Service and tourism - Tutorial(Volchkova I.M.)
§ 2. norm, its types, principles of codification
Correctness is the main communicative quality of speech, which ensures mutual understanding of the interlocutors. The correctness of speech is compliance with language norms at all levels of the language.
The norm is understood as the generally accepted use of linguistic means, in other words, a set of rules that regulate the use of linguistic means in the speech of an individual. The norm is obligatory for both oral and written speech. it covers all aspects of the language. The norm is changeable and at the same time conservative; it is obligatory for all, therefore it is created and maintained by the collective efforts of all speakers.
Norms can be imperative (strictly binding) and dispositive (permitting choice). The imperative norm does not allow variance in the expression of a linguistic unit, regulating only one way of its expression. For example: them, lay down, call, play a role. Violation of the imperative norm is regarded as poor language proficiency. The dispositive norm allows options (stylistic or neutral), regulating several ways of expressing a language unit. Variation in the use of the same language unit is often a reflection of the transitional stage from an outdated norm to a new one. For example: cottage cheese - cottage cheese, bazaar - market.
In accordance with the main levels of the language and the areas of use of language tools, the following types norms.
1. Orthoepic (pronunciation) norms are associated with the sound side of literary speech, its pronunciation.
2. Accentological norms determine the variant of stress. Stress in Russian is free and mobile.
3. Lexical norms are the rules for the use of words and phraseological units in accordance with their meaning and features of lexical compatibility. Violation of lexical norms leads to a distortion of the meaning of the statement.
4. Word-building norms require compliance with the rules for combining morphemes and forming words in accordance with the laws of the language.
5. Grammatical norms are associated with the use of morphological forms different parts speech (morphological norms) and syntactic constructions (syntactic norms).
Morphological norms are the rules for the formation of grammatical forms of words (forms of gender, number, case of nouns, adjectives, numerals and pronouns, as well as forms of verbs and participles).
Syntactic norms regulate the construction and use in speech of syntactic constructions provided for by the language system (word order in a sentence, rules for agreeing on the main and secondary members of a sentence, the use of participial and adverbial phrases).
6 Stylistic norms regulate the use of speech means in various areas of literary-standardized communication, depending on the context and speech situation.
7. Spelling norms are associated with the correct spelling of words.
8. Punctuation norms regulate the punctuation marks.
Task 103. Read the words and phrases, determine which of the norms of the modern Russian literary language is violated. Correct the mistakes.
Order armor at the hotel, put down, convince about it, put on a coat, quarter, rings, shampoo, beautiful tulle, large banknotes, new euro, thanks to fires, pay for work, give privileges to someone, play paramount importance, contrary to the instructions of the boss, come from the city, take the title of champion, control the course of treatment, express your answer, go one by one, he is like a sister, point out shortcomings, mutual respect for each other, a colossally small price, an extremely significant function.
Task 104. Read the texts. Highlight signs language norm, essence and principles of codification of the norms of the literary language.
SEARCHING FOR CRITERIA FOR CORRECT SPEECH
It is known that along with the options allowed by the norms of the literary language, there are many deviations from the norm, as they say, speech errors. Moreover, in most cases, such deviations are not accidental, but are due either to inconsistencies and contradictions in internal system literary language, or by the influence of external factors (territorial or social dialects, etc.). In 1929, the Swiss scientist Henri Frey, in his Grammar of Errors, rightly noted that many errors are, in essence, regular and are suggested by analogy or other systemic manifestations of a living language.
Thus, both good seedlings and weeds grow in the same field. Every normalizer-practitioner (including the teacher of the Russian language) is faced with the most difficult question: how to separate productive and useful neoplasms from speech errors, if the reasons for the appearance of both sometimes coincide? Where are the criteria for distinguishing between right and wrong?
Some researchers believe that the main feature of correct speech is stability itself, the stability of the language form. However, as already follows from the recognition of the dynamic theory of the norm, this criterion is not reliable. Although in general the language "(and after it the norm) really changes slowly, gradually, there are many cases of a sharp shift in the norm that occurs during the life of one generation. For example, Ushakov's Dictionary also recommended the pronunciation of wireless telegraph<…>.
It would also be reckless to rely solely on the degree of use, prevalence of one or another language form. Of course, quantitative indicators are very significant in the analysis of language and normative assessment. Especially valuable are the results of truly mass sociolinguistic surveys. But it is impossible to absolutize formal numerical data, to rely only on statistics when setting the norm. In a number of cases, as F. P. Filin emphasizes, not quantitative, but cultural and historical factors are decisive. The stress quarter, for example, is very common (statistically, perhaps, and predominant). However, the literary norm preserves the traditional version of qt*l.<…>
For<…>linguistics, aesthetic and pragmatic theories proclaimed by some foreign linguists are unacceptable. So, according to the linguo-aesthetic concept of the professor of Romance philology at the University of Munich, K. Vossler, the main sign of correct speech is the “sense of taste”, individual intuition. But back in 1911, the Russian linguist V. I. Chernyshev rightly wrote: “Stylistic standards and tastes exist for a certain time and change just as the language changes” (Correctness and purity of Russian speech. - Selected works, vol. IM, 1970, p. 444). There is no need to prove that intuition and subjective sensation (sense of taste) are very unreliable advisers in normative assessments of general linguistic phenomena.
One cannot agree with the pragmatic theory proposed by another German linguist - G. Klaus, who in the book “The Power of the Word” expresses the idea that the norms of the language are devoid of any value from the point of view of truth (and therefore do not need scientific and historical understanding ).<…>
The relationship between the norm and the language system began to attract scientific attention especially after the works of the famous foreign linguist E. Coseriu (Synchrony, diachrony and history. - In the book: New - in linguistics, issue III. M., 1963, etc.). According to this theory, the system covers "ideal forms of implementation of a particular language, that is, techniques and standards for the corresponding language activity" and, as it were, answers the question, as one might say, using the potential of this language. Indeed, knowledge of the system makes it possible to judge the linguistic innovation scientifically, objectively, considering it as the realization of a certain possibility inherent in the system. Unfortunately, even such an approach does not guarantee us against errors in the distinction between “normal” and “abnormal”. For example, in modern oral (especially professional) speech, the forms of a lecturer, lecturers (instead of lecturers, lecturers) are very common. The system of the Russian literary language actually opens up the possibility of forming forms in -а(-я) of masculine nouns that have an accent not on the last syllable (cf.: doctor-doctors, director-director). Thus, from the point of view of the system, the lecturer's form is correct, but it still cannot be recognized as normative.
The criterion of the norm proposed in 1948 by E. S. Istrina is very popular among researchers: “The norm is determined by the degree of use, subject to the authority of the sources” (Norms ..., p. 19). Indeed, reference to literary* examples is a common device for proving the correctness of this or that expression. Card indexes of quotations from classical and Soviet literature constitute the natural and most reliable base of modern normative dictionaries. Of course, when analyzing texts, it is necessary to take into account the development of the language, and deviations from general literary norms motivated by artistic intent, and the possibility of a careless, inattentive attitude or dialectal errors that occur even among authoritative writers and poets (cf. brought in; from Gribachev: head of the club vm. head of the club; from "G. Tess: travel engineer vm. seconded; from A. Gusev: apple trees vm. apple trees, etc.). -" The authority of the source, thus, can also a disservice to speech normalization. Therefore, in order to establish a norm on the basis of observations on the text of fiction, it is necessary, on the one hand, to attract a wide and diverse range of sources in terms of genres, and on the other hand, a critical attitude to the text and a strict distinction between the actual author's speech and the imitation of the language of the characters.<…>
Thus, the norm of the literary language is a complex, dialectically contradictory and dynamic phenomenon. It is made up of many essential features.<…>and relies on 3 main features: 1) regular use (reproducibility) of this mode of expression; 2) the correspondence of this method of expression to the possibilities of the literary language system (taking into account its historical restructuring); 3) public approval of a regularly reproduced way of expression (moreover, the role of the judge in this case usually falls to the lot of writers, scientists, the educated part of society). Like a two-faced Janus, the norm addresses both the linguistic past, illuminated by a good cultural tradition, and the present, which is supported by the useful properties of new formations and productive trends in the development of the literary language.
(K.S. Gorbachevich. Norms of the modern Russian literary language. M., 1978)
BASIC CONCEPTS AND TERMS OF SPEECH CULTURE
AS A SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE
The concepts of "culture of speech" ("culture of the language") and "language norm" ("norm of the literary language", "literary norm", "language standard", etc.) are general language in the sense that they are defined in a similar way in various modern literary languages, denoting generally the same type of results of often quite different and peculiar objective-historical processes of language development.
