Once I was in a store. I needed to buy a pen. The queue came up quickly. Finding myself in the face of the seller (it was a woman of about thirty-five), I was at a loss, not knowing how to address him: aunt? young woman? female? Or maybe just a saleswoman? No not like this. This is disrespectful, because there are a lot of aunts, girls, women around. And the saleswoman is very rude - all these thoughts flashed through my head with lightning speed.
Boy, I'm listening to you!
Give me a pen, please, - I squeezed out of myself.
How to properly address a salesperson in a store, a passer-by on the street, in general to a stranger? Is there a rule in our language that can help with this? These questions seemed interesting to me. I decided to find answers to them.
Research topic: "Common usage in Russian"
Relevance of the topic. Appeals are an integral part of a person's speech culture, speech communication, which plays an important role in people's lives.
Chapter 1
Appeal as a syntactic unit of a sentence has been fairly well studied by linguists. The authors of school textbooks L. I. Ladyzhenskaya, V. V. Babaitseva, M. T. Baranov and others interpret the appeal as “a word or combination of words that names the person to whom the speech is addressed.” It is characterized by a vocative intonation. In the role of addresses, an animate noun or an adjective, used as a noun, in the nominative case is usually used (Do you know, dear, him?). The appeal is used in oral, written speech. In the works of D. E. Rosenthal, the appeal in poetic speech, the appeal not to persons, but to objects and phenomena, is especially considered. The author in one of the articles points to the areas of use of addresses, their stylistic functions, various stylistic varieties. V. I. Gildin in the article “Getting acquainted with appeals” notes the importance of using appeals, their etiquette meaning: “There is no speech addressed to anyone, and it is simply necessary to indicate the addressee of the speech. Appeals invite addressees to communicate in a certain tone, observing certain relationships. He divides appeals into regulatory appeals (brother, darling) and appeals - indices (boy, girl, duty officer, etc.)
Scientists - linguists recognize the role of address in communication, consider it a socially significant category. At the same time, I did not find an exact answer to the question of what words are used in the role of common appeals to strangers, I did not find. But in life there are many such speech situations when you don’t know how to address a stranger: a man, a woman, a girl, a grandmother, a citizen, a comrade? Or maybe a female face, a male face! And easier - hey!. To understand this, it is necessary to comprehend the functions of address in the Russian language, its history.
Chapter 2 Call Functions
From time immemorial, conversion has performed several functions. The main one is to attract the attention of the interlocutor. This function is called vocative. So this function was called by L. A. Vvedenskaya in the article “Ethical Norms of Speech Culture”. Proper names are used as addresses (Valentina Sergeevna, Kolya, Masha); names of people by degree of kinship (father, uncle, grandfather); by position in society, by profession, position (President, general, minister, director, accountant); by age and gender (old man, boy, girl)
Calls in addition to the vocative function indicate the corresponding feature. They may contain an assessment (Lyubochka, Marinochka, smart girl, beauty, Vitka, Valka, blockhead, klutz, varmint). Such appeals characterize not only the one to whom they are addressed, but also the one who utters them. In official speech, proper names in their basic form, names of professions, positions are used as addresses.
Ch. 3. From the history of commonly used addresses
3. 1. Officially accepted appeals in pre-revolutionary times
Before the revolution, a distinctive feature of officially adopted appeals was a reflection of the social stratification of society. Reverence was a characteristic feature. There was a document "Table of Ranks", published in 1717 - 1721. d. It listed the military, civil and court ranks. Each category of ranks was divided into 14 classes. For example, the 3rd class included lieutenant general, lieutenant general, vice admiral, etc.; to the 6th grade - colonel, captain of the 1st rank, etc.; by grade 12 - cornet, cornet, midshipman, provincial secretary.
In addition to the named ranks, there were appeals your excellency, your excellency, your highness, your majesty, the most merciful (gracious) sovereign, etc. The monarchical system of Russia until the 20th century preserved the division of people into estates. Estates were distinguished: nobles, clergy, raznochintsy, merchants, philistines, peasants. Hence the appeal lord, madam in relation to people of privileged social groups; sir, madam - for the middle class, master, mistress - for both. But there was no single appeal to representatives of the lower class.
In the languages of other civilized countries, unlike Russian, there were appeals that were used both in relation to a person occupying a high position in society and to an ordinary citizen: Mr., Mrs., Miss (England, USA), señor, señora, señorite (Spain ), signor, signora, signorina (Italy), pan, pani (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia) After the October Revolution, the old ranks and titles were eliminated by a special decree. Universal equality is proclaimed. Appeals lord - madam, master - mistress, sir - madam, gracious sovereign (empress) are gradually disappearing. Only diplomatic language preserves the formulas of international courtesy. So the heads of monarchical states are addressed: your majesty, your excellency; Foreign diplomats continue to be referred to as Mr. Madam.
3. 2. Appeals citizen and comrade in the 20th century
Instead of all appeals that existed in Russia, starting from 1917-1918. g., the citizen and comrade receive distribution of the appeal.
The history of these conversions is remarkable and instructive. The word citizen is recorded in the monuments of the 11th century. It came to the Old Russian language from the Old Slavonic language and served as a phonetic version of the word city dweller. Both of them meant "resident of the city (city)". In the 18th century, this word acquires the meaning of "a full member of society, the state." Gradually, its meaning expands. The word has a meaning: "a person who is devoted to the Motherland, serves her and the people, cares about the public good, subordinates personal interests to the public." Emperor Paul in 1797 issued a decree prohibiting the use of "seditious" words freedom, society, citizen. Instead of the word citizen, according to the decree, it was necessary to write and say a resident, an inhabitant. But the decree was powerless. The word with new content becomes widespread in the 19th century. This is evidenced by the work of outstanding poets and writers:
I said: in my own country
Where is the right mind, where will we find the genius?
Where is a citizen with a noble soul,
Sublime and fiery free?
A. S. Pushkin
You may not be a poet
But you have to be a citizen!
N. A. Nekrasov
“I am still a citizen, I love the Motherland, the people, I feel that if I am a writer, then I am obliged to talk about the people, about their suffering, about their future” (A.P. Chekhov)
Why didn't such a significant word as citizen become a common way of addressing people to each other in the 20th century? I found the answer to this question in a history textbook: since the 1920s, when addressing arrested, imprisoned, convicted, law enforcement officers, they did not say comrade, but only a citizen: (citizen under investigation, citizen judge, citizen prosecutor). The word citizen for many has become associated with detention, arrest, police, prosecutors, it was not used as a common address.
The fate of the word comrade was somewhat different. It is recorded in the memos of the XV century. Known in Slovene, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Upper Lusatian and Lower Lusatian. In the Slavic language, this word came from the Turkic, in which the root tavar meant "property, livestock, goods." Probably, initially comrade meant "companion in trade." Then the meaning of this word expands: a comrade is not only a “companion”, but also a “friend”. Proverbs testify to this: On the road, the son is a friend to his father. A smart comrade is half the road; To fall behind a comrade - to become without a comrade; The poor man is not a friend to the rich; The servant of the master is not a friend.
With the growth of the revolutionary movement in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, the word comrade, like the word citizen in its time, acquires a new socio-political meaning: "a like-minded person fighting for the interests of the people." In this sense, the word comrade is found in A. S. Pushkin's poem "To Chaadaev":
Comrade, believe: she will rise,
Dawn of captivating happiness
Russia will wake up from sleep
And on the ruins of autocracy
Write our names!
Since the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, Marxist circles have been created in Russia, their members call each other comrades. In the first years after the revolution, this word becomes the main reference in the new Russia. Naturally, the nobles, the clergy, officials, especially of high rank, do not all immediately accept the appeal of a comrade. The address comrade corresponds not only to the surname, but also to the profession, rank: comrade commissar, comrade professor, with the name and patronymic: comrade Ivan Ivanovich.
Soviet poets and subsequent years tried to emphasize the universality and significance of the appeal, comrade, creating combinations: comrade life, comrade sun, comrade harvest (V. Mayakovsky); comrade victorious class (N. Aseev); comrade rye (A. Zharov).
There is a clear distinction: the comrades are the Bolsheviks, they are those who believe in the revolution. The rest are not comrades, which means they are enemies.
In later years Soviet power the word comrade was especially popular. A. M. Gorky in the fairy tale "Comrade" writes that it has become "a bright, cheerful star, a guiding light to the future." Glorified him and one of the most popular in Soviet time songs: "Our word is a proud comrade to us more than all beautiful words."
Gradually, the word comrade begins to emerge from the everyday informal appeal of people to each other.
Ch. 4. Common Addresses Today
Nowadays, there are no officially accepted appeals to strangers. The word comrade as an address is used more often by older people. It sounds in the speech of the military, members of the communist party. Scientists, teachers, doctors, lawyers prefer the words of colleagues and friends. Appeals respected, respected are found in the speech of the older generation.
Watching in the store how people of different ages turn to the seller - a forty-five-year-old woman, I hear that the children call her aunt; young men - a girl; older men - a mother, older people - a woman, sometimes a sister; women address her most often with the words give, please; show me please. There are also rare appeals of granny, sister, comrade seller.
On the street, in public transport, one hears the appeal of a man, a woman, a grandfather, a father, a granny, a guy, an aunt, an uncle.
Such appeals are not neutral. The words woman, man violate the norms of speech etiquette, indicate the insufficiency of the speech culture of the speaker. They can be perceived by the addressee as disrespect for him, even an insult, not acceptable familiarity. Hence, rudeness in response is possible. People can get offended, quarrel. In this case, it is preferable to start a conversation without appeals, using etiquette formulas: be kind, be kind, sorry, sorry. Scientists, philologists, journalists propose to revive the treatment sir, madam, sir, madam. But these appeals are typical for the official situation, in everyday speech they take root with difficulty. Thus, the problem of commonly used address in an informal setting remains open. It will be resolved only when every citizen of Russia learns to respect himself and treat others with respect, when he learns to defend his honor and dignity, when he becomes a person, when it doesn’t matter what position he holds, what his status is. It is important that he is a citizen Russian Federation. Only then, none of the Russians will feel awkward and embarrassed if they call him or he calls someone sir, madam, sir, madam.
Conclusion
Having studied the topic of the work, I came to the following conclusions: address as an integral part of speech etiquette is diverse in official and informal settings; commonly used appeals in an informal setting are a sore point in speech culture; in Russian there are words that can solve the problem of addressing strangers (mister, madam, sir, madam) 4 until these words have become common address, you can use etiquette expressions: please. , be kind, etc.
Mastering the art of verbal communication is necessary for every person, regardless of age, position in society, type of activity. Without communication, it is impossible to form a person's personality, his upbringing, and the development of intellect. It enables a person to reveal his feelings, experiences, talk about sorrows, ups and downs. Without communication, as without air, a person cannot exist. Appeal is one of the components of verbal communication, which is why the ability to address each other is so important.
