo[x].
In Russian literary pronunciation, there used to be a fairly significant range of everyday words in which, in place of letter combinations CHN was pronounced SHN. Now, under the influence of spelling, there are quite a few such words left. Yes, the pronunciation SHN preserved as obligatory in words kone[shn] o, naro[shn] o and in patronymics: Ilini[shn]a, Savvi[shn]na, Nikiti[shn]a(cf. the spelling of these words: Ilyinichna, Savvichna, Nikitichna).
A number of words allow for variants of pronunciation CHN and SHN: decent and orderly [w] ny, bool [h] th and bulo [shn] th, milk [n] and young lady. In some words, the pronunciation SHN is perceived as obsolete: lavo [shn] ik, sin [shn] evy, apple [shn] y.
In scientific and technical terminology, as well as in words of a bookish nature, it is never pronounced SHN. Wed: flowing, cardiac (attack), milky (way), celibate.
consonant group Thu in words what to nothing pronounced like PCS: [pcs] about, [pcs] oby, none [pcs] about. In other cases, as Thu: not [th] about, after [th] and, after [th] a, [th] y, [read] ing.
For pronunciation foreign words The following tendencies are typical in the modern Russian literary language.
Foreign words are subject to phonetic patterns in the language, so most foreign words in pronunciation do not differ from Russian ones. However, some words retain the peculiarities of pronunciation. It concerns
1) unstressed pronunciation O;
2) pronunciation of the consonant before E.
1. In some groups of borrowed words that have limited use, an unstressed sound is (unstablely) preserved O. These include:
Foreign proper names: Voltaire, Zola, Jaurès, Chopin;
A small part of special terms that do not penetrate into colloquial speech: bolero, nocturne, sonnet, modern, rococo.
Pronunciation O in a pre-stressed position is typical in these words for a book, high style; sound is pronounced in neutral speech BUT: V[a]lter, n[a]kturne.
The absence of reduction in stressed position is typical for words cocoa, radio, credo.
2. The Russian language system tends to soften the consonant before E. In insufficiently mastered borrowed words, there is a preservation of a solid consonant in accordance with the norm of a number of European languages. This deviation from the typical Russian pronunciation is much more widespread than the unstressed pronunciation. O.
Pronunciation of the solid consonant before E observed:
In expressions that are often reproduced by means of other alphabets: d e facto, d e-ju r e, c r edo;
In proper names: Flo [be] r, S [te] rn, Lafon [te] n, Sho [bae] n;
In special terms: [de]mping, [se]psis, ko[de]in, [de]cadans, ge[ne]sis, [re]le, ek[ze]ma;
In some common words that are in wide use: pu [re], [te] mp, e [ne] rgia.
Most often, consonants retain firmness in borrowed words. D, T; then - FROM, Z, H, R; occasionally - B, M, AT; sounds are always softened G, To and L.
Some words of foreign origin in the modern literary language are characterized by a variable pronunciation of hard and soft consonants before E [d'e] kan - [de] kan, [s'e] ssia - [se] ssia, [t'e] rror.
In a number of words, the solid pronunciation of the consonant before E perceived as cutesy, pretentious: academy, plywood, museum.
5.2. Accentology- a branch of the science of language that studies the features and functions of stress.
Stress norms regulate the choice of options for placement and movement of the stressed syllable among the unstressed ones.
In Russian, the stressed vowel in a syllable is distinguished by its duration, intensity, and tone movement. Russian accent is free, or different places, those. not assigned to any specific syllable in a word (cf. the stress in French is assigned to the last syllable, in Polish - to the penultimate one). In addition, the stress in a number of words can be mobile- changing its place in various grammatical forms (for example, accepted - accepted, right - right).
The accentological norm in the modern Russian literary language is characterized by variability. Allocate different kinds accent options:
Semantic variants (diversity of stress performs a meaningful function in them): clubs - clubs, cotton - cotton, coal - coal, submerged(for transport) - immersed(into water; in solving a problem);
Stylistic options (determined by the use of words in different functional styles of speech): silk(common) - silk(poetic) compass(common) - compass(prof.);
Chronological (differ in activity or passivity of use in modern speech): thinking(modern) - thinking(outdated), angle(modern) - cancerurs(outdated).