The norm of the language is the central concept of the theory of the culture of speech. At the same time, this is one of the most difficult problems, the multidimensionality and diversity of which are determined by objective-historical, cultural-sociological and proper linguistic, i.e., intralinguistic factors.
Insufficient knowledge of the object itself in theoretical terms is reflected primarily in the instability of the internal inconsistency of terminological definitions.1
In domestic works on the culture of speech - of a theoretical and practical nature - the literary norm (or norms) is often determined by signs that are purely external in relation to the language: traditional character, degree of use, authority of the source, etc. Indicative in this respect are the definitions of the term "norm" in dictionaries of linguistic terminology. For example, O. S. Akhmanova in the definition of the norm identifies two meanings: 1) the accepted speech use of language means, a set of rules "(regulation); 2) language, opposed to speech as a system (invariant, etc.), which determines the entire variety of speech Thus, if the second meaning interprets the norm as a language-system (i.e., as it were, removes the very theoretical problem of the norm), then in the first definition one can seem to see the indistinguishability of the objective norm and its reflection in normative dictionaries, manuals, grammars etc.
D. E. Rozental and M. A. Telenkova define the norm as “the most common of the coexisting ones, entrenched in the practice of exemplary use, which best perform their function of language (speech) variants”.
Not everything is clear here either. How does “prevalence” relate to “exemplary use”, what “practice” and what “functions” are we talking about? Defining the "norm" through "variants" (reducing the norm to variants), the authors do not establish the status of the norm, do not determine its inner essence, place in the structure of the language. One could understand this definition as a general linguistic category (the norm, regardless of literary / non-literary), but the appeal to "exemplary" use does not seem to allow this. Moreover, defining the term “literary language” (p. 165), the authors begin with the fact that it is “a normalized language that serves the diverse cultural needs of the people ...”
Interestingly, in the dictionary of O. S. Akhmanova, the concept of normativity (in contrast to the norm) implicitly includes an evaluative approach (English prescriptive "prescriptive", appreciative "preferred").
The evaluative (or axiological) aspect is present to varying degrees in the description, research, or simple appeal to the linguistic (literary) norm.
<…>The concept of linguistic codification (or codification of the norm), in contrast to the objective-theoretical description of the structure, slowly but steadily enters scientific use and gradually turns into a linguistic term.<…>
Usually the term "codification" is used as a synonym for "normalization"; cf. in Akhmanova's dictionary: “Normalization. Establishing the norm” (p. 271). There are, however, attempts to distinguish between these terms and the concepts themselves.
V. A. Itskovich suggested that normalization (based on the systemic relations of this term) is not a simple description of the norm, or its codification in the strict sense of the word, but only “active interference in the language process, for example, the introduction of certain terms and the rejection of others as undesirable for some reason."
While noting the usefulness of such a distinction in general, it should be said, however, that there is no real and strict opposition between “normalization” and “codification” in this case. Contrasting in terms of the degree of activity (or “consciousness”) to each other, the concepts of “codification” and “normalization” turn out to be in relation to subordination: the latter is part of the former. In practice, "normalization" in the sense proposed above is usually called "standardization" (in the broad sense of the word: the establishment of GOST, the streamlining of the terminological system, official renaming, etc.).
With all the possible shortcomings of the term “normalization” (causing, as Itskovich believes, false associations with the term “norm”), in a certain sense it is more acceptable in general use, since it directly signals the phenomena of normativity. On the other hand, the term “codification” on Russian soil is somehow associated with great categoricalness (due to associations with the word “code”), it implies imperative assessments and requirements, their almost legislative obligation, which, as you know, is not always justified in the sphere of normative linguistic practice.
At the same time, the terminology of the rule of law also provides another distinction that is useful for linguistics - the division of codified norms into imperative (mandatory) and dispositive (additional, used in cases where the issue is not settled by agreement of the parties). Imperative norms in a language are mandatory implementations that follow from the capabilities of a structure. Violation of them in speech takes the speaker (or writer) beyond mother tongue(cf. violations of the norms of conjugation, declension, agreement in grammatical gender, number, etc.). Dispositive norms in the language are those recommendations that are given based on the structure (structural relations) or act as a consequence of certain theoretical or cultural-historical premises.<…>.
Imperative norms change along with the language, and in terms of codification, one can speak of a more or less complete description of them. Dispositive - are specified, modified or canceled at the next attempts (or at the next stages) of codification.
The difference between these two types of norms in modern normative dictionaries is reflected by two types of marks: warning “not”, “wrong”, “inadmissible”, on the one hand, and “permissible”, “outdated” (or “obsolete”), “and”, “special”, “in professional speech”, etc. - on the other.
(L.I. Skvortsov. Theoretical basis speech culture. M., 1980)
Italian surprises.
In fact, the inhabitants of the famous "boot" are spoiled by tourists. After all, in Italy there is something to see. It is said that 70% of the masterpieces of world architecture are located here. Therefore, it is clear that many will come to visit the Italians even if the owners settle them in a canvas tent with amenities at the entrance, if this tent is stretched at the foot of the Colosseum. This, of course, is an exaggeration, but it would be nice to know about the peculiarities of holidays in Italy. You need to know this at least in order to immediately make it clear to yourself why, in fact, you are coming to this country.
Actually, using Italy according to the "seaside vacation" scenario is pretty stupid. Turkey and Cyprus are much more suitable, and for those who are more thirsty for dearly paid loneliness, rest on the deserted beaches of tropical islands will be a real success and an unexpected surprise.
In Italy, you should not wallow on the beaches, but frantically drive around the country and explore it. Johann Wolfgang Goethe, he directly promised: "Whoever saw Italy well, and especially Rome, will never again be completely unhappy."
There are four "pearls" in Italy that you must see: 1) Rome with its ancient ruins and the Vatican Museums, 2) Florence, without which it is impossible to imagine the Italian Renaissance, 3) Pisa, with its ever-falling tower, 4) Venice - surreal the city of bridges and canals, which literally everyone dreams of visiting.
The existence of literary and non-literary (colloquial, colloquial) forms, their relationship and mutual influence determine the emergence and existence of the problem of language uniformity, its normativity. The problem of language normativity is one of the long-standing problems of linguistics. Despite the fact that the norm is the central concept of the theory of speech culture, there is still no generally accepted definition of it. The following definitions of a language norm are distinguished: a) a language norm is an exemplary rule, fixed by literary and scientific works, protected by science and the state, regulating the formation of words, their stress, pronunciation, etc.; b) a language norm is the use of language units recommended by dictionary and reference publications and supported by the authority of well-known figures in literature, art, science, education; c) a language norm is a model of word formation, inflection, word usage, and the formation of syntactic units (phrases and sentences) generally accepted in a given language community. Thus, a language norm should be understood as a rule, a model of word formation, inflection, word usage. A norm is a uniform, generally accepted use of elements of a language, the rules for their use in a certain period. The main sources of the norm include the works of classical writers; works by contemporary writers who continue the classical traditions; media publications; common modern usage; linguistic research data. However, we note here that compliance with authoritative sources (the works of famous writers or the works of famous scientists) is often considered almost the most important feature of a literary norm. However, it should be remembered that, for example, a work of art can reflect not only the literary language, but also dialects and vernacular, therefore, when highlighting norms based on observations of texts of fiction, it is necessary to distinguish, on the one hand, the actual author's speech, on the other hand , - the language of the characters. Some researchers believe that the most important feature of the literary norm is a purely quantitative factor - the degree of use of a linguistic phenomenon. However, it should be borne in mind that a high degree of use of a language variant, being important in determining the language norm, can also characterize speech errors. The norms are not invented by linguists, but reflect the natural processes and phenomena occurring in the language, supported by speech practice. The norms of the language cannot be introduced or canceled by decree, they cannot be reformed by administrative means. The activity of linguists studying language norms is different - they identify, describe and codify language norms, as well as explain and promote them. It can be argued that a linguistic phenomenon should be considered normative if it is characterized by the following features: compliance with the structure of the language; mass and regular reproducibility in the process of speech activity of the majority of speakers; public approval and recognition.
Literary language- a processed form of the national language, which has, to a greater or lesser extent, written norms; the language of all manifestations of culture, expressed in verbal form.