Thesis
Plyaskova, Elena Arkadievna
Academic degree:
Candidate of Philology
Place of defense of the dissertation:
VAK specialty code:
Speciality:
Russian language
Number of pages:
Chapter first
On the history of the vocative case in the Russian language (against the background of the development of the Slavic languages).
§ 1. Historical changes in the characteristics of the vocative case.
§ 2. Replacing the nominative case with the form of the vocative and the vocative case with the form of the nominative.
2.1. Using the vocative instead of the nominative
2.2. Replacing the vocative case with the nominative form.
Chapter Two
The process of losing the vocative case in Russian.
§ 1. The main hypotheses for the loss of the vocative case in Russian.
§ 2. Vocative case in the declension system nouns in the Old Russian language of the XII-XIII centuries.
§ 3. Forms of expression of appeals in the Russian language of the XIV century
§ 4. The use of vocative/nominative cases in the monuments of the XV-XVI centuries.
§ 5. Forms of expression of appeals in the Russian language of the 17th century
§ 6. Ways of expressing appeals in the literature of the 18th century
Chapter Three
Features of the functioning of appeals in a literary text.
§ 1. Functions of circulation in a literary text.
§ 2. Features of the use of references in the lists "Words" by Daniil Zatochnik (according to the editions of the 12th and 13th centuries).
Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) On the topic "History of circulation in Russian"
Appeal both as a unit of speech etiquette and as a syntactic figure constantly attracts the attention of researchers.
Appeal is one of the main universal means developed by the language to serve human communication, to establish a connection between the utterance and the subject of communication, to integrate different sides and components of the communication situation into a single communicative act ”(Goldin 1987, p. 4).
Much attention has recently been paid to the communicative aspects of address, which is associated with the turn of linguistics towards pragmatics.
Sufficiently studied at the present stage of language development, the appeal is practically not studied in the diachronic aspect. Separate works on identifying the specifics of the use of addresses in works of one genre or one author (Ananyeva 1958, Starovoitova 1994, Naumova 1999, etc.) do not give an idea of the development of the address system throughout the history of the Russian language, while the address has gone through a difficult path of development : the ways of expressing the appeal have changed over the centuries, the lexical composition has changed, the stylistic functions of the appeal varied depending on the era and genre of the works.
The subject of the research is the forms of address, used in Russian XII-XVIII centuries. The card index includes about 6 thousand examples.
One of the interesting and important issues related to the history of conversion is the loss of a special vocative case in Russian. This question was raised repeatedly in Russian linguistics (A.I. Sobolevsky, A. Meie, T.M. Nikolaeva, G.I. Demidova, etc.), but still has not found an unambiguous interpretation. The vocative case has been preserved to one degree or another in almost all Slavic languages (the only exceptions are Slovenian and Russian), therefore, when deciding on the reasons for the loss of sv.p. it seems to us that it is necessary to take into account the data of related Slavic languages. Hence the relevance of the work.
The purpose of the work is to trace the development of the category of address in the Russian language of the XII-XVIII centuries.
The goal is to solve the following tasks:
1. Find out the time and reasons for the loss of sound. In russian language.
2. Describe vocative patterns in Russian diachrony.
3. Analyze the functions of appeal in a literary text.
The material of the study was the written monuments of the XII
18th century different genres: chronicle (Lavrentievskaya, Suzdalskaya, Ipatievskaya, Iosafovskaya, Novgorodskaya first chronicle, Moscow chronicle code, Belarusian-Lithuanian, Ustyug and Kholmogory annals), official business (Charters of Veliky Novgorod and Pskov, Spiritual and contractual letters of great and appanage princes XIV -XVI centuries, Acts of feudal land ownership and management of the XIV-XVI centuries, Acts of the socio-economic history of North-Eastern Russia of the XIV-XVI centuries, Acts of the Russian state, Letters and papers of Emperor Peter the Great, Monuments of Moscow business literature of the XVIII century, Acts management of the boyar Morozov, etc.), fiction (Novgorod letters on birch bark, the Messages of Ivan the Terrible, Letters of the 17th - early 18th centuries, Sources on the history of the Russian colloquial language of the 17th - early 18th centuries, etc.), hagiographic (The Life of Theodosius of the Caves, The Tale of Boris and Gleb, The Life of Alexander Nevsky, The Tale of Peter and Fevronia of Murom, The Life of Archpriest Avvakum, The Life of Epiphanius and others), works of art (The Tale of Igor's Campaign, Zadonshchina, The Legend of the Mamaev Battle, stories of the XV-XVIII centuries, dramaturgy of the XVII-XVIII centuries, works by A.P. Sumarokov, I.I. Dmitriev, D.I. .Fonvizin and other writers of the 18th century).
The time frame of the study is explained by the fact that the most ancient monuments that have come down to us date back to the XI-XII centuries. Old Russian language and by the end of the 18th century Basically, the system of the Russian national language is being formed.
The graphics in the given examples are simplified: g is transmitted as y, a - as l, C5 - as from, i - like and, is saved, titles are revealed, extension letters are entered into the line. Punctuation marks are close to modern standards.
The following methods are used in the research process:
Comparative-historical;
Comparative-comparative;
Functional;
Descriptive.
The use of these methods is complex, their application is determined by the complexity of the goal.
The scientific novelty of this study lies in the fact that:
1) the evolution of the address system in the Russian language can be traced over 7 centuries;
2) the question of the loss of sound in Russian for the first time it is studied in the system of all Slavic languages;
3) the appeal is studied in the aggregate of the main indicators: lexical composition, means of expressing meaning (in this case, addressability values), functions in the text, etc. At the same time, it is taken into account that stylistic functions come to the fore in a literary text.
The theoretical significance of the study lies in a comprehensive approach to address from the standpoint of vocabulary, morphology and syntax when highlighting the process of losing the vocative case in the diachrony of the Russian language, taking into account the influence of genres on the functioning of addresses.
The practical value lies in the fact that the material can be used in courses on the historical grammar of the Russian language, the history of the Russian literary language, in special courses on historical morphology and historical syntax of the Russian language, on comparative grammar of Slavic languages, and culture of speech.
The following provisions are put forward.
1. The history of the vocative case in the Slavic languages is inextricably linked with the development of the category of person:
They were the first to lose the form of sv.p. in the all-Slavic era. nouns those declensions in which there were almost no nouns who further developed the category of animation;
The use of sound in the function of the subject, originally in masculine personal names, it was an attempt to create a special form of the nominative subject, different from the accusative object.
2. The replacement of the nominative case by the vocative and the vocative case by the nominative is not a mixture of these cases and cannot be the reason for the loss of the sound. In russian language.
3. Sv.p. began to be lost in the Russian language not earlier than the 14th century, and this loss is observed at first in business documents.
4. In colloquial speech, the sound, having changed, has survived to this day.
5. In works of art, the appeal performs certain stylistic loads and serves as an expression of the author's intention.
Approbation. The main provisions of the dissertation research are set out in 6 publications (Voronezh, Halle, Perm), as well as in speeches at annual scientific sessions philological Faculty of Voronezh State University (2000, 2001, 2002), at conferences dedicated to the 200th anniversary of the first publication " Words about Igor's regiment”(Voronezh 2000), the 200th anniversary of V.I.
Initial concepts and terms. The term conversion in modern linguistics has several meanings.
V. E. Gol'din distinguishes 2 meanings: “Firstly, the appeal is a function of the service linguistic unit, which consists in emphasizing the direction of the text as a whole and its individual parts to the addressee, as well as in establishing correspondence between the ideas of the addresser and the addressee about the nature of socially typified relations between them in the process of creating and perceiving the text. To say that a word (or expression) is " in the position of address" or " plays the role of appeal" means to indicate the specific function of the verbal unit in the text.
Secondly, an appeal is a word (or expression) located in the position of an appeal, performing the functions of an appeal, as they were outlined above ”(Goldin 1987, pp. 114-115).
In addition, the appeal can be understood in a broad sense as one of the ways of addressing speech.
The term appeal appeared for the first time in " A short guide to eloquence» (1759) M.V. Lomonosov: “Conversion is when we address a word to another person, real or fictitious, from the one whom the real word itself requires” (Lomonosov 1952, p. 266). Lomonosov understood the address in a broad sense as the addressing of speech in general and attributed it to the figures that adorn speech. Before that, the direction of speech was discussed in relation to the vocative case.
In Russian linguistics of the XIX century. the appeal was considered together with the case forms of the noun and was not separated from the concept of the vocative case. For example, F.I. Buslaev pointed out that the address of the person speaking to the listener is expressed by the name of the latter, set in the vocative case (Buslaev 1959, p. 277).
D.I. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky spoke of the vocative case as a “word of address” (Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky 1912, p. 23). From a syntactic position, he traditionally attributed the appeal to words and expressions that are not part of the sentence, but adjoining it (ibid., pp. 296-297).
In Soviet linguistics, the works of A.A. Shakhmatov deserve great attention. He, in particular, wrote: “Application is a word or phrase corresponding to the name of the 2nd person, the person to whom the speaker’s speech is addressed” (Shakhmatov 1941, p. 261). However, Shakhmatov did not go beyond the traditional opinion that the appeal " stands outside the sentence and is therefore not a member of the sentence(ibid.).
A.M. Peshkovsky admitted that “substantial appeal can be closely connected with the rest of the speech. However, formally, its main role of motivation<.>does not give him the opportunity to enter into with any member of the sentence in which it stands, in the connection of agreement, control or adjacency, and it remains, no matter how widespread it may be, a group outside the given sentence ”(Peshkovsky 1956, p. 407- 408). A.M. Peshkovsky for the first time raises the question of distinguishing between treatment with a personal pronoun of the 2nd person and a separate application similar to it.
The position of B.P. Ardentov is interesting, he singled out appeals as a special part of speech, pointing out that “a name, a title in the role of an appeal differs sharply from a name, a title, acting as a message about any facts. After all, if we consider the appeal as a name noun, as it has been done so far in grammar, this creates an extreme inconsistency in the syntactic functions of the noun: the noun (as a subject, object, etc.) is a member of the sentence, serves as a means of expressing the objective material of thought and performs the function of presentation in the language (i.e. helps to describe some kind of phenomenon, event); then it (as an address) is no longer a member of the sentence, serves as a means of expressing the subjective side of thought and is not able to perform the functions of presentation.<.>The syntactic function of the so-called vocative case is also sharply different. noun from other cases, which also affects the very morphological structure of its form, which also tends to exclude the vocative form from the case system, i.e. to the exclusion of appeal (since its morphological design is the vocative case) from nouns ”(Ardentov 1955, p. 98).