Stress in Russian is an individual sign of each word, which causes significant difficulties in determining the place of stress in a number of words. Difficulties also arise due to the fact that in many words the stress moves when the grammatical form changes. In difficult cases, when setting stress, you should refer to dictionaries. Taking into account certain patterns will also help to correctly place stresses in words and word forms.
Among nouns there is a significant group of words with fixed stress: dish(cf. plural named after P .: DISHES), bulletin (bulletin, bulletins), keychain (keychain, keychains), tablecloth, area, hospital, font, scarf, syringe, bow, cake, shoes, manger).
At the same time, there are a number of words in which, when the grammatical form changes, the stress moves from the stem to the ending or from the ending to the stem. For example: bandage (bandages), priests (ksendzA), front (fronts), pennies (penny), coat of arms (coats of arms), klok (klokI), hit (hit), wave (waves) etc.
When placing an emphasis on adjectives the following pattern applies: if in the short form of the feminine the stress falls on the ending, then in the forms of the masculine, neuter and in the plural the stress will be the stem: right - right, right, right; and in the form of a comparative degree - a suffix: light - lighter, but beautiful - more beautiful.
Verbs in the past tense, they often retain the same stress as in the indefinite form: to speak - she said, to know - she knew, to put - she laid. In a number of verbs, the stress moves in feminine forms to the ending: take - took, take - took A, remove - removed A, start - started, call - called.
When conjugating verbs in the present tense, the stress can be mobile: walk, walk - walk and motionless: calling - calling, calling; turn on - turn on, turn on.
Errors in setting stress can be caused by a number of reasons.
1. The absence of a letter in printed text Yo. Hence the erroneous stress in words like newborn, prisoner, excited, beets(moving stress and, as a result, pronunciation instead of a vowel O sound E), as well as in the words ward, scam, bigamist, being, in which instead of E pronounced O.
2. Ignorance of the stress inherent in the language from which the word is borrowed: blinds,(French words in which the stress falls on the last syllable), genesis(from Greek. genesis -"origin, occurrence").
3. Ignorance of the grammatical properties of the word. For example, a noun toast- masculine, therefore in the plural form it has an accent on the last syllable toast(cf. tables, sheets).
4. Incorrect partial reference of the word. So, if we compare the words busy and busy, developed and developed, then it turns out that the first of them are adjectives with a stressed ending, and the second are participles that are pronounced with stress on the basis.
The norms of oral and written speech are the norms inherent in both forms of the literary language. These norms regulate the use of units of different language levels in speech: lexical, phraseological, morphological, syntactic.
6.1. Lexical norms represent the rules for the use of words of the language and their lexical compatibility, which is determined by the meaning of the word, its stylistic reference and emotionally expressive coloring.
The use of words in speech is governed by the following rules.
1. Words should be used in accordance with their meaning.
2. It is necessary to observe the lexical (semantic) compatibility of words.
3. When using polysemantic words, sentences must be constructed in such a way that it is clear which meaning is realized by the word in this context. For example, the word knee has 8 meanings in the literary language: 1) the joint connecting the femur and tibia; 2) part of the leg from this joint to the pelvis; 3) a separate joint, link, segment in part of something., which is a connection of such segments; 4) bending something, going in a broken line, from one turn to another; 5) in singing, a piece of music - a passage, a separate one that stands out with something. place, part; 6) in dance - a separate technique, a figure that is distinguished by its spectacularity; 7) unexpected, unusual act; 8) branching of the genus, generation in the pedigree.
4. Words of foreign origin should be used justifiably, clogging of speech with foreign words is unacceptable.
Failure to comply with lexical norms leads to errors. Let's name the most typical of these mistakes.