Literary language is a supra-dialect subsystem (form of existence) of the national language, which is characterized by such features as normativity, codification, polyfunctionality, stylistic differentiation, high social prestige among native speakers of this national language. The property of all who owns its norms. It functions in both written and spoken forms. The language of fiction (the language of writers), although it usually focuses on the same norms, contains a lot of individual, not generally accepted. In different historical epochs and among different peoples, the degree of closeness of the literary language and the language of fiction turned out to be unequal.
Literary language - mutual language the writing of one or another people, and sometimes several peoples - the language of official business documents, school education, written and everyday communication, science, journalism, fiction, all manifestations of culture, expressed in verbal form, more often written, but sometimes oral. That is why the written and bookish and oral and colloquial forms of the literary language differ, the emergence, correlation and interaction of which are subject to certain historical patterns.
Literary language is a historically established, socially conscious, language system that is distinguished by strict codification, but is mobile and not static, which covers all spheres of human activity: the sphere of science and education - scientific style; socio-political sphere - journalistic style; sphere of business relations - official business style.
The idea of the “fixedness” of the norms of the literary language has a certain relativity (for all the importance and stability of the norm, it is mobile in time). It is impossible to imagine a developed and rich culture of the people without a developed and rich literary language. This is the great social significance of the very problem of literary language.
There is no consensus among linguists about the complex and multifaceted concept of the literary language. Some researchers prefer to talk not about the literary language as a whole, but about its varieties: either the written literary language, or the colloquial literary language, or the language of fiction, etc.
Literary language cannot be identified with the language of fiction. These are different, though related concepts.
Historical correlation of literary and folk languages
In the era of feudalism, a number of peoples of the world used a foreign language as a written literary language: among the Iranian and Turkic peoples - classical Arabic; the Japanese and Koreans have classical Chinese; among the Germanic and West Slavic peoples - Latin; in the Baltics and the Czech Republic - German, in Russia - until the 18th century, the Church Slavonic language, which developed on the basis of Old Church Slavonic(in contrast to the folk Old Russian).
Literary and national languages
There is a difference between the literary language and the national language. The national language appears in the form of a literary language, but not every literary language immediately becomes a national language. National languages, as a rule, are formed in the era of capitalism.
One can speak about the Russian literary language (see History of the Russian literary language) from the beginning of the 17th century, while it becomes the national language in the first half of the 19th century, in the era of A.S. Pushkin.
Monuments of the French literary language have been known since the 11th century, but only in the 17th-18th centuries is there a process of gradual formation of the French national language.
In Italy, the literary language made itself known already in the works of Dante, but only in the 2nd half of the 19th century, in the era of the national unification of Italy, did the formation of its national language take place.
The language of fiction includes: dialects, urban vernacular, youth and professional jargon, slang - and all this component Common (national) language.
Relationship with dialects
A special problem is the correlation and interaction of the literary language and dialects. The more stable the historical foundations of dialects, the more difficult it is for a literary language to unite all members of a given nation linguistically. Dialects are still successfully competing with the literary language in many countries of the world, for example, in Italy and Indonesia.
The concept of a literary language usually interacts with the concept of linguistic styles (see: stylistics (linguistics)), existing within the boundaries of each literary language.
language style- this is a kind of literary language that has developed historically and is characterized by a certain set of features, some of which can be repeated in other styles, but a certain combination of them and their peculiar function distinguishes one style from another.
In modern linguistics, the term "norm" is understood in two meanings: Firstly , the norm is the generally accepted use of a variety of language means, regularly repeated in the speech of speakers (reproduced by speakers), Secondly, instructions, rules, instructions for use, recorded in textbooks, dictionaries, reference books.
Language norms(norms of the literary language, literary norms) are the rules for the use of language means in a certain period of development of the literary language, i.e. rules of pronunciation, spelling, word usage, grammar. A norm is an example of a uniform, generally recognized use of language elements (words, phrases, sentences).
The norms common to oral and written speech relate to the linguistic content and construction of texts. Lexical norms, or norms of word usage, are norms that determine the correct choice of a word from a number of units that are close to it in meaning or form, as well as its use in the meanings that it has in the literary language.
Lexical norms are reflected in explanatory dictionaries, dictionaries of foreign words, terminological dictionaries and reference books.
Compliance with lexical norms is the most important condition for the accuracy of speech and its correctness.
Grammatical norms are divided into word-formation, morphological and syntactic. Grammatical norms are described in the "Russian Grammar" prepared by the Academy of Sciences, in Russian language textbooks and grammar reference books.
Word-building norms determine the order of connecting parts of a word, the formation of new words.
A word-building mistake is the use of non-existent derivative words instead of existing derivative words with other affixes, for example: character description, salesmanship, hopelessness, the writer's works are distinguished by depth and truthfulness.
Morphological norms require the correct formation of grammatical forms of words of different parts of speech (forms of gender, number, short forms and degrees of comparison of adjectives, etc.). A typical violation of morphological norms is the use of a word in a non-existent or context-inappropriate inflectional form (the analyzed image, the reigning order, the victory over fascism, called Plyushkin a hole). Sometimes you can hear such phrases: railway rail, imported shampoo, registered parcel post, patent leather shoes. In these phrases, a morphological error was made - the gender of nouns was incorrectly formed.
Syntactic norms prescribe correct construction basic syntactic units - phrases and sentences. These norms include the rules of word agreement and syntactic control, correlating parts of a sentence with each other using grammatical forms of words in order for the sentence to be a competent and meaningful statement. There is a violation of syntactic norms in the following examples: when reading it, a question arises; The poem is characterized by a synthesis of lyrical and epic principles; Having married his brother, none of the children were born alive.
Stylistic norms determine the use of language means in accordance with the laws of the genre, the features of the functional style and, more broadly, with the purpose and conditions of communication.
The unmotivated use of words of a different stylistic coloring in the text causes stylistic errors. Stylistic norms are recorded in explanatory dictionaries as special marks, commented on in textbooks on the style of the Russian language and the culture of speech.
Stylistic errors consist in violation of stylistic norms, inclusion in the text of units that do not correspond to the style and genre of the text.
The most common stylistic mistakes are:
- stylistic inappropriateness (goes in cycles, royal lawlessness, doesn’t care, the love conflict is described in all its glory - in the text of the essay, in a business document, in an analytical article);
- the use of cumbersome, unsuccessful metaphors (Pushkin and Lermontov are two rays of light in a dark kingdom; These flowers - messengers of nature - do not know what kind of violent heart beats in their chests under stone slabs; Did he have the right to cut off this thread of life, which he did not hang himself? );
- lexical insufficiency (I am deeply concerned about this issue);
- lexical redundancy (He wakes them up so that they wake up; We must refer to the period of their life, that is, the period of time when they lived; Pushkin is a poet with a capital letter of this word);
- ambiguity (While Oblomov was sleeping, many were preparing for his awakening; Oblomov's only entertainment is Zakhar; Yesenin, preserving traditions, but somehow not so fond of the beautiful female sex; All actions and relationships between Olga and Oblomov were incomplete).
Spelling norms These are the rules for naming words in writing. They include the rules for designating sounds with letters, the rules for continuous, hyphenated and separate spelling of words, the rules for using uppercase (capital) letters and graphic abbreviations.
Punctuation norms determine the use of punctuation marks.
Punctuation tools have the following functions:
delimitation in a written text of one syntactic structure (or its element) from another;
fixation in the text of the left and right boundaries of the syntactic structure or its element;
combining several syntactic structures into a single whole in the text.
Spelling and punctuation standards are enshrined in the "Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation" (M., 1956), the only most complete and officially approved set of spelling rules. On the basis of these rules, various reference books on spelling and punctuation have been compiled, the most authoritative among which is D.E. Rosenthal, which was repeatedly reprinted, in contrast to the official set of rules itself, published twice - in 1956 and 1962.
Orthoepic norms include norms of pronunciation, stress and intonation. Compliance with orthoepic norms is an important part of the culture of speech, because. their violation creates an unpleasant impression on the listeners about the speech and the speaker himself, distracts from the perception of the content of the speech. Orthoepic norms are fixed in orthoepic dictionaries of the Russian language and stress dictionaries. Intonation norms are described in "Russian Grammar" (Moscow, 1980) and textbooks of the Russian language.