N.I.Formanovskaya expresses a similar point of view: “Appeals arise on the basis of words, but they themselves are not words. This is no longer a word-name (like naming a third person), but a communicative unit addressed to the addressee, i.e. a kind of speech action (speech act), consisting of calling and naming at the same time ”(Formanovskaya 1994, p. 84). In accordance with this, N.I. Formanovskaya does not consider the vocative to be a case, because the appeal is “not a word, not a lexical unit of the language” (ibid., p. 84).
Studies of the syntactic nature of the appeal prove that the appeal is part of the sentence and is associated with its other members. A.G. Rudnev points out that “addresses, as a rule, are part of the sentence, therefore, grammatically and in meaning are connected with the rest of the sentence and, along with other members of the sentence, perform specific semantic functions in their inherent form - the nominative case of a noun or substantiated parts of speech. The grammatical connection that is characteristic of addresses is<.>such a grammatical connection, which is expressed by the fact of the inclusion of defining words in the composition of the sentence and the proximity to the defined member, but unlike agreement, control and adjacency, defining words when correlative connections get their form on the basis of semantic connections with the entire sentence and its individual members and the syntactic functions they perform, regardless of the defined members of the sentence ”(Rudnev 1955, p. 38-3 9).
This point of view is supported by A.T. Abramova. In particular, she emphasizes that the sentence from the grammatical and semantic side is an internal unity, in which each component performs a certain semantic-syntactic function, being an organic part of this unity. “Understanding the sentence in this way,” the author writes, “we believe that the appeal, being in its composition (at the beginning, middle or end of the sentence), performing a certain role in it, determined by the meaning of the sentence as a whole, constitutes the structural part of the sentence and is a member. It is precisely the fact that the appeal, like other members, has a certain function in the sentence, naming the person of the interlocutor and often qualifying this interlocutor, the fact that the appeal is in certain relations with the sentence or with its individual members, gives us reason to see in it a special member suggestions, correlative with other members.<.>The appeal becomes in line with other members of the sentence, while having its own specific features that do not allow it to be identified with either the main or minor members ”(Abramova 1958, p. 118).
O.A. Mizin offers such a type of connection as inclusion or inclusion. “Introduction differs from both composition and subordination, although the internal structure of the introduced elements is built on these types of connection.<.>Thus, there is every reason, in our opinion, to consider the appeal a member of the proposal, which is characterized by the introduction, the ability to "break" the proposal or anticipate and conclude it "(Mizin 1972, p. 165-166).
M. Zatovkanyuk believes that the appeal is a member of the sentence, in particular, it can act as a subject, but unlike the subject expressed by it, it denotes the subject taking part in the communicative act (good, friend, pratsyuesh) (Zatovkanyuk 1975, pp.165-166).
The same point of view is shared by M.V. Fedorova (Fedorova 1998, p. 65-72), M. M. Naumova (Naumova 1999, p. 108).
In addition to the study of the syntactic nature of the appeal, the following areas can be distinguished:
Morphology of address: ways of expressing (grammatical arrangement) of address, “old” and “new” vocative forms (Mizin 1980, Klobukov 1986, Zemskaya 1987, Naumova, Fedorova 1999, etc.);
Semantic word changes in the inversion function (Kazanskaya 1968, Loshmanova 1975, Aleshkina 1990, 1991);
Communicative features of calls: the functioning of calls in real communicative acts (Ryzhova 1982, 1983, 1984; Voitovich 1988, Le Van Nyan 1989, Dvornaya 1990, 1991, 1995);
Stylistic features of appeals (Starovoitova 1994, Chashchina 1995, Patroeva 1998, etc.);
- comparative study of the use of addresses as units of speech etiquette in different linguistic cultures (Le Van Nyan 1977, 1979; Novak 1984; Doncheva 1986; Listrova-Pravda, Titz 1986; Chung Tang 1990; Wang Jinling 1996; Kotikova 2001; Lezhneva 2001; a series of works by N. I.Formanovskaya in collaboration with other authors).
Let us dwell in more detail on the morphological direction.
Traditionally, in academic grammar, the means of expressing appeal is considered to be im.p. noun or substantiated parts of speech (Russian Grammar 1980, p. 163). In the Old Russian language, the appeal was expressed by the sound case (or vocative form), which was lost by the 15th-17th centuries. (V.I. Sobinnikova 1984, p. 151). The vocative case, having lost its form, has retained the function of denoting the person or object addressed by the speaker, “and this function of the vocative case has not only been preserved, but has also been further developed, being expressed, however, in the nominative case” (Abramova 1958, p. 109) .
The vocative case in the noun declension system.
There are polar points of view on the question of whether the vocative is a case or a form of a noun: Traditional linguistics (starting with ancient linguists) classifies the vocative as a case.
Ancient grammarians singled out 5 cases, among which is the vocative (Antique theories 1996, p. 131). “Due to the needs of those who speak, cases are declined so that the one who speaks about something else can mark when he calls, when he gives, when he accuses” (ibid., p. 87). The Stoics singled out the sound form "as a special kind of utterance, the so-called" category of treatment", which was not included in the case system. The Alexandrian grammarians (Dionysius of Thrace), based on morphological features (special ending), introduced the s.p. into the case system (Vasilyeva 1981, p. 62).
The ancient doctrine of language was accepted by Russian science. M.V. Lomonosov in " Russian grammar» highlights the sv.p. (Lomonosov 1952, pp. 440-451). D.I. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky considers the vocative to be a case, while noting the difference between the nominative and vocative cases from the rest: “The declension, taken as a syntactic process, must first of all be divided into two parts, sharply different from one another, belonging to completely different syntactic categories. One part is made up of the nominative and vocative cases, the so-called direct ones, the first - as the case of the subject (subject), the second - as the “word appeal", and both do not belong to management (they cannot be managed); the second part is formed by the rest of the cases, called indirect cases” (Ovsyaniko-Kulikovskiy 1912, p. 23).
However, some linguists take the vocative out of the case system. For example, E.F. Karsky categorically states: “Pronouns that replace all forms of a name do not have a vocative case, which means it is not a case” (Karsky 1956, p. 340).
A.V. Isachenko believes that “the vocative form belongs to a different language plan than the case forms. It is a form of "call" and is correlated with the imperative forms of the verb.<.>In addition, the vocative form does not express any syntactic relations<.>is, as it were, an inserted, interactive member, not syntactically related to the rest of the sentence.<.>From the point of view of both syntax and morphology, the vocative form cannot be recognized as a case ”(Isachenko 1965, p. 93).
The same opinion is shared by P.S. Kuznetsov, who writes that the vocative form “is more correct to take out of the case system, since it differs from the cases proper in that it does not express any relations in the phrase, but only represents an appeal” (Kuznetsov 19616, p. 51).
It is obvious that these points of view have developed from a different understanding of the very category of case. “Under a separate case of a noun,” A.M. Peshkovsky wrote, “we understand a number of forms united by a complex of heterogeneous, but equally repeated in each of these forms of meanings and having at least some of these forms its own linguistic characteristic” (Peshkovsky 1956, p. .290).
According to the definition of V.V. Vinogradov, “a case is a form of a name that expresses its relationship to other words in speech.<.>The case forms of the noun reflect the understanding of the connections between objects, phenomena, actions and qualities in the world of material reality” (Vinogradov 1972, p. 139). However, as V.P. Pronichev rightly points out, “the content of the category of case, a category that reflects the whole variety of connections between objects in reality, includes not only the designation of the idea of dependence, but also the idea of the dominance of the name in the phrase. Recognizing this, the vocative should be considered a full member paradigmatic relations in the grammatical structure of the language” (Pronichev 1969, p. 118).
As E.V. Klobukov notes, “... the vocative in the modern Russian language does not have a single function that goes beyond the functional potential of the nominative: the vocative is just an optional means of expressing some meanings that the nominative case form has (Klobukov 1986, p. 19 ). But at the same time, “the nature of the semantics of the vocative does not oppose it to the rest of the case system. The specificity of the vocative lies rather in the limited scope of its use (colloquial speech), in functional, formal and semantic secondary in relation to the nominative ”(ibid., p. 105). On the other hand, “if at least for some of the words given language or its functional variety, the vocative is formally opposed to other cases (recall the general principles for establishing an independent case form established by A.M. Peshkovsky), then there are no grounds for excluding it from the case system of this language” (ibid., p. 20).
However, apparently, in the selection of the vocative as an independent case, its formal opposition to other cases is not the main criterion, because in languages where the vocative has a special grammatical design compared to other cases, it is also considered either a case (Lomtev 1956, Szober 1966, Pronichev 1969), or a form (Matsyusovich 1975, Bulakhovsky 1977).
A.A. Potebnya demarcated them. and sound cases not only by endings: the vocative has syntagmatic characteristics of the 2nd person, while the nominative in a declarative sentence has the syntagmatic characteristics of the 3rd person (Potebnya 1958, p. 101). On this basis, in modern linguistics, the idea of homonymy of the nominative and vocative cases is increasingly heard. O.A. Mizin believes that “we can only talk about a form perceived under the influence of written and printed fixation as a nominative case” (Mizin 1972, p. 169). L.I. Shapovalova identifies homonymous forms of the nominative narrative and nominative vocative, which have differences in the meaning of the person (Shapovalova 1979, p. 50).
It should be noted that the idea of homonymy for them. and sound cases was widespread. G.V. Ludolf, the author of one of the first Russian grammars, singled out the sound, noting that in colloquial speech it is similar to the nominative (Ludolf 1937, pp. 121-122). N. Kurganov in the “Book of Letters”, a practical guide to Russian grammar, also indicates that “the vocative case of the singular is similar everywhere to the nominative, except God, God; Lord, Lord; Spirit, Soul; Jesus, Jesus” (Kurganov 1788, p. 15). In addition, he notes sv.p. and for adjectives (ibid., p. 19). Emphasizes sound. and A. Barsov (Barsov 1981, p. 104). This opinion dominates in the linguistics of the 19th - early 20th centuries. (See: Vostokov 1838, p.17-18; Grech 1860, p.13-14; Smirnovsky 1909, p.20; Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky 1912, p.296-297; Buslaev 1959, p.277).
Only K. Aksakov claimed that “ the vocative case no longer exists"(Aksakov 1860, p. 95).