1. Ignorance of the meaning of words and the rules of their semantic compatibility. Wed: It was very experienced thorough engineer (thorough - means "thorough" and does not match the names of persons).
2. Mixing of paronyms. For example: Leonov is the first rascal space(instead of pioneer). Paronyms(from Greek . para- near, next to + onyma- name) – similar in sound, but different in meaning or partially coinciding in their meaning, cognate words. Differences in the meaning of paronyms lie in private additional semantic shades that serve to clarify thoughts. For example: human - human; economical - economical - economic.
Humane – attentive, responsive, humane. Human boss. Human – pertaining to a person, to humanity; characteristic of a person. Human society. human aspirations.
Economical – frugal spending something, respecting the economy. Economical hostess. Economical – enabling sth. save, profitable in economic terms, in operation. Economical way of loading. Economic – related to economics. Economic law.
3. Incorrect use of one of the synonyms: The scope of work is significantly increased (should say increased).
4. The use of pleonasms (from the Greek. pleonasmos- excess) - expressions containing unambiguous and therefore unnecessary words: workers again resumed work(again - superfluous word); most maximum (most- extra word).
5. Tautology (from the Greek. tautologia from tauto- the same + logos- word) - repetition of single-root words: united together, the following features should be attributed, the narrator told.
6. Speech deficiency - the absence in the statement of the components necessary for its accurate understanding. For example: The medicine is made on the basis of ancient manuscripts. Wed corrected version: The medicine is made on the basis of recipes contained in ancient manuscripts.
7. Unjustified use of foreign words in speech. For example: abundance accessories burdens the plot of the story, diverts attention from the main thing.
In order to comply with lexical norms, it is necessary to refer to explanatory dictionaries, dictionaries of homonyms, synonyms, paronyms, as well as dictionaries of foreign words of the Russian language.
6.2. Phraseological norms - norms for the use of set expressions ( from small to large; beat the buckets; red as a lobster; salt of the earth; no year week).
The use of phraseological units in speech must comply with the following rules.
1. Phraseologism should be reproduced in the form in which it is fixed in the language: it is impossible to expand or reduce the composition of the phraseological unit, replace some lexical components in the phraseological unit with others, change the grammatical forms of the components, change the order of the components. So, erroneous use of phraseological units turn the bank(instead of roll); play a role(instead of play the role or matter); main highlight of the program(instead of highlight of the program);work hard(instead of to work hard); return to circles(instead of back to square one);eat dog(instead of eat the dog).
2. Phraseologisms should be used in their general language meanings. Violation of this rule results in errors like: The buildings are so close to each other that they don't spill water (turnover water will not spill anyone used in relation to close friends); At the solemn line dedicated to the holiday of the last bell, one of the ninth graders said: “We have gathered today to carry out the last journey their senior comrades(to spend on the last journey - “to say goodbye to the dead”).
3. The stylistic coloring of a phraseological unit should correspond to the context: colloquial and colloquial phrases should not be used in the texts of book styles (cf. the unsuccessful use of a colloquial phraseological unit in a sentence: The plenary session, which opened the work of the conference, gathered a large number of participants, the hall was packed - can't get through with a gun ). With caution, you need to use book phraseological units in everyday colloquial speech (for example, it is stylistically unjustified to use a book biblical phrase in the phrase This gazebo in the center of the park - holy of holies youth of our neighborhood).
Violations of phraseological norms are often found in works of fiction and act as one of the means of creating the individual style of the writer. In non-artistic speech, one should adhere to the normative use of steady turns, turning to phraseological dictionaries Russian language.
Questions and tasks for self-control
1. Define the language norm, list the signs of the norm.
2. What is a variant of the norm? What kinds of options do you know?
3. Describe the degree of normativity of language units.
4. What types of norms are distinguished in accordance with the main levels of the language system and the areas of use of language means?