Dictionary. The most complete information about the word is given by the explanatory dictionary. The modern standard explanatory dictionary is the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by S.I. Ozhegov and N.Yu. Shvedova. It serves as a guide to the correct use of words, the correct formation of words, the correct pronunciation and spelling. From the whole variety of vocabulary of the modern Russian language, its main composition has been selected for this dictionary. In accordance with the tasks of the dictionary, it did not include: special words and meanings that have a narrow professional use; dialect words and meanings, if they are not widely used in the literary language; vernacular words and meanings with a pronounced rough coloring; obsolete words and meanings that have fallen out of active use; own names.
After interpreting the meaning of the word, if necessary, examples are given to illustrate its use in speech. Examples help to better understand the meaning of the word and how to use it. As examples, short phrases, the most common combinations of words, as well as proverbs, proverbs, everyday and figurative expressions showing the use of this word are given.
Lecture No. 3. Language norm and codification.
1. Concepts of normalization and codification. Codification as a regulation of recommended uses.
The concept of normalization and codification is closely related to the concept of norm. When forming a speech norm, both spontaneous and conscious processes operate. Spontaneity is associated with the massive and regular use of a particular language norm in the speech of native speakers (normalization); the processes of "legitimization", or codification, of the spontaneously formed linguistic norms in grammar and dictionaries are conscious.
Normalization is the process of formation, approval of the norm, its description. Normalization is reflected in codification - official recognition and description of the norm in the form of rules in authoritative sources (dictionaries, reference books, grammars). Thus, codification is a developed set of rules that brings into the system, legitimizes options.
Consequently, this or that linguistic phenomenon, before becoming the norm, goes through the process of normalization, and in case of a favorable outcome (widespread, public approval), it is fixed, codified in rules, dictionaries.
Codification is distinguishing feature only the literary norm, since the norms of dialects, jargons are described, studied, but not fixed as a necessary set of rules.
Theoretically, the delimitation of the norm and codification as a whole goes as an object and its adequate reflection.
At the same time, in the modern language situation, this ratio is undergoing a change, which is due to the fact that the concept of codification begins to dominate the language norm, because in the mind of a native speaker of a literary language, codification is a standard, an ideal pattern that must be followed, therefore codification affects the language system. The main rule of codification - it is important not to lag behind the norm, but not to get ahead of it. Thus, the codification contains two features: 1) reasonable conservatism: the dictionary must reflect the real linguistic consciousness; 2) tolerance (tolerance): the dictionary must admit certain democratic tendencies.
A linguistic unit is considered normative if it is characterized by such features as: 1. The criterion for the correspondence of a linguistic sign to the language system and its development trends; 2. Functional correspondence of the sign to its meaning, functions; 3. Mass reproducibility; 4. Positive public assessment; 5. Normativity of the environment; 6. Culturogenicity of use.
Criteria of normativity are necessary for the process of selection, dissemination, and formation of norms in the field of usage (“settled” use).
Thus, commonness, functional motivation, and consistency are important criteria for codification.
2. Main stages of codification.
The norm goes a long way to its legalization, the result of which is codification. The stages of the formation of the norm include: 1) the normalization act of establishing, 2) functioning, i.e. the process of mass speech practice, 3) the spontaneous development of trends and norms of use that deviate from the "established" rules; 4) codification, during which the linguist no longer acts as a normalizer, but as a codifier. And the main task of the codifier is an objective description of the norms of the modern Russian language; those. codification should be based on observations of the living processes of the functioning of the literary language. This is both facilitated and hindered by the fact that the codifier himself is both a witness and a participant in the described linguistic processes.
At a certain stage in the development of the norm for the codifier, the main question becomes when a new or local (regional) norm should be codified and when the old one should be abandoned. To resolve this issue, E.N. Shiryaev proposes a special methodological model of an expert commission, which, on the one hand, can take into account the opinion of an average native speaker, and, on the other hand, does not underestimate the opinion of specialists and highly educated people, among whom there is usually a large percentage of conservatives, adherents of the old norms [Shiryaev, 1996: 19].
The expert commission, according to E.N. Shiryaev, should consist of native speakers of the literary language, characterized by a different attitude towards the norm. It should include the following groups (at least five people in each): 1) "conservatives" (zealots of old traditional norms, not inclined to innovate), 2) "neutrals" (native speakers of the literary language, largely inclined to traditional norms , but not resistant to innovations), 3) “democrats” (native speakers of the literary language, who allow everything new in their speech that, from their point of view, does not contradict the literary language), 4) a group of specialists in the norms of the literary language.
Each member of the expert commission should be asked to choose from four possible answers to the question of the normativity of the innovation: “definitely permissible”, “permissible”, “rather acceptable”, “rather unacceptable”, “definitely unacceptable”. Answers to the first two questions are evaluated positively, to the next two - negative. The opinion of a specialist will be significant in the matter of codifying the norm, because he can foresee the historical dynamics of the norm and predict the attitude of different groups of non-specialists towards the norm in the future.
The interpretation of the results of the examination can be as follows: a positive assessment gives the right to novation for codification, a zero assessment refers the solution of the issue of codification to the future, a negative assessment does not let the innovation into speech.
Expert assessments make it possible to determine which neoplasms have become the norm, and which are still only acceptable, and when the old norm is preferred. In this regard, E.N. Shiryaev suggests the following: if an innovation scores more than half of the positive points, it is the norm, less is the acceptable norm.
Thus, the main stages of the codification of a language norm include the following: a) the stage of a theoretical description of the sphere of realization of system capabilities as an objective pattern (addressed to a linguist); b) the stage of converting a description of a pattern into a prescription (carried out in "authoritative sources" in the form of a rule and addressed to a native speaker)
3. Normalization and linguistic purism.
Two diametrically opposed concepts are closely related to the phenomenon of normalization - "anti-normalization" and "linguistic purism".
Under "anti-normalization" is understood the denial of scientific normalization and codification of the language. At the heart of the views of anti-normalizers lies the belief in the spontaneous development of the language. However, it should be remembered that anti-normalization can undermine the established relatively stable system of norms of the Russian literary language, the system of functional styles.
Another phenomenon is closely related to the development of the norms of the Russian literary language, their formation and codification - purism (from Latin purus - pure), i.e. rejection of any innovations and changes in the language or their direct prohibition. At the heart of the purist attitude to language lies the view of the norm as something unchanging.
In a broad sense, purism is an unnecessarily strict, uncompromising attitude towards any borrowings, innovations, in general, to all subjectively understood cases of distortion, coarsening and damage to the language. Purists don't want to understand historical development language, normalization policy: they idealize in the language the past, long fixed and tested. Purism manifests itself in direct conservatism, when the borrowings mastered by the language are rejected and their consistent replacement with new formations from morphemes native to the given language is proposed. For example, a conservative attitude towards language, characteristic of literature and criticism of the 19th century (the positions of the Slavophiles A.S. Shishkov, F.V. Bulgarin, N.I. Grech, M.P. Pogodin, V.I. Dahl, etc.) .
Among the varieties of purism are: aesthetic-gustatory (or emotional), its basis is the subjective aesthetic perception of the language; logical (or scientific) purism, the manifestations of which include the numerous prohibitions contained in the dictionaries of irregularities, stylistic manuals published in the past; ideological (or socio-political, officially conservative).
Purism usually manifests itself during periods of important social events (revolutions, wars) and significant changes in the organization of the language associated with them, when it is quickly and clearly reformed, absorbing many borrowings, neologisms and other new formations.
However, when codifying the norms of the modern literary language, purism can perform a regulatory function, protecting the language from the abuse of borrowings, excessive enthusiasm for innovations and contributing to the stability, traditionality of the norms, and ensuring the historical continuity of the language.
Thus, anti-normalization and linguistic purism are two extremes, which are based on scientific nihilism, reliance on one's own speech experience, and linguistic taste. In order to adequately reflect the current norms of the modern literary language, it is necessary to find the so-called "golden mean".
4. Dictionaries and reference books as a form of codification.
The study of the literary norm in its state of the art is carried out at different language levels - orthoepic, grammatical, lexical, phraseological, etc. A very important factor in improving the culture of speech is the publication of dictionaries different types- sensible, synonymous, phraseological, actually normative. The existing dictionaries of the Russian language can be divided into two groups [Lyustrova, Skvortsov, 1972: 97] based on the size of the dictionaries, the nature of the explanatory material, and the purpose.
Dictionaries of the first group can be conditionally called language dictionaries in the proper sense. First of all, these are explanatory, or explanatory, dictionaries of various types. In practice, they cover the entire (or almost all) lexical composition of the language.