In modern Russian linguistics, works on the appeal of M.V. Fedorova and her student I.M. Naumova deserve great attention. In their joint work, they note that “in all cases of its use, the appeal correlates, firstly, with the substantive nomination of the speech addressee and, secondly, with the pronoun you, as the bearer of the logical and conceptual nomination of the speech recipient. This pronoun is one of the members of that triad - speech inducer - recipient - object of speech / thought - which is precisely logical and conceptual, because it is represented in all languages of the world.<.>That is why in Russian texts of different periods both the appellative address or the personal name and the pronoun you are used together, because significant words and personal names can be the names of the object of speech, i.e. act in the third position of that logical-conceptual triad that we mentioned above” (Naumova, Fedorova 1999, pp. 113-114). Further, the authors argue that “the noun case has not been lost in the Russian language” and give it a new term - votive (Naumova, Fedorova 1999, p. 114). Moreover, they also propose to consider the pronoun of the second person as an appeal: “In the construction you already rested, Natasha, the words you and Natasha are equally necessary.<.>In all such cases: you + Natasha have one morphological form, which is not nominative, but votive. In direct communication in Russian, only one of these words is usually used - either Natasha or you, but each of them retains the form of a votive and can be called an address ”(ibid., p. 114).
Thus, address, although it is a popular object of study among linguists, still remains an unexplored speech category.
In this work, the appeal is understood, firstly, as a word (or expression) that names the addressee of the speech and expresses the attitude of the speaker towards him, and secondly, as a function of this linguistic unit.
Work structure. The work consists of Introduction, 3 chapters, Conclusion, List of references.
In the Introduction, the relevance, goals and objectives of the study, theoretical and practical significance are formulated, the sources of the study are characterized, and the theory of the issue is outlined.
The first chapter "On the history of the vocative case in the Russian language (against the background of the development of the Slavic languages)" consists of two paragraphs. In the first paragraph " Historical changes in the characteristics of the vocative case» formal indicators of s.p. are considered. in Proto-Indo-European language (lack of ending and special stress) and their further development in the Slavic languages. In the second paragraph "Interchange of nominative and vocative cases" the processes characteristic of all Slavic languages (the use of sound in the function of the subject and the nominative in the function of address) are examined, the reasons for these phenomena are revealed.
In the second chapter " The process of losing the vocative case in Russian» the main hypotheses about the causes and time of the loss of s.p. in Russian, the whole process of loss of sound is considered. in the diachrony of the Russian language on the material of written monuments of different genres.
In the third chapter " Features of the functioning of appeals in a literary text"considers the use of appeals in the "Word" by Daniil Zatochnik, " A word about Igor's regiment”, “Zadonshchina”, in proverbs and folk lyrical songs based on collections of the 18th century.
In the Conclusion, conclusions are drawn on the work.
Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Russian language", Plyaskova, Elena Arkadievna
CONCLUSION
The vocative case, having been formed in the preliterate era, was closely associated with the category of person. In the Proto-Slavic language they did not have zv.p. those types nouns, in which there were almost no nouns that have the meaning of a person. That is why when Slavic languages tried to find a way out in the designation of animation, in delimiting the subject-object, one of the ways was to express the function of the nominative case with the vocative, which was a personal, subjective case. At the same time, a form named after them was created. subject that is different from the accusative form of the object. However, in the future, the development of the category of animation went through the difference of wines. case from the nominative form. This process is known to all Slavic languages in ancient era. In modern literary languages, this phenomenon is non-normative, although a special expressively colored nominative is widely used in some dialects, using the form of sound. From the 14th century (on the material of "Zadonshchina"), further development of the vocative can be noted: sound p. used only when referring to persons, to Christians.
In all Slavic languages, in connection with the restructuring of the declension system, the redistribution of noun stems, some vocative endings have changed.
The closeness of their values. and sound cases - the designation of a person (object) as independent - led to the possibility of replacing the sound. nominative case.
In all modern Slavic languages, mainly in colloquial speech, the use of them.p. in the function of addressing in close, relaxed relations of interlocutors, which is associated with the manifestation of the law of linguistic economy. From colloquial speech, this way of designating the addressee got into the written sphere (in fiction), mainly when reproducing direct speech.
From the 14th century in Russian, in business documents, the use of addresses in the form of im.p. This was due to the peculiarity of the official business style, its mediated fixation of communication, the absence of a direct initial appeal. Numerous word forms of mister, characteristic of the monuments of the official business style, only occupy the position of address, but in fact they are interjections and perform an etiquette function.
In the annals, sv.p. it is retained longer, because, firstly, the chroniclers took earlier chronicles as a basis, rewrote entire passages without change; secondly, in chronicles more often than in business records, direct speech is reproduced and, consequently, the direct nature of interlocutor communication.
In the future, under the influence of business monuments and colloquial speech named after p. in the invocation function spread to other styles of the language. Artworks fiction use sv.p. until the middle of the 18th century, where it is either used as a stylistic means (in the stories of the late 17th - early 18th centuries), or is Church Slavonic by origin (in dramatic works on biblical subjects), or due to the influence of the Ukrainian language (in verses and in interludes) or is an element of the speech characteristics of the characters (in interludes).
In colloquial Russian, name the time of loss of the sound. difficult. The class stratification of society should be taken into account: peasants, artisans, boyars, the elite of the nobility spoke differently. However, it can be noted that in the XIV century. s.p. it was also used in colloquial speech (see private Novgorod letters). On the other hand, according to Ludolf G.V., at the end of the 17th century. s.p. boyars are not found in colloquial speech. Thus, the time of loss of sound in Russian colloquial XV-XVI. Nevertheless, the fairly widespread use of the sound in the stories of the XVII-XVIII centuries. can still speak of residual use of s.p. in colloquial speech.
When comparing the fate of zv.p. in Russian and other Slavic languages, it should be noted that the business language of Russia was formed earlier than in other Slavic states, was original, had a great influence on other styles of literary and written language. In other Slavic cultures, national literary languages were formed much later, for a long time they were under the influence of the Latin language.
With the loss of the sound form. in the Russian language, homosymy of two cases arose - nominative-narrative and nominative-vocative, which perform different functions. A special intonation characteristic of them.p. in the function of address, led to the emergence of a special vocative form in colloquial speech. This phenomenon is connected with the operation of the law of linguistic economy, with the need to have shorter forms in the vocative.
The call functions are varied. The primary function of the appeal can be considered the function of the call. In the future, the functions of appeals expanded. Appeals serve to designate the addressee (more broadly, the direction of speech), indicate the mutual position of the addressee and the addressee (for example, varying appeals to the prince and master in the "Word" by Daniel Zatochnik).
In a literary text, the use of references (selection of addressees, lexical composition, location in the text) is subject to the author's intention, which was revealed on the material " Words about Igor's regiment"And" Zadonshchina".
The function of the addressee of speech in each specific case can be specified. In proverbs, appeals serve to express the focus of speech on the interlocutor, but, despite the diversity of their lexical composition, they have only a generalized meaning, do not specify the addressee (even if he is called by name), sometimes they perform rhythmic and rhyming functions.
List of references for dissertation research candidate of philological sciences Plyaskova, Elena Arkadievna, 2002
1. SOURCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
2. ABM- Acts of the household of the boyar B.I. Morozov. Part 1. M.-L., 1940. APD-Acts of the scribe business of the 60-80s of the XVII century. - M., 1990. ARG- Acts of the Russian State 1505-1526. - M., 1975.
3. ASEI Acts of the socio-economic history of North-Eastern Russia in the late XIV - early XVI century. - T. 1-3. -M., 1952-1964.
4. AFZ Acts of feudal land tenure and management of the XIV-XVI centuries. Ch. 1-2.-M., 1951-1956.
5. Verses Verses. Syllabic poetry of the 17th-18th centuries. - L., 1935.
6. GNP Diplomas of Veliky Novgorod and Pskov. - M.-L., 1949.
7. Diplomas Diplomas of the 17th - early 18th centuries / Edited by S.I. Kotkov. - M., 1969.
8. Timing - Moiseeva G.N. Historia about the Russian sailor Vasily Kariotsky (On the question of the composition and origin of the story) // TODRL. 1954. - No. X. DDG - Spiritual and contractual letters of the great and specific princes of the XIV-XVI centuries - M.-L, 1950.
9. Dmitriev Dmitriev I.I. Works. 4.1-3. - M., 1810.
10. Domostroy Domostroy (according to the Konshinsky list of the 16th century) // Domostroy. - SPb., 1994.
11. ZhA - Life of Archpriest Avvakum // Pustozersky collection. L., 1975.
12. ZHAN Malyshev V.I. Life of Alexander Nevsky according to the manuscript of the middle
13. XVI century.// TODRL. 1947. - No. V.
14. ZHE- Life of Epiphanius // Pustozersky collection. L., 1975.
15. ZhSR Life of Sergius of Radonezh (according to the Trinity list of the 15th century) // Kloss B.M.
16. Selected works. T.1. M., 1998.
17. ZhFP - Life of Theodosius of the Caves // Assumption collection of the XII-XIII centuries. M., 1971
18. Zadonshchina Zadonshchina (on all lists) // " A word about Igor's regiment» and monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. M.-JL, 1966.
19. Ext. Izbornik 1076. Texts and studies. - M., 1965.
20. IL Iosaph Chronicle. -M., 1957.
21. Sources Kotkov S.I., Pankratova N.P. Sources on the history of the Russian folk-spoken language of the 17th - early 18th centuries. - M., 1964.
22. Cantemir Cantemir A. Works. - St. Petersburg, 1847.
23. Kapnist V. Kapnist. Works. - St. Petersburg, 1849.
24. Knyazhnin Knyazhnin Ya. Collected works: At 4 o'clock - M., 1787.
25. Kurganov Kurganov N. Pismovnik. - St. Petersburg, 1802.
26. Lomonosov M.V. Lomonosov. Collected works in verse and prose. 4.1. Spiritual odes. - M., 1757.
27. ME- Mstislav Gospel // Obnorsky S.P., Barkhudarov S.G. Reader on the history of the Russian language. M., 1999. - Part 1
28. NGB -1951 Artsikhovsky A.V., Tikhomirov M.N. Novgorod letters on birch bark: From the excavations of 1951 - M., 1953
29. NGB-1952 Artsikhovsky A.V. Novgorod letters on birch bark: From the excavations of 1952-M, 1954.
30. NGB-1955 ~ Artsikhovsky A.V., Borkovsky V.I. Novgorod letters on birch bark: From the excavations of 1955 - M., 1958
31. NGB-1956-1957 Artsikhovsky A.V., Borkovsky V.I. Novgorod letters on birch bark: From the excavations of 1956-1957. - M., 1963.
32. NGB-1958-1961 Artsikhovsky A.V. Novgorod letters on birch bark: From the excavations of 1958-1961. -M., 1963
33. NGB-1962-1976 Artsikhovsky A.V., Yanin V.L. Novgorod letters on birch bark: From the excavations of 1962-76. -M., 1978.
34. NGB-1977-1983 Yanin B.JL, Zaliznyak A.A. Novgorod letters on birch bark: From the excavations of 1977-1983. -M., 1986.