5. What is regulated orthoepic norms? Name the main groups of orthoepic norms.
6. Describe the main features of the pronunciation of foreign words.
7. Define the concept of accentological norm.
8. What are the features of Russian verbal stress?
9. Give the definition of an accent variant. List the types of accents.
10. What do lexical norms regulate?
11. Name the species lexical errors, give examples.
12. Define the concept of phraseological norm.
13. What rules should be followed when using phraseological units in speech?
Lectures No. 4, 5
GRAMMAR STANDARDS
Introduction3 1. Linguistic taste. language norm. Language aggression.5 Conclusion12 References10
Introduction
The global changes that have taken place in our country in the last 10-15 years have radically influenced linguistics. Looking through the topic of modern linguistic works, one can make sure that in the field of view of Russian linguists, instead of the usual problems of phonetics and morphology, word formation and syntax, there are more and more problems, the development of which is designed to shed light on the violent changes in the Russian language of the present day. The desire of scientists to embrace these changes as a whole, to comprehend at least in general terms the linguistic modernity, leads to the movement of linguistics itself in the direction that can be called a general philosophical essay on the subject modern language. Along with this, there is a noticeable bias from classical linguo-philosophical topics. As a result, there are works of a more Western style than the Russian style. Actuality. A common person accepts the world as he presents it, in order to get a name, "in front of him", catching it as it is, and marveling at the changes. A person with a scientific mind tends to see patterns and dynamics in absolutely everything, to find the cause of progress and regression, to realize the general constant movement. Linguists in this sense are no exception. As a result, much has been written about the evolution of the Russian language. The law of interdependence of language and method of production, language and culture is derived. The formation and regression of the style is recognized as a direct reflection of profound changes in society. Could the immediate moods of people, for example, have an impact on the formation of language? (After all, what kind of ties are in fashion this fall - monotonous or polka-dotted) does not affect the global production shift. This question can be put differently: does the form affect the content? Highly functional unit form? Does the unit have an impact on the public what word is currently "in vogue"? In the most serious form, the desire to give an answer to the information of the problem was undertaken within the framework of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity. However, the too massive scale of this hypothesis led researchers away from linguistic realities so much that they turned a generally justified approach into a kind of conceptual monument. At the same time, linguistics turned to practice gives a clue to the possibility of approaching the "fleeting" by taking other positions. This is how the concept appeared to analyze the impact of linguistic "norms" on speech and the public, without deviating, however, from the basic rules of traditional Russian linguistics. The purpose of the study is to establish the nature and functions of the language fashion. Research objectives: - to establish the range of information associated with the problem of language norms, the taste of aggression; - track the procedure for creating language "norms"; - discover the functions of the language norm of aggression
Conclusion
Violations of the norms of the Russian literary style are caused by - changed social conditions; - the emergence of mobile communications; - accessibility and lack of control of Internet sites; - the struggle for the indicator within the media organization; - illiteracy; - irresponsibility towards the creators of the Russian literary language; - a simple understanding of the concept of "democratization of the language" - the lack of propaganda in the media of a culture of speech that reflects the intellectuality of the community; According to V. Anushkin, Doctor of Philological Sciences, philologists should introduce and uphold the following postulates in the social consciousness: What is the language, such is life. As is the language, so is the person. (A donkey is recognized by its ears, a person by words. (Aphorism) “Linguistic ecology implies not only the discovery of weak areas and edges in social and speech practice and the construction of appropriate recommendations to the subjects of language policy, but also the discovery, fixation and promotion of successful results of language works of writers, correspondents, politicians, etc. In this sense, such specialized publications are absolutely linguo-ecological, such as, for example: dictionaries of synonyms, dictionaries of paronyms, dictionaries of epithets, dictionaries of comparisons, dictionaries of metaphors, dictionaries of winged texts and expressions, dictionaries and encyclopedias of aphorisms, dictionaries of the style of poetry, etc. In such dictionaries, reference books, encyclopedias, there is a huge linguistic wealth that is allowed and should be used not only by professional communicators (teachers, correspondents, politicians of absolutely all levels), but also by absolutely all cultural people by and large . The trouble is that many simply do not know about this lexicographic abundance.