In Russian lexicography (a discipline that studies various types of dictionaries, develops scientific principles their compilation) the name "sensible" came from V.I. Dahl, who gave his dictionary the name: "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language". Explanatory dictionaries existed even before Dahl's dictionary, but they were not called explanatory. The most famous of them was the Dictionary of the Russian Academy (compiled at the very end of the 18th century), which in everyday life was called the Academic Dictionary.
Explanatory dictionaries are universal reference books on style and semantics (meaning of words), on grammar and phraseology. There are short and complete explanatory dictionaries. The widely known one-volume Dictionary of the Russian Language by prof. S.I. Ozhegov is very easy to use and indispensable for everyday use.
The codification of the written language is ahead of the codification of the spoken language. Within the limits of the written language, spelling is most easily amenable to codification, which can even be established by legislative means (as is known, the current spelling was introduced by the Soviet government in 1918). The first experience of codifying the literary language dates back to the second half of the 1930s. This is the famous "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by D.N. Ushakov. Subsequently, the codification of the Russian literary language was continued in the 17-volume and 4-volume dictionaries of the Russian literary language, in academic grammars of 1952-1954. and 1970, as well as in other manuals.
When using these dictionaries, however, it should be remembered that in the normative sense for our days they are largely outdated. But they are interesting for rich examples of the use of words and expressions in the best works of Russian classical and Soviet fiction.
Dictionaries and historical dictionaries adjoin explanatory dictionaries. Of the dialect dictionaries, the already mentioned dictionary by V.I. Dahl.
An example of a historical dictionary is the three-volume work of I.I. Sreznevsky "Materials for the Dictionary of the Old Russian Language" (1893-1912). It reflects the vocabulary of the Russian language of the 11th-14th centuries, provides quotations from ancient Russian literature of various genres.
The second large group of dictionaries are reference dictionaries. The purpose of these books is to give the reader the necessary help in difficult cases: how to spell a word (or form of a word), how to pronounce it, where to put the stress, etc.
In spelling dictionaries, words are collected to show how they are spelled. The well-known spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language, edited by S.G. Barkhudarova, S.I. Ozhegova, A.B. Shapiro includes about 104 thousand words.
The codification of the oral language encounters special and very significant difficulties, since it cannot be carried out, like orthography, by legislative means. Perhaps the greatest difficulty is the codification of the pronunciation side of the spoken language.
The first attempt to codify this side of the oral language in Russian linguistics was made in the reference dictionary "Russian literary pronunciation and stress" edited by R.I. Avanesov and S.I. Ozhegov (1959 and 1960). Information about the setting of stress can be obtained from the Dictionary of Stress for Radio and Television Workers, edited by D.E. Rosenthal, in the "Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language: Pronunciation, stress, grammatical forms" (2001), edited by R.I. Avanesov.
Reference dictionaries include dictionaries of "correctness" and "difficulties" of the modern Russian language, as well as some special dictionaries: reverse (they are sometimes called dictionaries of rhymes), abbreviations (abbreviations), names of inhabitants (anthroponymic), personal names, geographical names (toponymic ) and some others.
An intermediate position between language dictionaries and reference dictionaries is occupied by dictionaries of foreign words (A Brief Dictionary of Foreign Words. M., 1990, etc.), as well as etymological ones (on the origin of words): Fasmer M. Etymological Dictionary M., 1986; Shansky M.N., Bobrova T.A. Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1994; Etymological dictionary of the Russian language, ed. Shansky M.N. M., 1963, etc. and dictionaries of the language of writers (for example, "Pushkin's Dictionary of Language" in 4 volumes). One-volume "Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language" ed. A.I. Molotkov (1967) includes over 4 thousand expressions. Of the synonymic dictionaries, the most famous is the “Concise Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language” by V.N. Klyueva (1954), Dictionary of Synonyms of the Russian Language, ed. A.P. Evgenieva (1971).
Thus, dictionaries and reference books are one of the main forms of codification of the literary norm.
1. Avanesov R.I. Russian literary pronunciation. - M., 1984.
2. Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. - M., 1966.
3. Vinogradov S.I. Normative and communicative-pragmatic aspects of the culture of speech // Culture of Russian speech and the effectiveness of communication. - M., 1996.
5. Gorbachevich K.S. Norms of the modern Russian literary language. - M., 1989.
6. Karpinskaya E.V. Unification, standardization and codification of terms // Culture of Russian speech / Ed. prof. OK. Graudina and prof. E.N. Shiryaev. - M., 2000.
7. Lustrova Z.N., Skvortsov L.I. World of native speech (Conversations about the Russian language and culture of speech). - M., 1972.
8. Pleshchenko T.P., Fedotova N.V., Chechet R.G. Fundamentals of stylistics and culture of speech. – Minsk, 1999.
9. Russian language and culture of speech / Ed. A. G. Antipova. Educational-methodical complex for universities. – Kemerovo, 2002.
10. Skvortsov L.I. Fundamentals of the culture of speech: Reader. - M., 1984.
11. Schwarzkopf B.S. The norm in a written codified language // Culture of Russian speech and the effectiveness of communication. - M., 1996.
12. Shiryaev E.N. Speech culture as a special theoretical discipline // Speech culture and communication efficiency. - M., 1996.
Lecture No. 4. Norms of the modern literary language.
1. The concept of the norm in various interpretations (static, dynamic). Correlation of communicative, stylistic and linguistic norms. Signs of the norm.
The language norm is one of the central categories of speech culture, because normativity (following the generally accepted norms in the language) is the basis of speech culture The study of various types of language norms is the main task of orthology (from the Greek orthos - direct, right and logos - word, concept, teaching) as a special section of speech culture.
For the first time, the definition of the norm is given in the works of M.V. Lomonosov, where the experience of describing the standards that really exist in the language is offered. A consistent formulation of the norm is given only in the 20th century.
In modern orthology, there are three types of norms: linguistic; communicative; stylistic. Similarly, the classification of norms was developed by the Czech linguist A. Edlichka, who distinguished three types of norms: linguistic, communicative and stylistic norms.
The language norm is closely connected with the language system. Its attitude to communication is characterized by the fact that its constitutive features are social recognition and obligation in a given linguistic, communicative community. The obligatory nature of the literary norm is emphasized by its codification.
For the communicative norm, the attitude to the communication process is decisive. It is manifested not only by linguistic, but also by non-linguistic (non-verbal) elements. It is primarily due to situational factors and circumstances. Unlike literary formational norms, communicative norms are not codified.
Stylistic norms include not only linguistic elements, but are also reflected in various components - thematic, textual, tectonic. They are covered by codification [Culture of Russian speech and communication efficiency, 1996: 53].
We will dwell in more detail on the essence and types of the language norm.
Language norms are one of the most difficult problems, the multidimensionality of which is determined by historical, cultural, sociological and linguistic facts. The lack of study of this problem is reflected primarily in the instability of terminology, the vagueness and diversity of the definition of the language norm.
The language norm is closely related to the concept of a language system. In linguistics, there are two definitions of the norm: static and dynamic.
For example, the famous linguist A. M. Peshkovsky considered conservatism to be the most important quality of the norm. Here, any possibility of the dynamics of the language norm (static version) is excluded. The language system, on the one hand, is understood as a grid, a scheme of relations between linguistic signs (statics), and the language norm is the implementation of this scheme in the speech of an individual.
In a dynamic interpretation, the language system appears as a network of relationships that is in constant development and depends on everything that is connected with the language. In this understanding, the norm is the development of the language system, it reflects not only the synchronous layer, but also everything that affects the formation of this level (personal characteristics of the speaker, the actual linguistic facts of the development of the language system) (V. A. Itskovich.) General obligatoriness is emphasized, historical character and variation.
The norm is constantly evolving following the language, so it is very difficult to fix it at the present stage.
Characteristic features literary language norms: relative stability and stability; general prevalence and general obligatoryness; literary tradition and authority of sources; usage; conformity with the use, custom and possibilities of the language system; dynamic character due to the development of the system.
A norm in a language is the generally accepted use of linguistic means, a set of rules that regulate the use of linguistic means in an individual's speech. There are two principles for the selection of norms: 1) the estimated attitude of a native speaker to his functioning; 2) adherence to cultural traditions (culturogenicity of use).
The main functions of language norms include the following:
1. Language stabilization function (containment of language changes). In this regard, the language norm is the most conservative.