35. NL Novgorod Chronicle according to the Synodal List // Novgorod First Chronicle of the Senior and Junior Editions / Ed. A.N. Nasonova. - M.-JL, 1950. 640 p.
36. OE Ostromir Gospel 1056-1057 - St. Petersburg, 1843.
37. UPS - Letters and papers of Emperor Peter the Great. (1688-1712). SPb-M.; JL-M., 1887-1964, 1975-1992-.-T.1-13-.
38. PVL The Tale of Bygone Years according to the Laurentian Chronicle of 1377 - M.-L., 1950. - 4.1. Text and translation. Preparation of the text by D.S. Likhachev. Peresvetov -Ier'svetov I.S. Works. - M.-L., 1956.
39. Pechersky Eremin I.P. The literary heritage of Theodosius of the Caves // TODRL.- 1947.-№V.
40. PIG - Messages of Ivan the Terrible. M.-L., 1951.
41. PLDR-XV-XVI Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia: the end of the XV - the first half of the XVI century. - M. 1984.
42. PLDR-XVII Monuments of literature of Ancient Russia: XVII century. Book. 2. - M., 1989. PLT - Plays of amateur theaters. Early Russian dramaturgy of the 17th - first half of the 18th century. / Ed. A.N. Robinson - M., 1976.
43. PMP Monuments of Moscow business writing of the XVIII century / Edited by S.I. Kotkov. - M., 1981.
44. PPRT The first plays of the Russian theater. Early Russian dramaturgy of the 17th - the first half of the 18th centuries. / Ed. A.N. Robinson - M., 1972. Prokopovich - Prokopovich F. Words and speeches instructive, laudatory and congratulatory. 4.1-2. - St. Petersburg, 1760-1761.
45. PPF Skripil M.O. The Tale of Peter and Fevronia. Texts // TODRL. - 1949. - No. VII.
46. PRR The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu. - Likhachev D.S. Tale about Nikol Zarazsky. Texts // TODRL. - 1949. - No. VII.
47. PSPT Plays of metropolitan and provincial theaters of the first half of the 18th century. Early Russian dramaturgy of the 17th - first half of the 18th century. / Ed. A.S.Oleonskaya. - M., 1976.
48. PSRL- Complete collection of Russian chronicles. M.-L., 1962-1989. - T. 1-38.
49. PSHT Plays of school theaters in Moscow. Early Russian dramaturgy of the 17th - first half of the 18th century. / Ed. A.S. Demina.- M., 1974.
50. RDS Russian democratic satire of the 17th century. - M., 1977.
51. RP Russian proverbs, collected by I. Bogdanovich: At 3 hours - St. Petersburg, 1785.
52. RP- XV-XVI- Russian stories of the XV-XVI centuries. - M.-L., 1958.
53. RP- XVII Russian story of the XVII century. - M., 1954.
54. RP- XVIII Russian novels of the first third of the XVIII century / Issled. and preparation of the text by G.I. Moiseeva. -M.-L., 1965.
55. Rus. Pravda Russian truth according to the Novgorod Pilot // Obnorsky S.P., Barkhudarov S.G. Reader on the history of the Russian language. - M., 1999. - Part 1 SG - Smolensk letters of the XIII-XIV centuries. - M., 1963.
56. SDZ Word of Daniil Zatochnik according to the editions of the 12th and 13th centuries. and their modifications. Prepared for publication by N.I. Zarubin. - L., 1932.
57. SMP Legend of the Mamaev Battle (according to the Undolsky list of the 2nd quarter of the 16th century) // Monuments of the Kulikovo cycle - St. Petersburg, 1998.
58. SPI - A word about Igor's regiment: Old Russian text. Translations and transcriptions. poetic variations. -M., 1986.
59. Sumarokov Sumarokov A.P. Complete works in verse and prose: At 5 o'clock - M., 1781.
60. Trediakovsky Trediakovsky V.K. Works: In 3 volumes - St. Petersburg, 1849. Turovsky-1 - The literary heritage of Kirill Turovsky //TODRL. - 1957. - No. XIII.
61. Turovsky-2 Literary heritage of Kirill Turovsky // TODRL. - 1958. - No. XV.
62. At sp. Sat. Assumption collection of the XII-XIII centuries. - M., 1971.1. LIST OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
63. Abramova A.T. On the issue of conversion // Slavic collection. Voronezh, 1958.-Iss. 2. - S. 109-125.
64. Adamushko N.I. Structural and semantic features of the phraseology of the nomination of address // Collection of scientific papers / Moscow Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages. M., 1987. - Issue. 290. - S.4-11.
65. Adrianov-Perets V.P. Phraseology and vocabulary " Words about Igor's regiment» // « A word about Igor's regiment”and monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. M.-L., 1966. -S. 13-27.
66. Adrianov-Perets V.P. " A word about Igor's regiment”and monuments of Russian literature of the XI-XIII centuries. L., 1968. - 202 p.
67. Aitova Kh.R. National specificity and novelty of the vocabulary of speech etiquette and the relevance of its study // Slavic origins of literature and culture in Western Siberia. Tyumen, 2001. - Part 1. - S. 199-207.
68. Aksakov K. The experience of Russian grammar. 4.1. M., 1860. - 176 p.
69. Aleshkina E.Yu. On the connection of the lexical characteristics of the address with its semantic functions // Linguistic Research. M., 1990. System relations in synchrony and diachrony. - P.9-5.
70. Aleshkina E.Yu. On the issue of the semantic characteristics of the vocabulary of references // Functional-semantic relations in vocabulary and grammar. Novosibirsk, 1991. - S.63-67.
71. Ananyeva V.P. Features of the use of the vocative form and the dual number in " Kazan chronicler» // Uch.zap. MGPI them. V.I. Lenin. 1958. - T. CXXXII. - S. 155-171.
72. Angelov N. For some element from Russian speech etiquette in the text of a work of art and predvaneto them when translating into Bulgarian ezik // Proglos. Veliko Tarnovo, 1994. -Br. 1. - S. 117-123.
73. Andreeva JI.A. Lexico-semantic analysis of references in the poetry of M.V. Lomonosov // Development of syntactic constructions in the Russian literary language of the 18th century. Kazan, 1972. - S.72-77.
74. Andreichin L. Grammar of the Bulgarian language. -M., 1949. 496 p.
75. Antique theories of language and style. SPb., 1996. - 363 p.
76. Ardentov B.P. Contact words // Uch. app. Chisinau University. -1955.-T. 15: Philol. -p.91-96.
77. Artemenko E.B. On the question of the functional originality of constructions with appeal in Russian folk lyrical song // Materials on Russian-Slavic linguistics. Voronezh, 1985. - Historical-dialectological and comparative studies. - S. 16-22.
78. Arutyunova N.D. Addressee factor // Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Series: literature and language. 1981. -V.40. - No. 4. - S. 356-367.
80. Barsov A.A. Russian grammar. M., 1981. - 776 p.
81. Bevzenko S.P. 1historical morphology of Ukrainian "1 mov. Draw i3 word-forms and word-creation. Uzhgorod, 1960. -416 p.
82. Beilina E.P. Appeal as a syntactic unit // Philological collection. Alma-Ata, 1973. - Issue. 12. - S. 198-205.
83. Benacchio R. A new type of human relations: an appeal to you in the Petrine era. // Logical analysis of the language. The image of a person in culture and language. M., 1999. - S.114-123.
84. Bogoroditsky V.A. General course of Russian grammar. M.-L., 1935. -356 p.
85. Borkovsky V.I., Kuznetsov P.S. Historical grammar of the Russian language. -M., 1963.-512 p.
86. Brazhnikov A.I. From observations on syntactic constructions with appeal in the poetic speech of S. Yesenin // Questions of the syntax of the Russian language. Ryazan, 1974. - S.46-57.
88. Buddha E.T. Lectures on the history of the Russian language. Kazan, 1911. - 364 p.
89. Bukatevich N.I., Savitskaya S.A., Usacheva L.Ya. Historical grammar of the Russian language. Kiev, 1974. - 310 p.
90. Bulakhovsky L.A. Comparative-historical comments on the Bulgarian stress // Uchenye zapiski of the Institute of Slavic Studies. M., 1959. -T. XVII. - S. 3-72.
91. Bulakhovsky L.A. Vibrash sling: In 5 vols. Vol. 2. Ukraska mova. - Kshv, 1977.-632 p.
92. Buslaev F.I. Historical grammar of the Russian language. Syntax . M., 1959.-624 p.
93. Wayan A. Guide to the Old Slavonic language. M., 1952. - 444 p.
94. Wang Jinling Appeal in typologically different languages (based on Russian and Chinese languages). Abstract dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Volgograd, 1996. - 24 p.
95. Wang Jinling Vocatives in the work of V. Shukshin (on the material of the novel "Lubavins") // Shukshin Readings: Mat. scientific Conf. dedicated to the memory of V.M. Shukshin. Volgograd, 1998. - S. 43-45.
96. Vasilyeva N.V. Russian names of cases // Russian speech 1981, No. 6. -S. 60-65.
97. Vinogradov V.V. Russian language. (Grammatical doctrine of the word.) M., 1972.-614 p.
98. Vinogradov V.V. Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the XVII-XIX centuries. M., 1982. - 529 p.
99. Vikhovanets I.P., Gorodenska K.G., Grishchenko A.P. Grammar of the Ukrainian "Shskoy Movi. Ki1" in, 1982. -209 p.
100. Voitovich S.I. On the speech act of address // Bulletin of Kiev University. Romano-Germanic Philology. Kiev, 1988. - Issue. 22. - S.11-14.
101. Volkov S.S. Semantic neologisms in the socio-political and socio-economic vocabulary of judicial acts at the beginning of the 17th century // Bulletin of the Leningrad University. 1960, No. 2. - S. 105-117.
102. Volkov S.S. Vocabulary of Russian petitions of the 17th century. L., 1974. - 164 p.
103. Vorobieva O.P. To the question of intratext paradigmatics of addressees // Paradigmatic relations in synchrony and diachrony. Yekaterinburg, 1992.-S. 145-150.
104. Vostokov A.Kh. Russian grammar. St. Petersburg, 1838. - 356 p.
105. Gazieva G.A. Nominative-Pragmatic Characteristics of Units Acting as the Function of Address // Semantics and Typology of Multisystem Languages. Tashkent, 1986. - S. 111-120.
106. Garbuzova E.P. Noun in the Old Russian language. Smolensk, 1975.-88 p.
107. Georgiev St. Bulgarian morphology. V. Tarnovo, 1991. - 399 p.
108. Georgieva E. Dependence on the word-editing position on the appeal from the syntactic-semantic features // Slavistic collection. Sofia, 1988. -p.120-128.