Bibliography
Baron R., Richardson D. Aggression. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 1999. - 352 pp. Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language. Pronunciation. stress. Grammar Forms. M., "Russian language", 1983 Raisky "Work on speech errors in presentations and essays", Bustard, 2006 Rosenthal D. E. "Handbook of spelling and literary editing." M., Iris Press, 2004. Stress Dictionary for Television and Radio Workers, edited by D. E. Rozental. Chudinov A.P. Typology of verbal semantics variation. Sverdlovsk, 1988. Churilov II Philosophical dispute with everyday consciousness in aphorisms: Aphorisms of the new school. Perm, 2000. Shaburova O. Nostalgia: through the past to the future // Sociems. 1996. Issue. 5. Ekaterinburg, 1996. S. 42-54. Shaimiev V. A. Compositional and syntactical aspects of the functioning of the metatext in the text (on the material of linguistic texts) // Russian text: Russian American Journal of Russian Philology. No. 4. St. Petersburg; Lawrence; Durham (USA), 1996, pp. 80-91. Y. Shcherbina, Aspects of Work to Overcome Invective-Slang Usage in Students' Speech. "Russian language", No. 3, 2009
Russian language. Tickets-winter 2015.
Ticket 1. Modern Russian. Stratification of the Russian national language. Literary language as the highest form of the national language. Language situation and language policy.
Modern Russian- the national language of the Russian people, a form of Russian national culture. It is a historically established linguistic community and unites the entire set of linguistic means of the Russian people, including all Russian dialects and dialects, as well as various jargons.
There is a dual understanding of the term "modern Russian language" and its understanding corresponding to such an understanding. First of all, the modern Russian language is the language that is reflected in the texts created by the speakers of the Russian literary language.
language from the era of Pushkin (approximately from the 30s of the XIX century) to the present day, and existing in modern oral speech communication at the level of native speakers of the literary language, i.e. in oral public speech, in the language of radio, cinema, television speech and colloquial literary speech. Such an understanding of the “modern Russian language”, despite the clarifications of its chronological boundaries that have appeared, remains valid. It was in the language of Pushkin, in the 20-30s. XIX century, there was that backbone of the literary language, that national norm of literary expression, which serve as the basis further development and a literary dictionary, and grammar, and a phonetic system, and orthoepy, and a system of functional varieties
literary language up to the present.
* In the narrow - the Russian language of the post-revolutionary (1917) time.
Some researchers talk about 3 periods in the development of the Russian language after the October Revolution: 1st - 20s, 2nd - 30-40s, 3rd - from the beginning of the 50s to the present. In this case, the most narrow interpretation of the concept of modern Russian is possible - it is a language from the post-war (Great Patriotic War) years to the present, that is, the language of three coexisting and interacting generations - grandfathers, fathers and children
Stratification of the national Russian language:
1) literary language
2) non-literary varieties (strata):
Territorial dialect
Semi-dialect*
Urban vernacular
Social dialect (jargons, slang)
Literary Russian language- a normalized form of the national language, excluding dialects, jargons, and vernacular. It is the language of all manifestations of culture expressed in writing. This is the highest form of manifestation of the national language, the language of the press, literature, state documents. This is a historically established system of languages of elements, speech means that have undergone a long cultural processing in the texts of authoritative masters of the word, in the oral communication of educated native speakers.
Functional purpose of the literary language: ensuring speech communication in the main areas of activity of the entire historically established team of people who speak this language; ensuring cultural and spiritual continuity of generations, people, nation.
The main features of the literary language: normativity, codification (fixing forms and rules in grammars, dictionaries, reference books), multifunctionality, stylistic differentiation, relative stability, common use and obligatory nature, traditional character and written fixation in texts.
Modern Russian literary language multifunctional, i.e., it performs the functions of the everyday language of literate people, the language of science, journalism, government controlled, language of culture, literature, education, mass media, etc.
The originality of the Russian literary language lies in its replenishment and renewal at the expense of colloquial speech.