2. Ensuring the uniformity of linguistic phenomena for a better mutual understanding of people.
3. Regulation of speech means, speech behavior of people.
All functions of linguistic norms affect the understanding of the linguistic characteristics of norms (opposition), which reflect the opposition of the real - ideal norm:
1. Conservatism - dynamism. On the one hand, the language norm is conservative (ideal), and on the other hand, it is constantly changing.
2. Non-variance - variability. The norm tends to be non-variant, but is realized only when there are several forms of its presentation.
3. Universality - locality. Norms can not always be universal, they are characterized by territorial variation. For example, the name of bread: loaf - in Moscow, roll - in Siberia, although the general nomination of bread is a loaf.
2. Variation as the most important feature of the language norm.
A conscious appeal to the norm occurs when there are options. Variation is the most important feature of the language norm, which is closely related to its dynamics. It is through the appearance of variants that the norm changes and develops.
A variant is one of the varieties of a linguistic sign, accepted within the literary language and existing along with signs synonymous with it.
In a narrow sense, variants include varieties of the same language unit that have the same meaning and do not have any differences. In the broad sense of the term, variants are two or more linguistic means, one of which has an additional semantic connotation, or differs in the scope of use (most often the term "variant" is used in the second meaning).
Options can be unequal and equal. Hence, there is a selection of the main degrees of correlation between the norm and the variant: 1) the norm is obligatory, the variant is prohibited; 2) the norm is mandatory, the option is acceptable, although undesirable; 3) the norm and the variant are equal.
Equal variants is a concept that describes normative language units. They can be absolutely identical rust and rust), partially identical, characterized by instability in use ( Phenomen - Phenomen)
Unequal variants describe the actual fluctuations of the language norm, shatter the norm from the inside. These include: 1) stylistic (hiccup (general), ekane (special)); 2) semantic ( Iris - iris); 3) normative-chronological (singling out the "younger" and "older" norms).
Language norms are a historical phenomenon, they are due to the constant development of the language. The sources of norm change are diverse: colloquial speech, dialects, colloquial speech, etc. The fluctuation of the norm is a natural phenomenon that constantly updates the language and its norms. Therefore, it is advisable to single out the senior and junior variant norms: the senior one is associated with the traditions of use, and the junior one reflects modern trends in language development.
How do high and low norms compete? Conventionally, four stages can be distinguished in the process of changing the norm:
1. The older norm is the only correct one, the younger one is a non-normative option ( document).
2. The younger norm is included in the speech usage, gets a wide scope of distribution, has a mark in the dictionaries add., razg, and ( cottage cheese - cottage cheese).
3. The older norm gives way to the younger one.
4. The younger norm completely replaces the older one and acquires an imperative character. For instance, foil- this statement of stress was normative in the mid-80s, now it is outdated.
In order for a variant to become the norm, it must reflect the patterns of the language system and be approved by native speakers. Thus, we can talk about the dual (objectively - linguistic and social - axiological) nature of the norm.
It must be remembered that the process of changing the norm is quite long, it can hardly be traced on the example of one generation.
3. Structural and typological characteristics of language norms.
The structural and typological characteristics of language norms are based on the following selection parameters:
1. By language levels. The traditional classification of language norms has a level character. The language has a complex organization, within which several levels are distinguished: phonetic, morphological, word-forming, lexical, syntactic. Of these, the basic ones are phonetic, lexical, grammatical, non-basic - derivational.
There are the following types of norms: phonetic (orthoepic, accentological); lexical (norms of word usage); grammatical (morphological, syntactic).
Orthoepic norms - pronunciation norms of oral speech. They are studied by a special section of linguistics - orthoepy (Greek orthos - correct, epos - speech). Pronunciation, corresponding to orthoepic norms, facilitates and speeds up the process of communication. So social role correct pronunciation is very large, especially in modern society, where oral speech has become the means of the widest communication at various meetings, conferences, and congresses. Linguists name four features of Russian literary pronunciation: akanye, hiccups, [r] explosive, lack of assimilative softening.
The features and functions of stress are studied by the department of linguistics, which is called accentology (from Latin accentus - stress). Norms of stress (accentological) are diverse in the Russian language and, as a rule, cause a lot of difficulties. This is due to the diversity and mobility of the Russian stress. Diversity is manifested in the fact that the stress can fall on any syllable ( compass, extraction, document), and mobility is that in the same word, when its form changes, it can move from one syllable to another ( rights, rights, rights; can you can).
The lexical (dictionary) norms of the Russian language are understood as: 1) the correct choice of a word; 2) its use in the meanings that it has in the language; 3) the appropriateness of its use in a communicative situation in combinations generally accepted in the language. Lexical norms are more mobile, subject to extralinguistic factors. The main law of vocabulary is anticipatory development over other norms.
Grammatical norms are the rules for the formation and use of morphological forms of different parts of speech and syntactic constructions. Grammatical norms are determined by the productivity of any model. For example, a few years ago the name of the city Kemerovo did not lean: from Kemerovo to Kemerovo. Options are now the norm. from Kemerovo, in Kemerovo.
In speech practice, cases of violation of the laws of grammar are not uncommon. A lot of fluctuations in the field of morphology are caused by the formation and use of various grammatical categories and forms of nouns, adjectives, pronouns and verbs.
The syntactic norms of the modern Russian language determine the rules for the formation and use of syntactic units (phrases and sentences). Compliance with language norms at the syntactic level prevents a number of difficulties in choosing the desired syntactic construction.
2. In relation to language. There are norms of oral speech (accentological, orthoepic) and written (spelling and punctuation).
3. According to the degree of obligatory use, norms can be imperative (rigid, not allowing options) and dispositive (variable).
The first type of norms is primarily characteristic of graphics, spelling, to a certain extent punctuation, as well as those linguistic uses that are due to the lexical and grammatical properties of the Russian language, which are not typical for a number of languages whose speakers live on the territory of Russia and are forced to speak the state language of Russia.
In this type, the norm competes with the error. Written norms are more stringent, because through the book is the transfer of information, knowledge of the world. Therefore, the usual graphics and spelling should not distract the reader's attention. For example, okane is a familiar, traditional form letters.
Punctuation norms are less imperative, which is due to the reflection of the author's intonation in punctuation, the specifics of the writer's mental activity. This applies to the setting of punctuation marks such as; :-(). It is no coincidence that there is such an expression as an author's mark, i.e. this is not a mistake, this is a special vision of the semantic significance of the punctuation marks used, which in no way contradict the function they perform.
Violations of this type of norms are evidence of poor knowledge of the Russian language, which is not native to the speaker.
The second type of norms, dispositive, involves the use of several variants in the literary language. N., cottage cheese- add. cottage cheese, a cup of tea - a cup of tea. Dispositive norms are due to a number of reasons described above: this is also the result of the action of intra-system factors of the Russian literary language, as well as the heterogeneity of the composition of the Russian national language, which manifests itself in the functioning along with the literary language of vernacular, various kinds of dialects (social and territorial), slang, obscene vocabulary. The variance of norms is also determined by the interaction of the Russian literary language with other languages of the world.
In oral speech, dispositive norms prevail, however, there are also strict directives regarding the grammar of the literary language. Violation of them is evidence of poor knowledge of the language .
4. Typology of violation of norms. The concept of speech error.
The concept of a speech error does not make sense without the existence of the concept of a norm, because error is the result of various kinds of deviations from the norms, violations of norms. Accordingly, lack of knowledge of any of the norms, ignorance of the norm leads to an error.
The classical theory of speech culture refers to speech errors only cases of violation of systemic (linguistic) norms, and therefore the typology of deviations from the norms is based on them. From this point of view, orthoepic errors stand out (for example, pronunciation dean, certainly), accentological ( calling, contract), lexico-phraseological (for example, mixing paronyms like ignoramus and ignoramus, economic and economical), grammatical: derivational ( lemon ov th instead of lemon n th), morphological (for example, forms more better chauffeur), syntactic (for example, cases of incorrect type matching , according to the order).
It is essential when deviating from the literary norm to distinguish between the so-called "strong" and "weak" deviance. Weakly non-normative will be some systemically determined facts that are widely used in literary texts (including colloquial speech), but do not have a stable normative status and a positive codifying assessment (these are cases of the type one hundred grams, kilogram of tomato). Examples of strong profanity (“litmus papers” according to S.I. Ozhegov) include vernacular in full ( in vain, collidor), as well as some systemic units for the literary language, traditionally fixed in the minds of native speakers of the literary language as non-normative ( quarter).