109. Herzen A.I. Collected works: V 30 t. M., 1956. - T. 7. - 466 p.
110. Gogol N.V. Complete Works: In 14 vols. L., 1952. - V.8. - 816 p.
111. Goldin V.E. To the problem of appeal as a lexical category // Language and Society-Saratov, 1977. -Vol. 4.-S. 19-31.
112. Goldin V. E. Regulatory designations of persons in the Dictionary of the Russian Academy (1789-1794) // Problems of language development. Lexical and grammatical features of the Old Russian language. Saratov, 1981. - S.78-94.
113. Goldin V.E. To the definition of the essence of the appeal // Language and society: Sociolinguistic problems of lexicology Saratov, 1982. - Issue. 6. -S. 46-58.
114. Goldin V.E. Appeal: theoretical problems. Saratov, 1987. - 127 p.
115. Gorshkova K.V., Khaburgaev G.A. Historical grammar of the Russian language. -M., 1981.-360 p.
116. Grammar in modern Bulgarian language ezik. T. 2. Morphology. -Sofia, 1983.-512 p.
117. Grammar of the Russian language. T. 2. Syntax. - Part 2. - M., 1954. - 444 p.
118. Grammar of the modern Russian literary language. M., 1970. -767 p.
119. Grech N. Russian grammar of the first age. St. Petersburg, 1860. - 116 p.
120. Grinavetskis V. Acceptance of vocative forms in dialects of the Lithuanian language // Acta baltico-slavica. Wroclaw etc., 1990. - No. 19. -S. 17-25.
121. Gudkov V.P. Lining up the vocative of the 1st declination in the book texts of the 20th century // Our je3mc. Beograd, 1990. - Book. 28, St. 4/5. - S. 224-240.
122. Gusev V.E. On the Genre of the Life of Archpriest Avvakum // TODRL. 1958. - No. XV. - P.193-202.
123. Dal V.I. Proverbs of the Russian people. M., 1957. - 990 p.
124. Dvornaya Z.M. Evaluative function of appeal in the process of communication // Formation of communicative competence in Russian among foreign students. Lvov, 1990.-S. 149-151.
125. Dvornaya Z.M. To the question of the communicative functions of appeals in the texts of works of art // Issues of improving the teaching of a foreign language as a means of interethnic communication. Kharkov, 1991.-S. 8-11.
126. Dvornaya Z.M. Communicative-functional features of address in the modern Russian language (on the material of works of art). Abstract dis. cand. philol. Sciences. SPb., 1995.- 18 p.
127. Demidova G.I. Word forms of nouns in the function of address (on the material of the Bryansk dialects) // Questions of Russian dialectology. JL, 1976.- pp. 51-66.
128. Dibrov A.A., Ovchinnikova B.C., Levchuk V.I. Historical grammar of the Russian language. - Rostov, 1968. 330 p.
129. Dmitrieva R.P. The relationship between the lists "Zadonshchina" and " A word about Igor's regiment» // « A word about Igor's regiment”and monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. -M.-L., 1966. S. 199-264.
130. Doncheva L. Quantitative characteristics of forms of polite address to one person in Russian and Bulgarian languages // Russian language abroad. -1986, - No. 3. S. 77-81.
131. Dulevichova I. Appellative forms at the word-formation level in Russian and Polish // Comparative study of word formation in Slavic languages. M., 1987. -S.139-142.
132. Durnovo N.I. Essay on the history of the Russian language. M.-L., 1924. - 370 p.
133. Zhilyakov V.I. Emotionally expressive function of appeals in the songs-poems of A.V. Koltsov // Brief essays on the Russian language. Voronezh, 1964.- P.92-102.
134. Zaliznyak A.A. Novgorod birch bark letters linguistic point of view // Yanin V.L., Zaliznyak A.A. Novgorod letters on birch bark: From the excavations of 1977-1983.-M., 1986. P.88-219.
135. Zatovkanyuk M. Inflection of nouns in East Slavic languages. Praha, 1975. - 195 p.
136. Zemskaya E.A. Russian colloquial speech: linguistic analysis and learning problems. M., 1987. - 240 p.
137. Ivanov V.V. Historical grammar of the Russian language. M., 1983.- 400 p.
138. Ivanova T.A. On the history of the Old Slavic vocative form // Soviet Slavic Studies. 1979. - No. 1. - S. 76-79.
139. Nominal declension in the Slavic languages of the XI-XIV centuries. Linguostatistical analysis based on the materials of the monuments of ancient Slavic writing. L., 1974. - 236 p.
140. Nominal declension in the Slavic languages of the XV-XVI centuries. Linguistic analysis. L., 1977. - 223 p.
141. Iriekhonova K.M. The addressee factor as a backbone parameter of style I Sat. scientific tr. MGPII them. M. Torez. Issue. 309: Text in the functional-style aspect. -M., 1988. - S.10-16.
142. Isachenko A.V. The grammatical structure of the Russian language in comparison with Slovak. Morphology. Part 1. Bratislava, 1965. - 302 p. 81.1 historical grammar of Ukrainian language / M.L. Zhovtobryuh, O.T.
143. History linguistic teachings. Ancient world. L., 1980. - 258 p.
144. Kazanskaya E. A. Semantic interrelations of words in the function of address and in common use (on the material of the German language) // Uch. app. MGPI them. IN AND. Lenin. 1968. - No. 317. Questions of German Philology. - P.74-80.
145. Kaporulina L.V. Morphology of the noun (in the language of the works of Cyril of Turov) // Old Russian language of the pre-Mongolian period. L., 1991.-S. 106-120.
146. Karinsky N.M. The language of Pskov and its region in the 15th century. St. Petersburg, 1909. - 232 p.
147. Karinsky N.M. Studies of the language of Pskov Shestodnev 1374 // Journal of the Ministry of National Education. New episode. Petrograd, 1916.- Issue. 2 (February). - Ch. LXI. - S. 199-251.
148. Karputs N.I. Substantially shredded parts of speech at the function of the swivel // Belaruskaya lshgvyutyka. Mshsk, 1987. Issue 32. - P.31-35.
149. Karsky E.F. Belarusians. The language of the Belarusian people. Issue. 2-3. M., 1956. -518s.
150. Katarzhina S.A. Etiquette formulas in letters to friends of the Russian creative intelligentsia at the beginning of the 20th century. Avgoref.dis. . Candidate of Philological Sciences -Izhevsk, 2001. 12 p.
151. Kashkurevich L.G., Rybolovlev N.R. Speech etiquette. variability sociolinguistic models in Polish and Russian. M., 1996. - 124 p.
152. Klobukov E.V. Theoretical problems of Russian morphology. M., 1979. -96 p.
153. Klobukov E.V. Semantics of case forms in modern Russian literary language. M., 1986. - 117 p.
154. Klyusov G.N. On the development of circulation issues // Russian language. -Minsk, 1981.-p.5-36.
155. Kobeleva I.A. Personal and non-personal animation in Russian dialects of the Komi Republic // Problems of regional linguistics. - Yaroslavl, 1996.-p. 67-69.
156. Kovalevskaya E.G. History of the Russian literary language. - M., 1978. -384 p.
157. Kovalevskaya E.G. Appeal as an element of the characteristics of the object and subject of speech in a literary text // Problems of theory and practice of studying the Russian language. M.-Penza, 1998. - S.114-123.
158. Kolshansky G.V. Communicative function and structure of language. M., 1984. -175 p.
159. Kondratieva T.N. Proper names in proverbs, sayings and riddles of the Russian people // Issues of grammar and lexicology of the Russian language. -Kazan, 1964. S.98-188.
160. Kononenko V.A. About one complicated anthroponymic formula for naming a person in the ancient Russian chronicle // Structure and functioning of units of the Russian language. Tashkent, 1986. - S. 112-116.
161. Kostylev A.O. Appeal and its context in the lexico-syntactic aspect. Abstract dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. L., 1987. - 16 p.
162. Kostylev A.O. The system of addresses of the modern Russian language // System-functional description of the phrase and simple sentence. L., 1988. - S. 124-131.
163. Kostylev A.O. On the issue of modal potencies of appeal // Modality in its connections with other categories. Novosibirsk, 1992. -S.104-112.
164. Yub.Kotikova V.Yu. Sociolinguistic aspect of circulation // Accents. -Voronezh, 2000. Issue. 1-2 (18-19). - P.56-58.
165. Kotikova V.Yu. Sociolinguistic characteristics of Russian, Polish and American address (in the period from the 20s to the 90s of the XX century). Abstract of the thesis . cand. philol. Sciences. Voronezh, 2001. - 22 p.
166. Kotlyarenko A.N. "Zadonshchina" as a monument of the Russian language of the late XIV century. // Account LGPI. 1956.- T. XV. - Issue. 4.- S.131-160.
167. Kotlyarenko A.N. Comparative analysis some features grammatical building "Zadonshchina" and " Words about Igor's regiment» // « A word about Igor's regiment”and monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. M.-L., 1966. S. 127-199.
168. Kravtsov N.I., Lazutin S.G. Russian oral folk art. M., 1977.-374 p.
169. Krotovskaya Ya.A., Kashkurevich L.G. Polish textbook. M., 1987. -402 p.
170. Kuznetsov P.S. Historical grammar of the Russian language. Morphology. - M., 1953.-306 p.
171. Kuznetsov P.S. Essays on the historical morphology of the Russian language. M., 1959.-275 p.
172. Kuznetsov P.S. Essays on the morphology of the Proto-Slavic language. M., 1961a. -147 p.
173. Kuznetsov P.S. The development of the Indo-European declension in the common Slavic language // Studies in Slavic Linguistics. M., 19616. - S. 114164.
174. Kurganov N. The book of the writer. St. Petersburg, 1788. - 698 p.
175. Kuskov V.V. History of ancient Russian literature. - M., 1989. 304 p.
176. Lazutin S.G. Poetics of Russian folklore. M., 1989. - 208 p.
177. Larin B.A. Spoken language of Moscow Russia // First stage formation of the Russian national language. L., 1961. - S. 12-34.
178. Larin B.A. Lectures on the history of the Russian literary language (X - mid-eighteenth century). M, 1975. - 328 p.
179. Le Van Nyan Teaching Vietnamese students the forms of Russian address by name, patronymic, surname // From the experience of creating linguistic and regional studies manuals. -M., 1977. S. 67-73.
180. Le Van Nyan Some etiquette formulas of address in the Russian language and their teaching to the Vietnamese // Comparative and semantic studies of the Russian language. Voronezh, 1979. - S. 129-134.
181. Le Van Nyan Types of characterization of the addressee in the forms of Russian appeal. Abstract dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Voronezh, 1989. - 24 p.