Literary language has two forms: oral and written, which are characterized by features of the lexical composition and grammatical structure. Written literary language is distinguished by a greater complexity of syntax, has various functional styles: scientific, official business, journalistic, artistic.
The development of the literary language is directly related to the development of the culture of the people, especially their fiction.
The literary language is characterized normalization- the subordination of the language to certain norms and rules. Its result is the normalization of the language. The standardization of the literary language lies in the fact that the composition of the dictionary is regulated in it, the meaning and use of words, pronunciation, spelling and the formation of grammatical forms of words obey the generally accepted pattern. The basic norms of the literary language were formed during the time of Pushkin. A. S. Pushkin streamlined the artistic means of the Russian literary language, significantly enriched it. Based on various manifestations of the folk language, he managed to create in his works a language that was perceived by society as a literary one.
Speech situation. Language is a powerful means of regulating people's activities in various fields, therefore, studying the speech behavior of a modern person, understanding how a person owns the richness of the language, how affectively he uses it, is a very important and urgent task.
Every educated person must learn to evaluate speech behavior - his own and those of his interlocutors, to correlate his speech actions with a specific situation of communication.
Today, the speech of our contemporaries attracts more and more attention of journalists, scientists of various specialties (linguists, philosophers, psychologists, sociologists), writers, teachers, it becomes the subject of heated discussions among ordinary Russian speakers. Feeling speech problems, they try to answer the question of what is the reason for the disturbing state of speech culture. The age-old Russian questions “what to do?” and "who is to blame?" quite natural in relation to the Russian language and Russian speech.
In the in-depth study "The Russian Language of the End of the 20th Century (1985-1995)", an attempt was made to highlight the most significant features of the Russian language of the end of the century. It notes: “The events of the second half of the 80s - early 90s are similar to the revolution in their impact on society and language. The state of the Russian language of our time is determined by a number of factors.
1. The composition of participants in mass and collective communication is expanding dramatically: new strata of the population are joining the role of speakers, the role of writers for newspapers and magazines. Since the late 1980s, thousands of people have been given the opportunity to speak publicly. different levels speech culture.
2. In the media, censorship and auto-censorship, which previously largely determined the nature of speech behavior, are sharply weakened.
3. The personal beginning in speech increases. Faceless and unaddressed speech is replaced by personal speech, it acquires a specific addressee. Biological communication, both oral and written, is increasing.
4. The sphere of spontaneous communication is expanding, not only personal, but also oral public. People no longer give or read pre-written speeches. They say.
5. Important parameters of the flow of oral forms of mass communication are changing: the possibility of a direct appeal of the speaker to the listeners and feedback from the listeners to the speakers is created.
6. Situations and genres of communication are changing both in the field of public and in the field of personal communication. Rigid limits of official public communication are weakened. Many new genres of oral public speech are born in the field of mass communication. The dry radio and TV announcer has been replaced by a presenter who reflects, jokes, and expresses his opinion.
7. The psychological rejection of the bureaucratic language of the past (the so-called Newspeak) is growing sharply.
8. There is a desire to develop new means of expression, new forms of imagery, new types of appeals to strangers.
9. Along with the birth of the names of new phenomena, there is a revival of the names of those phenomena that return from the past, forbidden or rejected in the era of totalitarianism ”(Russian language of the end of the 20th century. M., 1996).
The freedom and emancipation of speech behavior entails the loosening of linguistic norms, the growth of linguistic variability (instead of one acceptable form of a linguistic unit, different variants turn out to be acceptable).
Ticket 2. Culture of speech in the normative aspect. Norm: definition, properties, typology, reasons for the change. Codification. Linguistic taste and speech fashion.
The culture of speech implies, first of all, the correctness of speech, that is, the observance of the norms of the literary language, which are perceived by its speakers (speaking and writing) as an “ideal”, a model. The language norm is the central concept of language culture, and the normative aspect of speech culture is considered one of the most important.