An important sign of deviations from the language norm is also the sign of "intentionality / unintentionality" of the violation. Inadvertent deviations are divided into errors and reservations. Mistakes are the result of the speaker not mastering the norm, and reservations may appear due to the influence of various kinds of factors, including those of a psychophysical nature (fatigue, excitement).
Deliberate deviations from the norm differ in the scope and purpose of their use. So, in fiction, non-normative facts can be used, for example, for the purpose of speech characterization of a character or the depicted social environment. In ordinary, non-artistic speech, deliberate deviations from the norm can be allowed for the purpose of a language game, deliberate outrageousness. In these cases, the speech error acquires the status of a speech reception.
In general, the distinction between norm, non-norm (mistake) and reception in real language practice is quite difficult. An error is an operation associated with a failure in the operation of the language mechanism. The main thing that distinguishes it from the reception is the lack of expediency, therefore, errors are always evaluated negatively.
1. Golovin B.N. Fundamentals of speech culture. - M., 1988.
2. Golub I.B. Russian language and culture of speech. - M., 2002.
3. Efimov A.I. Stylistics of the Russian language. - M., 1969.
4. Gorbachevich K.S. Changing the norms of the Russian literary language. - L., 1971.
5. Gorshkov A.I. Russian style. - M., 2001.
6. Kozhina M.N. Stylistics of the Russian language. - M., 1993.
7. Culture of Russian speech. - M., 2000.
8. Russian language and culture of speech / Ed. V.I. Maksimova. - M., 2000.
9. Russian language and culture of speech / Ed. V.D. Chernyak. - M., 2002.
10. Russian language and culture of speech / Ed. A. G. Antipova. Educational-methodical complex for universities. – Kemerovo, 2002.
Fifteen years ago, I happened to be on the phone when an assistant from the Deputy Minister of Culture of the USSR called our department and asked to consult his boss. What question did the deputy minister ask me? He said: “We have a magazine called Soviet Variety and Circus. They say here that this is a wrong name: it turns out that the circus is not Soviet.” I reassured the Deputy Minister, said that the circus is also Soviet and that this is how, in the singular, it is customary to use the definition in such cases. I gave a textbook example from I.S. Turgenev: “The wild goose and duck flew first,” I remembered that in party documents they always wrote: “the Soviet press, radio and television.” The last example seemed to my interlocutor especially convincing, and we said goodbye. A few minutes later, the referent called again and indignantly asked: “Why are you setting such a norm?”
The wording of the question is very revealing. It testifies to a misunderstanding of the objective nature of literary norms. People who do not have special philological training believe that the norms are set by linguists - compilers of dictionaries and authors of books on the culture of speech. This is completely false.
I will give a few examples. catalog or catalogue? ENGINEERS OR ENGINEER? According to the law or according to the law? How right? Modern dictionaries recommend the first options. Why? Who decides? Linguists? Maybe they still dictate language norms? No, no one invents the norms of the literary language, they do not depend on anyone's individual taste.
The language norm is how it is customary to speak and write in a given society in a given period. No one can introduce any word into use or, conversely, prohibit something in the language, remove it from it. Norms are formed gradually, on their own, in the language practice of people with a high speech culture: writers, scientists, journalists. It is not at the whim of linguists that we must speak the catalogue, engineers, according to the law. The fact is that other variants contradict the speech custom, do not correspond to the traditional use of these words by intelligent people. And dictionaries and grammars only reflect what, regardless of linguists, has developed in the literary language. A.S. understood this very well. Pushkin, who wrote as early as 1833: "Grammar does not prescribe laws to the language, but explains and approves its customs."
The publication of any dictionary or reference book is preceded by a long and painstaking work. Scientists, using a variety of methods, study how many educated people speak and write: in what meanings they use words, how they pronounce, decline or conjugate, what words and constructions they use depending on the conditions of speech (after all, what is appropriate, say, in a conversation with friends - for example, a reader, quickly, I have something to write, it will sound strange in a scientific report).
Having thus obtained an idea of the traditions that have objectively developed in literary speech, linguists fix them in dictionaries, reference books, grammars in the form of rules, recommendations, and thereby protect these traditions, make them obligatory for all of us who speak a literary language, wherever we live. . Such fixation of objectively existing literary norms is called codification (from the Latin word codex - "book").
A consistent distinction between the concepts of norm and codification was first carried out in the works of scientists from the Prague Linguistic Circle. This association of linguists, which existed in Prague before World War II, also included prominent Russian scientists: S.O. Kartsevsky, N.S. Trubetskoy and P.O. Yakobson. P. G. Bogatyrev, G. O. Vinokur, E. D. Polivanov, B. V. Tomashevsky, Yu. N. Tynyanov were creatively connected with the Prague people.
Scientists of the Prague Linguistic Circle believed that norms are inherent not only in the literary language, but also in any jargon or dialect. "The fact that a certain normalized, regular complex takes place here," wrote B. Gavranek, "is best revealed in the fact that deviations from this complex are perceived as something abnormal, as a deviation from the norm." I remember how in one of the villages of the Arkhangelsk region, where I was on a dialectological expedition, women laughed at their girlfriend, who deviated from the norms inherent in their dialect.
So, there are norms in any language community. But only literary norms are codified. Only they are protected by codification. When we say that a literary language is a standardized language, we mean the codification of literary norms. The codification is addressed to native speakers. Therefore, the Dictionary of Russian Folk Dialects (M., L., St. Petersburg, 1965-1994) or the Dictionary of Prison-Camp-Thieves Jargon (M., 1992) cannot be considered codification. A linguistic description of a literary language, vernacular, dialect or jargon, addressed to a narrow circle of specialists, not focused on native speakers of a given language, vernacular, dialect or jargon and, therefore, not having any impact on their speech practice, is not a codification. Codification also affects speech practice. For example, I want to use the form chauffeurA (im. pad. plural), but the codification qualifies it as colloquial and recommends another option - chauffeurs. And I consciously, under the influence of codification, refuse the form of a chauffeur and will use chauffeurs, chauffeurs, etc. This is where "the factor of social prestige comes into play - an important non-linguistic stimulator and "regulator" of normative regulations and assessments." I prefer the "chauffeurs" option, because the circle of people with whom I would like to associate has always used this option, it is also traditional for print, radio and television.
The terminological distinction between the concepts of norm and codification is necessary in order not to slide into the understanding of the norm as a dictate of linguists. The usefulness of such a distinction can be illustrated by the following examples.
The norms of the literary language are formed spontaneously, while codification is done by people, and they can make mistakes. So, the dictionary-reference book "Difficulties in word usage and variants of the norms of the Russian literary language" ed. K.S. Gorbachevich recommends pronouncing the initial consonant in the word "timbre" softly, even gives a prohibitive mark: "not [te] mbr". But this contradicts the language experience of each of us and the data of other dictionaries. In the "Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language", ed. R.I. Avanesova, the pronunciation variants of the words "effective", "peculiar" and similar ones with soft consonants "s" and "t" in the suffix "-stv-" are qualified as preferred, and variants with hard consonants are acceptable, although it is quite obvious that the first, old Moscow, the options are long outdated. Facts of this kind can be attributed to the curiosities of codification, but this should not cause us to be skeptical about dictionaries, which still in the vast majority of cases give us solid, proven material.
The life of a language is dynamic. Its norms, although slowly, are constantly changing (lexical norms change faster than pronunciation and grammatical ones). Sometimes a situation arises when the norm changes, but the codification remains the same, old, i.e. coding is out of the norm. When the eightieth birthday of Ditmar Elyashevich Rozental, who for many years headed the Department of Stylistics of the Russian Language at the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow University, was celebrated, the hero of the day was greeted by radio announcers. They sang comic verses to the tune of a gypsy romance. They contained these lines:
You gave us foil
And canceled rakurs.
What did the speakers mean? You will understand this if you find these words in dictionaries. The fact is that until very recently all dictionaries recommended pronouncing "foil" and "rakurs". Ditmar Elyashevich allowed the announcers to pronounce these words the way all normal people pronounce them, i.e. he changed the codification, made it conform to the norm. But how can we say that Ditmar Elyashevich changed the norm? No, the norm has changed spontaneously, for objective reasons. The codification was deliberately updated.
Linguists are in no hurry to legitimize any innovation. They, on the contrary, try, as long as there is an opportunity, to keep, to preserve the old norm. This is explained by the very essence, the purpose of codification as a means of language policy.