182. Lezhneva I.I. Sociolinguistic development of English and Russian speech etiquette (on the basis of forms of address, greeting and farewell formulas). Abstract dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Voronezh, 2001. - 22 p.
183. Lend el Zh. Address, greeting and farewell in the speech etiquette of modern Hungarians // National-cultural specifics of speech behavior. -M., 1977.-S. 193-218.
184. Listrova-Pravda Yu.T., Titz G. Appeal by name in Russian and German speech etiquette. (Linguistic and regional aspect) // Contrastive studies of Russian and German languages. Voronezh, 1986.-S. 61-67.
185. Likhachev D.S. Socio-political ideas " Words about Igor's regiment» // TODRL.- 1951.-T.VIII.-C. 17-30.
186. Likhachev D.S. " A word about Igor's regiment and the culture of his time. L., 1985. - 351 p.
187. Lomov A.M. " A word about Igor's regiment"And" Zadonshchina": the dilogy of Zephanius of Ryazanets? // Bulletin of the VSU. 2000. - No. 2. - S. 38-60.
188. Lomonosov M.V. Full composition of writings. T. 7. M.-L., 1952. - 995 p.
189. Lomtev T.P. Grammar of the Belarusian language. -M., 1956. -336 p.
190. Loshmanova L.T. Influence of the inversion function on the semantics of the word // Issues of syntax and lexicology of the Russian language. Smolensk, 1975. -S. 48-55.
191. Ludolf G.V. Russian Grammar / Reprint, translation, introductory article and notes by B.A. Larin. L., 1937. - 166 p.
192. Maksimov L.Yu. Appeals in poetic speech // Uch.zap. MGPI them. V.I. Lenin.- M., 1965. No. 236. - S. 65-70.
193. Maltsev N.V. Functional and syntactic characteristics of calls. Abstract dis. cand. philol. Sciences. L., 1986. - 18 p.
194. Maltsev I.V. Communicative characteristics of appeals // Bulletin of the Leningrad University. Series 2. History, linguistics, literary criticism. -L., 1987.-Iss. 1. S.93-95.
195. Maltsev I.V. Communicative-pragmatic aspect of the appeal. // III Tsarskoye Selo Readings. SPb., 1999. - V.2. - P.237-238.
196. Markelova T.V. Appeal and assessment // Russian language at school. 1995. -№6.-S. 76-81.
197. Markov V.M. Historical grammar of the Russian language. Nominal declension. M., 1974. - 143 p.
198. Markov B. Obrakoneto con other faces od aspkt on folk ja3HK and folk speak // Godishen collection. - Skopue, 1982/1984. - Prince. 10, -p.261-287.
199. Matsyusovich Ya.V. Morphological structure of the modern Polish language. Part 1.-L, 1975.- 162 p.
200. Meie A. Common Slavic language. M., 1951.-491 p.
201. Meirmanova K.S. Connotative-stylistic parameters of the names of persons in German and Russian // Comparative and comparative study of languages and interference. Alma-Ata, 1989. - S. 116-119.
202. Mechkovskaya N.B. Slovenian language. Minsk, 1991. - 120 p.
203. Mizin O.A. On the grammatical nature of address: Some questions of syntagmatics and paradigmatics // Philological collection. Alma-Ata, 1972.-Issue. I.-S. 163-170.
204. Mizin O.A. Structural-semantic and functional features of addresses in the journalistic style of the Russian language. Abstract dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1973. - 34 p.
205. Mizin O.A. To the morphology of address // Russian language at school. 1980, No. 5. - S. 75-77.
206. Mikloshich F. Comparative morphology of Slavic languages. M., 1887. - Issue. 3. Languages Little Russian and Russian. - 140 s.
207. Mirochnik E.Yu. The vocative form in the Ostromir Gospel // Scientific Works of the Tashkent State University. university Tashkent, 1970. - Issue. 390. Questions of Russian linguistics. - S. 123-130.
208. Mikhailova M.B., Alekseeva A.E. On the dynamics of the stylistic functions of addresses in Old Russian hagiographic literature// Historical style of the Russian language. Petrozavodsk, 1990. - S. 83-87.
209. Mikhalchuk T.G. Appeal as a social characteristic of a person (in the context of a dialogue of consent-disagreement) // Russian language. Minsk, 1987. Issue 7. - P.105-111.
210. Monakhova N.P. On the problem of typological study of the style "Prayer" by Daniil Zatochnik // Uch.zap. Perm University. Perm, 1976. - No. 304. Problems of typology and history of Russian literature. - S. 215-216.
211. Naumova I.M. Appeal in the fairy tales of A.S. Pushkin// Structure, semantics and functioning of syntactic units in the Russian language. Eagle, 1999. -S.103-110.
212. Naumova I.M., Fedorova M.V. Vocative or vocative? // Structure, semantics and functioning of syntactic units in Russian. Eagle, 1999. - S. 111-114.
213. Nakhtigal R. Slavic languages. - M., 1963. 342 p.
214. Nebieridze G.O. The vocative case as a variant of the nominative in the Georgian language // Proceedings of the Tbilisi University. 1986. - T.267. - S.246-256.
215. Nekrasov N.P. Language notes Tales of Bygone Years»according to the Laurentian list of chronicles. St. Petersburg, 1897. - 167 p.
216. Nikiforov S.D. From observations on the language of "Domostroy" according to the Konshinsky list // Uch.zap. Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after V.I. Lenin. 1947. - T. XLII. -p.15-79.
217. Nikolaeva T.M. To the question of the origin of vocative neoplasms of the type ALESH, PASH, MASH // Collection of postgraduate works of the Kazan State University. Kazan, \91\a. - Humanitarian sciences. Philology. - S. 50-55.
218. Nikolaeva T.M. On the history of the vocative form in the Russian language // Collection of postgraduate works of the Kazan State University. Kazan, 19716. - Humanities. Literary criticism. Linguistics. Journalism. - S. 136-140.
219. Nikolaeva T.M. The vocative form in the Russian literary language of the 18th century // Development of synonymic relations in the Russian literary language of the second half of the 18th century. Kazan, \912a. - S. 127-133.
220. Nikolaeva T.M. The history of the vocative form in Russian. Abstract dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Kazan, 19726. - 20 p.
221. Nikolaeva T.M. Interrelations of lexico-semantic and grammatical factors in the history of vocative (on the material of chronicles) // Language levels and their interaction. Kazan, 1990. - S.59-64.
222. Novak E. Russian speech etiquette from the point of view of the communicative behavior of the Poles. Abstract dis. cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1984. - 18 p.
223. Obnorsky S.P. Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the older period. M.-JL, 1946. - 200 p.
224. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovskiy D.N. The syntax of the Russian language. St. Petersburg, 1912. -322 p.
225. Ozerova N.P. Nomination of the speech addressee in Russian and Ukrainian languages // Russian Linguistics. Kiev, 1991. - Issue. 23. - S. 13-16.
226. Ozerova S.M. Proper names as part of song appeals // Yudinsky readings -2000: Folklore and national culture. Kursk, 2000. - S.19-21.
227. Osetrov E. East Slavic Iliad // Word about Igor's regiment. 800 years / Bibliophile's Almanac. M., 1986. - Issue 21. - P.7-26.
228. Osnovina G.A. Appeal and constructions homonymous to it // Russian language at school. 1998. - No. 2. - S.74-79.
229. Ostanin A.I. Some lexical and grammatical features of addresses in Russian colloquial speech // Questions of stylistics. Saratov, 1978. - Issue. 14.-p.55-68.
230. Ostanin A.I. From Observations on the Location of Appeals in Russian Colloquial Speech // Issues of Stylistics. Saratov, 1981. - Functional and stylistic differentiation of the language. - S. 95-105.
231. Ostanin A.I. Forms of the number of names nouns in the position of address in colloquial speech // Russian language at school. 1994. - No. 5. - S. 89-91.
232. Ostanin A.I. Indirect appeal in Russian // Russian language at school. 1998. - No. 2. - S.80-82.
233. Pavlenko E.A. Appeal in the function of primary speech contact // Functional characteristics of language units and categories. - Dnepropetrovsk, 1988. S.65-72.
234. Panfilova Z.A. The stylistic role of references in N.M. Karamzin II Problems of stylistics and vocabulary of the Russian language. M., 1978. - pp. 103-113.
235. Patroeva I.V. Appeal in the poetic speech of E.A. Baratynsky // Russian speech. - 1998. - No. 6. - P. 8-12.
236. Peshkovsky A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. M., 1956. -511s.
237. Plyaskova E.A. National specificity of speech etiquette (address in Russian and Polish languages) // Materials on Russian-Slavic linguistics. Voronezh, 1996a. - Issue. 21. - S. 86-90.
238. Plyaskova E.A. Features of the use of calls in the lists " Words by Daniil Zatochnik”(according to the editions of the XII and XIII centuries) // Literature and modernity. Mat. scientific conf. November 23-24, 2000 - Perm, 2000a. Part 2. Linguistics. - S. 170-177.
239. Plyaskova E.A. Russian-Polish-German Parallels in the Sphere of Addresses // Linguistische Beschreibung slavischer Sprachen als Fremdsprachen. Halle, 20006.-C. 215-225.
240. Plyaskova E.A. Spheres of use of appeals in the poem by A.T. Tvardovsky "Vasily Terkin" // Man and war in the Russian artistic consciousness of the XX century. Voronezh, 2000c. - S. 91-98.
241. Plyaskova E.A. Calling functions in " A word about Igor's regiment» // Materials on Russian-Slavic linguistics. - Voronezh, 2000 -Issue. 25.-S. 53-57.
243. Polonsky A.V. Ways of expressing the addressee of a speech in Polish // Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. Series 2. 19925. - Issue 3 (No. 16). - S. 54-59.
244. Polonsky A.V. History of some Russian appeals N Essays on the history of lexicology. Belgorod, 1995. - S. 76-80.
245. Polonsky A.V. Categorical and functional essence of addressability. M., 1999. - 254 p.
246. Ponomarenko V.P. The problem of the structure of the animal in the Romanesque and Sdo-European language languages 1993. - No. 1 -S. 59-65.
247. Popov A.V. Syntactic studies: Nominative, vocative and accusative in connection with the history of the development of impersonal meanings and impersonal phrases. Voronezh, 1881. - 307 p.
248. Popov A.S. Appeals-sentences in modern Russian // Russian language at school. 1958. - No. 5.-36-39.
249. Popov K. Semantic and stylistic characteristics of the appeal in the story "Poor people" by F.M. Dostoevsky. // Comparative physics. Sofia, 1999. - G.24, No. 2/3. - P.123-132.