The choice of language means necessary for the set goal is the basis of the communicative aspect of speech culture. The ethical aspect of the culture of speech prescribes the knowledge and application of the rules of linguistic behavior in specific situations. Ethical norms of communication are understood as speech etiquette (speech formulas of greeting, request, question, gratitude, congratulations, etc.; appeal to “you” and “you”; choice of full or abbreviated name, address formulas, etc.)
Per use speech etiquette big influence have: the age of the participants in the speech act, their social status, the nature of the relationship between them (official, unofficial, friendly, intimate), the time and place of speech interaction, etc. The ethical component of the rhea culture imposes a ban on foul language in the process of communication, condemns the conversation "in a raised voice."
An important characteristic of a person is the level of his speech culture. The elite type of speech culture, the middle literary type, the literary-colloquial and familiar-colloquial, as well as the slang and colloquial types of speech culture are distinguished. The elite type of speech culture of a person assumes that the carrier of this type of speech culture fulfills all ethical and communication norms, observes the norms of literary speech, owns all the functional styles of the native language associated with the use of both oral and written speech. A person of elite speech culture is characterized by the easy use of the functional style and genre of speech appropriate to the situation and goals of communication, the “non-transfer” of what is typical for oral speech into oral speech. He knows and observes the rhetorical rules of communication, he has a habit of checking himself all the time, replenishing his speech knowledge from authoritative texts and dictionaries, and not by imitating what he heard on radio or television, read in newspapers. The average literary type of speech culture embodies the general culture of a person in its forgiven and far from complete version. The carriers of the average literary speech culture usually own two or three functional styles, usually the style of everyday communication (colloquial speech) and their professional style, these styles are often mixed in their speech. In the field of language use for a carrier of this type of speech culture, self-confidence, expressed in upholding the point of view “the main thing is WHAT to say, and not HOW to say”, a “forgivable” attitude towards one’s own speech errors, overestimation of one’s speech knowledge, which is manifested in frequent misuse terms and foreign words, on the one hand, and reduced and abusive vocabulary, on the other, in violation of language norms, and they are not aware of the inferiority of their own speech. Precedent texts for carriers of this type of speech culture are mass media and mass literature. The absence of a large vocabulary in the minds of carriers of the medium literary type of speech culture does not allow them to use the wide synonymous possibilities of the Russian language in their speech, which turns their speech into a rather stamped one, or into a speech with a dominance of book vocabulary, to which the desire to make speech more expressive is reduced. Literary-colloquial and familiar-colloquial types of speech culture differ only in the degree of reduced speech. In the literary and colloquial type, you predominate - communication and household names like Seryozha, in the familiar-colloquial type - you - communication becomes the only possible one, and Seryozhka, Seryoga are preferred in circulation. In both types, there is a huge amount of jargon used in speech, but in f.-r. The proportion of rude words and colloquial elements is increasing. At the same time, in both types there is a large amount of foreign vocabulary and book words, which often become simple fillings of pauses, so that there are also “specifically”, “in short”, “type”, “in kind” and “ pancake”, etc. There is no need to talk about any observance of ethical and communicative norms in these types of speech culture. Slang and colloquial types of speech culture are characterized by non-normativeness, orientation to their communication group, you - communication, vulgarism, use of obscenities.
language fashion. The manner of expression adopted in a particular community and relevant for a short time
linguistic taste. The notion of ideal text models and ideal speech production in general, formed in the process of social and speech activity
Ticket 3. Communicative qualities of speech as a result of the implementation of the normative, communicative and ethical aspects of speech culture.
Communication norms are dictated by expediency. In general, these are the norms for choosing a form (oral or written, dialogue or monologue), a method of speech activity and means of communication (methods of proof, language techniques, etc.). Communicative norms, in contrast to ethical and linguistic ones, are more variable: they are advisory in nature and must correspond to the communicative situation. Let's say parents have to punish a child for bad behavior. In one family, they will take some measures (reading notations, depriving the child of the right to watch TV, walk, play computer games etc.) jointly. In another family, only the father will punish the son, and in the third, all family members will boycott the child. As we can see, to implement one communicative strategy as the main line of behavior (in our example, this is the punishment of the offender), different tactics can be used.