Language policy is understood as a conscious, purposeful impact of society, i.e. its specially designed institutions, on the functioning and development of the language. For example, the sphere of language policy in multilingual countries includes the solution of the issue of giving this or that language the status of a state language, the creation of conditions for the development of culture, education in national languages different peoples, the development of alphabets for non-written languages, the improvement of spelling.
One of the most important goals of the language policy is the preservation of the cultural heritage of the nation, its transmission from generation to generation. The codification of the norms of the literary language is called upon to achieve this goal. “If the literary dialect,” wrote the outstanding Russian linguist AMPeshkovsky, “changed quickly, then each generation could only use the literature of its own and the previous generation ... But under such conditions there would be no literature itself, since the literature of each generation is created all previous literature. If Chekhov did not already understand Pushkin, then Chekhov would probably not exist. Too thin a layer of soil would give too little nourishment to literary shoots. The conservatism of the literary dialect, uniting centuries and generations, creates the possibility of a single powerful centuries-old national literature ".
In the poem by V.V. Mayakovsky "A cloud in pants" the words "parquet" and "Goethe" ("geti") rhyme:
What do I care about Faust
rocket extravaganza
sliding with Mephistopheles in the heavenly parquet!
I know -
nail in my boot
more nightmarish than Goethe's fantasy!
This verse is soldered by the sound roll call "parquet" - "in the boot" - "at Goethe" ("geti"). Sometimes school teachers, faced with such cases, explain them as a distortion of the word by the poet for the sake of rhyme. This, of course, is not true. V.V. Mayakovsky was a professional poet, and he did not need to disfigure our language so that any word would fit into the meter and rhyme. The rhyme "parquet" - "geti" indicates that at the beginning of the 20th century a Russified version of the pronunciation of the German poet's surname was still possible. M.V. Panov in his "Phonetics" quotes lines from "Eugene Onegin":
He traveled the world with a lyre...
Under the sky of Schiller and Goethe... -
and explains that in the Pushkin era there was still no special pronunciation subsystem of borrowed (“foreign cultural”) words, which is in modern Russian (after all, we pronounce many borrowed words in a completely different way than native ones). "The surname of the German poet Goethe could be pronounced either with strict observance of German phonetics ... (foreign insertions into Russian speech were generally accepted), or in a completely Russified form ... Pushkin's rhyme requires this second pronunciation, and then it is accurate ..."
But how to pronounce these verses of Pushkin and Mayakovsky today? No matter how we read them - observing the modern norm or the old one, it will be bad. These verses are destroyed. Destroyed due to the fact that the norm has changed.
"Dictionary of Stress for Radio and Television Workers" from the fifth edition recommends the "spelling" pronunciation of the word "rain" - "dosht", while earlier the old Moscow version dominated the air - "dosh" - and this norm could still be preserved. Very soon we will forget that such a pronunciation was possible, it will seem to us as strange as "geti". And some other verses will be destroyed. For example, the exact rhyme in the verses of A.A. will be destroyed. Akhmatova "The Death of a Poet" (about B.L. Pasternak):
The unique voice was silent yesterday,
And the interlocutor of the groves left us.
He turned into a life giving ear
Or in the thinnest rain glorified by him.
“It can be so hard for the fate of poetic texts to change pronunciation norms. They die if there are a lot of changes (imagine a poem in which most of the rhymes turned out to be destroyed!).
An architectural monument also destroys time; it is being restored... With a sharp change in pronunciation norms, the restoration of a poetic text is impossible. (We are talking about its restoration for living perception, and not for scientific purposes.) This is the more cruel impact of time, this is irreparable damage. That is why the task of a reasonable orthoepic influence on the language is not to rush to accept, legitimize, recommend a pronunciation innovation. "This conclusion of M.V. Panov regarding the codification of pronunciation can be extended to the codification of all literary norms: in language policy, in general, traditionalism is progressive.
So, codification makes the literary language stable, helps it to remain itself as long as possible, to unite people who spoke and speak it in time. "The perfection of the literary language is in the unity of the norms of speech of fathers and children, great-grandfathers and great-grandchildren." This implies the main difficulty of codification - the search for a golden mean: the preservation of cultural and linguistic traditions should be reasonably combined with the adoption of those innovations that have become stable and widespread in the speech of educated people of our time.
The so-called permissible variants of pronunciation and stress dominate in the modern air. According to the scale of normativity proposed in the Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language, edited by Ruben Ivanovich Avanesov, an acceptable option is a “less desirable version of the norm” compared to the main, exemplary one. The difference between exemplary and acceptable options can be shown in the following example. Svetlana Morgunova, an announcer of Central Television, a professional of the highest class, took part in one of the Apocrypha programs (Culture TV channel). When one of the participants in the program said: “We created ...”, Morgunova immediately corrected him: “We created!”. The reaction of an experienced announcer is very indicative: the variant was created - exemplary, elitist, and created - acceptable. With the help of the dictionary mark “permissible”, linguists go towards native speakers, as if they are telling them: “Well, say it, since you want it so much.” Indeed, the acceptable options almost do not compromise the speakers. It is easy to explain the linguistic patterns that determine the high frequency of these variants.
The modern Russian language inherited from the Old Russian language the stress on the ending in nouns, combined with the numerals two, three, four, both: two hoursA, two stepsA, two rowsA, two sides. These are relic forms of the nominative case of the dual number (these forms were used in Old Russian, when it was about two, three or four objects), perceived by modern linguistic consciousness as forms of the genitive case of the singular. Now options with an accent on the ending, as in the examples given, are gradually being replaced by options with an emphasis on the root. To the greatest extent, this concerns the phrase both sides, often heard in news programs, but, as a rule, pronounced by journalists in a new way - with an emphasis on the root. It seems to me that in this case it is still possible to keep the old norm. And why this should be done, I tried to explain in this work. Why kill the norms that connect us with the cultural heritage of Russia? We must be aware that, for example, "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" as a literary text is largely lost for us: even its best translation, such as N.A. Zabolotsky, - this is already the work of N.A. Zabolotsky. Only people who are indifferent to the fate of Russian culture can calmly relate to the fact that language norms are changing too quickly.
In conclusion, I would like to urge journalists to strictly follow scientific recommendations in their speech behavior: refer to dictionaries more often, study special works, and when learning a profession, pay more attention to language classes. Then Russian speech on the air and on the pages of newspapers will be able to regain its former status of an authoritative model.
When solving the problem of choosing an option for the broadcast, the good old advice of Ruben Ivanovich Avanesov remains in force: you need to “look more often into authoritative dictionaries and reference books”. With all the costs that exist in the lexicographic business, dictionaries in the overwhelming majority of cases give verified, well-founded recommendations.
References
1. Pushkin A.S. Works in three volumes. T.Z. M., 1986, p.491.
2. See the collection "Prague Linguistic Circle". M., 1967.
3. Gavranek B. Tasks of the literary language and its culture. - In the book: Prague Lin-
guistic circle, p.339.
4. Itskovich V.A. Essays on the syntactic norm. M., 1982, p. eleven.
5. Skvortsov L.I. Theoretical Foundations of the Culture of Speech. M., 1980, p. 105.
6. Difficulties in word usage and variants of the norms of the Russian literary language. Slo-
var-reference book, ed. K.S. Gorbachev. L., 1974, p.440.
7. Orthoepic dictionary of the Russian language. Ed. R.I. Avanesov. M., 1997, p.116,
509.
8. Peshkovsky A.M. An objective and normative point of view on language. - In the book: Pesh-
Kovsky A.M. Selected works. M., 1959, p.55.
9. Mayakovsky V.V. Selected works in two volumes. T.2. M., I960, p. thirteen.
10. Panov M.V. Modern Russian language. Phonetics. M., 1979, p. 199.
11. Ageenko F L., Zarva M.V. Accent Dictionary for Radio and Television Workers.
Ed. D.E. Rosenthal. Ed. 5th. M., 1984, p. 131.
12. Akhmatova A.A. Poems and prose. L., 1977, p.412.
13. Panov M.V., op. cit., pp. 199, 200.
14. Ibid., p. 199.
15. Avanesov R.I. Russian literary pronunciation. M., 1984, p. 221.
Promotional codes e-delivery for September E-delivery promotion
Codes for the game dungeon hunter 5
Indian castes: what is it?
The lost memoirs of Faina Ranevskaya Faina became friends with Ekaterina Geltser immediately
Life schedule by date of birth Who will I be in my future life