The key to the success of any interaction is the consistency of ethical and communicative norms and their observance by all participants in communication. This is confirmed by numerous Russian proverbs and sayings, in which ethical requirements for speech behavior are “embedded”, for example: The enemy agrees, but the friend argues; Slander is like coal: it won’t burn, it will stain; A good word to a man is like rain in a drought; Lies stand on one leg, truth on two; Simply said, but not without reason heard, and many, many others.
Introduction
The global changes that have taken place in our state over the past 10-15 years have radically influenced linguistics. Looking through the topic of modern linguistic works, one can make sure that instead of the usual problems of phonetics and morphology, word formation and syntax, linguists are increasingly looking at problems whose development is designed to shed light on the violent changes in the Russian language of the present day. The desire of scientists to embrace these changes as a whole, to comprehend at least in general terms the linguistic modernity, leads to the movement of linguistics itself to the side, which can be called a general philosophical essay on the subject of modern language. Along with this, there is a noticeable bias from classical linguo-philosophical topics. The result is more Western-style work. A person with a scientific mind tends to see patterns and dynamics in absolutely everything, to find the cause of progress and regression, to realize the general constant movement. Linguists in this sense are no exception. As a result, much has been written about the evolution of the Russian language. The law of interdependence of language and method of production, language and culture is derived. The formation and regression of the style is recognized as a direct reflection of profound changes in society. Could the immediate moods of people, for example, have an impact on the formation of language? This question can be put differently: does the form affect the content? Does the unit have an impact on the public what word is currently "in vogue"? In the most serious form, the desire to give an answer to the information of the problem was undertaken within the framework of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity. However, the too massive scale of this hypothesis led researchers away from linguistic realities so much that they turned the justified approach into a kind of conceptual monument. In the same period, linguistics turned to practice gives a clue to the possibility of approaching the "fleeting" by taking other positions. This is how the concept appeared to analyze the impact of linguistic "norms" on speech and the public, without deviating, however, from the basic rules of traditional Russian linguistics.
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………… 3 1. LANGUAGE TASTE…………………………………………………… …...4 2. LANGUAGE NORM……………………………………………………………9 3. LINGUISTIC AGGRESSION…………………………………………… …...14 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………...19 LITERATURE USED……………………………………….. .twenty
Bibliography
1. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook / E.V. Sintsov. M.: Flinta: science, 2009.-160s. 2. Norms of the modern Russian literary language / K.S. Gorbachevich. - 3rd ed., Rev. - M .: Education, 1989.-208s. 3.Russian language. Speech aggression and ways to overcome it / Yu.V. Shcherbinina. Proc. allowance - M.: Flinta, 2004. 4. Linguistic taste of the era. From observations on the speech practice of the mass media / V.G. Kostomarov St. Petersburg: Zlatoust, 1999. - 302p.
An excerpt from work
CHAPTER 1 LANGUAGE TASTE The direction of emerging taste can be judged by the influence on style, which is characterized by blurred boundaries between different communicative spheres. In the electoral sphere, ethical and aesthetic prohibitions are often lifted. Internal forms of overlay have become popular, which attract attention with their wit and unusual appearance, such as ecstasy (ecstasy + insanity). Word games do not aim to create a speech mask, but simply exist for the sake of jokes. Violation of the usual phrases does not give subtext, but only a weak comic effect. A common stylistic feature of speech is the desire for renewal. There were clarifications of many terms, such as, for example, instead of Commodity they began to say Freight train. In many cases, the constructions were updated with foreign-language images. Such expressions have changed as call by phone ... or phone for information ... to a contact phone number, which appeared not just from English translation but from changes in the etiquette repertoire. The renewal of familiar language environments in the literary language of educated people has acquired high activity and a one-sided orientation, which are made up of public taste. Problem psychological attitude and taste, susceptibility to fashion shows examples of failure, from the point of view of stylistic laws, the choice of linguistic means of expression.