250. Por1vnyalna grammar ukrashsko1 i rosshsko "1 mov. Kshv, 1961. - 268 p.
251. Potebnya A.A. From notes on Russian grammar. M., 1958. - T. 1-2. -536 p.
252. Potebnya A.A. stress. Kiev, 1973. - 172 p.
253. Prikhodko T.S. "From strange lyrics where every step is a secret." (The role of appeals in the composition of poems by A. Akhmatova) // Russian speech. -1997.- No. 4.-S. 18-23.
254. Pronichev V.P. Fine means of circulation // Bulletin of Leningrad State University. -1967. -No. 14. Issue. 3. - S.123-131.
255. Pronichev V.P. Appeal and concept (based on Serbo-Croatian and Russian languages) // Bulletin of Leningrad State University. 1968. - History. Language. Literature -Vol. 4.- No. 20.-S. 116-126.
256. Pronichev V.P. The syntactic function of the vocative in Serbo-Croatian language // Slavic Philology. L., 1969. - S. 116-121.
257. Pronichev V.P. The syntax of the call. L., 1971. - 88 p.
258. Repina T.A. To the question of the Romanian vocative // Questions of language and literature of the peoples of the Balkan countries. L., 1986. - S.78-89.
259. Reshetov A.M. On the use of vocative terms of kinship in the everyday life of Russians (according to memories and observations) // Algebra of kinship. St. Petersburg, 1995. - Issue. 1. - S.217-230.
260. Robinson A.N. Solar symbolism in " A word about Igor's regiment» // « A word about Igor's regiment". Monuments of literature and art of the XI-XVII centuries.-M., 1978.-c.7-58.
261. Rosenthal D.E. Practical stylistics of the Russian language. M., 1974. -352 p.
262. Rudnev A.G. Appeal // Uch. app. LGPI them. A.I. Herzen. 1955. -T. 104. - S.29-51.
263. Rudnev A.G. Compound sentence syntax. M., 1959. 198 p.
264. Russian grammar. M., 1980. - T. II. Syntax. - 710 s.
265. Russian dialectology / Ed. N.A. Meshchersky M., 1972. - 302 p.
266. Ryzhova L.P. Appeal as a component of a communicative act. Abstract dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. -M., 1982. 15 p.
267. Ryzhova L.P. Communicative features of the appeal // Content aspects of the sentence and the text. Kalinin, 1983. - S. 128134.
268. Ryzhova L.P. Appeal: norms and rules of use // Pragmatics and semantics of syntactic units. Kalinin, 1984. - 114-119.
269. Safaryan R.D. Two types of address // Russian language in the national school. -1987, No. 10.-S.7-11.
270. Selishchev A.M. Slavic linguistics. T. 1. -M., 1941. 467 p.
271. Selishchev A.M. Selected works. -M., 1968.-640 p.
272. Sirakova-Smete N. Pronominal form for the appeal "ti and Vie" in the speech etiket, time bulgari and kholandtsi // Comparative ezikoznanie. Sofia, 1992. G. 17, No. 4. - S. 11-18.
273. Skab M.S. Semantic and syntactical functions of the Ukrainian vocative // Movoznavstvo. 1987, No. 5. - S.62-65.
274. Skab M.S. Semantic-grammatical structure of the Ukrainian vocative. Abstract dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Kiev, 1988. - 17 p.
275. Skab M.S. Vocative status for vshmkovsh systems! now ukra "shsyssh movie // Semasyulopya and slovotv1r. Kshv, 1989. - S. 136-139.
276. Skab M.S. Vocative on tl! vzaemodp r1vshv movie //Movoznavstvo. 1990a. -#5. -FROM. 30-33.
277. Skav M.S. The nickname vshmshok that yogo syntactical function // Ukrashskaya mov i lgeratura in school KiGv, 19906. - No. 1, - P. 64-69.
278. Slavonic Jezi. Grammar. Sofia, 1994. - 586 p.
279. Smirnovsky P. Textbook of Russian grammar for elementary grades of secondary schools. M., 1909. - Part II. Elementary Syntax. -130 s.
280. Smyshlyaeva V.P. Functions of address in the elegiac text // Language units in the text. Ufa, 1994. - S.22-26.
281. Snegirev I. Russians in their proverbs. Reasoning and research on domestic proverbs and sayings: In 4 volumes - M., 1831-1834.
282. Sobinnikova V.I. Historical grammar of the Russian language. - Voronezh, 1984.-296 p.
283. Sobolevsky A.I. Church Slavonic morphology course. St. Petersburg, 1902.
284. Sobolevsky A.I. Lectures on the history of the Russian language. M., 1907. -309 p.
285. Sobolevsky A.I. History of the Russian literary language. - L., 1980. -194 p.
286. Sokolova M.A. Essays on the historical grammar of the Russian language. L., 1962.-312 p.
287. Starovoitova O.A. Appeal as a Stylistic Factor in the Hagiographic Genre of the 14th-16th Centuries. // Dynamics of the Russian word: Interuniversity. Sat. articles for the 60th anniversary of prof. V.V. Kolesova. SPb., 1994. - S. 62-66.
288. Sternin I.A. Russian speech etiquette. Voronezh, 1996. - 124 p.
289. Sternin I.A. Russian language at the end of the 20th century: crisis or development? // Bulletin of Voronezh state university. Series 1. Humanities. 1998. - No. 2. - P.4-29.
290. Taranenko 1.J. 1z the rod over the clichéd form in the ornamental language Keith, 1972. - S.106-107.
291. Tarasov E.F. Sociological aspects of speech communication // The role and place of country studies in the practice of teaching Russian as a foreign language / Ed. EAT. Vereshchagin. M., 1969. - S. 73-84.
292. Curd O.V. " A word about Igor's regiment"and" Zadonshchina" // " A word about Igor's regiment”and monuments of the Kulikovo cycle. M.-L., 1966. - S. 292344.
293. Telezhnikova A.A. Declension of nouns in " Tales of Bygone Years»according to the Laurentian list. -M., 1955. 152 p.
294. Tereshko JI.C. Klichna form in ukrashskih gsshrkah Odessa // Sling Odes. un-tu. 1957. - T. 147. Ser.fiyul.nauk. - Vip. 6. - S. 163-169.
295. Timchenko S. Nomchativ i dative in Ukrainian mobl KiGv, 1925. - 64 p.
296. Timchenko S. Vocative i instrumental in Ukrainian "shsksh mobl KiGv", 1926. -118 p.
297. Titz G. Etiquette formulas for appealing and attracting attention in modern Russian. Abstract dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Voronezh, 1977.-23 p.
298. Tikhomirova T.S. Polish language. M., 1987. - 208 p.
299. Totsenko T.V. To the question of the syntactic status of the appeal-sentence // Bulletin of the Kiev University. Romano-Germanic Philology. - Kiev, 1990. pp. 56-58.
300. Travnicek F. Grammar of the Czech literary language. M., 1950. -Ch. 1. Phonetics - Word formation - Morphology. - 466 p.
301. Usacheva V.V. Vocative formulas of folk healing among the Slavs // Slavic and Balkan folklore: Beliefs. Text. Ritual. M., 1994. -S. 222-240.
302. Ustinov I.V. Essays on the Russian language. 4.1. Historical grammar of the Russian language. M., 1959. - 382 p.
303. Fedorov V.I. Russian literature of the XVIII century. M., 1990. - 352 p.
304. Fedorova M.V. The grammatical status of the Russian address // Studies in the semantics and structure of syntactic units. Eagle, 1998a. - P.65-72.
305. Fedorova M.V. The status of circulation in Russian and German languages // Unity of systemic and functional analysis of language units. - Belgorod, 19986. S. 278-282.
306. Filin F.P. Origin of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. -L., 1972.-655 p.
307. Firsova N.M. Spanish speech etiquette. -M., 2000. 183 p.
308. Formanovskaya N.I. The use of Russian speech etiquette. M., 1982. - 133 p.
309. Formanovskaya N.I. Russian speech etiquette: linguistic and methodological aspects. M., 1982. - 126 p.
310. Formanovskaya N.I., Shevtsova S.V. Speech etiquette: Russian-English correspondences: a Handbook. M., 1990. - 94 p.
311. Formanovskaya N.I., Krasova G.A. Speech etiquette: Russian-Italian correspondences: a Handbook. -M., 1992a. 142 p.
312. Formanovskaya N.I., Sokolova Kh.R. Speech etiquette: Russian-German correspondences: a Handbook. -M., 19926. 94 p.
313. Formanovskaya N.I., Rodriguez-Iriondo M. Speech etiquette: Russian-Spanish correspondences: a Handbook. M., 1993. - 110 p.
314. Formanovskaya N.I. Appeal // Russian language at school. 1994,. - No. 3. -S.84-88.
315. Fortunatov F.F. Selected works. T. 2. M., 1957. - 472 p.
316. Frolova S.V. Nominal declension in the Russian original everyday story of the XVII-XVIII centuries // Uch.zap. Kuibyshev State Pedagogical Institute. -1947. Issue 8. - P.121-144.
317. Haralampiev I. Historically belezhki for organigavaneto on the call for form in Bulgarian ezik // Bulgarian ezik. 1996. - Book 2. - S. 150-154.
318. Tsankov K. National and social specificity in speech etiquette // Problems in sociolinguistics. No. 3. - Sofia, 1988. - S. 117-128.
319. Chaplygina I.D. Appeal as a means of speech contact // Sentence and word. Saratov, 1999. - S.292-295.
320. Chaplygina I.D. Pragmatic properties of appeals // Word and word form in the statement: nomination and predication: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr.-M., 2000. S.67-73.
321. Chashchina E.A. Appeal in business texts of the 16th-17th centuries. // Actual problems of teaching philology within the framework of the "university-gymnasium-progymnasium" system. Part 1. Michurinsk, 1995. - S. 96-101.
322. Csepel B.C. The crying vshmshok in the Ukrainian literary movement1 // The Ukrainian language literature in school 1971 - No. II. - P.25-28.
323. Cherepanova O.A. National and regional formulas of folk etiquette: complimentary appeals // Issues of regional lexicology and onomastics. Vologda, 1995. - S. 169-176.
324. Cherepnin JI.B. Russian paleography. M., 1956. - 616 p.
325. Cherkasova L.P. Appeal in the structure of a poetic text // Language of Russian poetry of the XX century. -M., 1989. S. 119-127.
326. Chernov V.A. Russian language in the 17th century. Morphology. Krasnoyarsk, 1984. - 200 p.
327. Chernykh P.Ya. Language of the Code of 1649. M., 1953. - 374 p.
328. Chernykh P.Ya. Historical grammar of the Russian language. -M., 1954. 336 p.
329. Czech language: Textbook for I and II courses / A.G. Shirokova et al. M., 1988. 544 p.
330. Chichagov V.K. From the history of Russian names, patronymics and surnames. -M., 1959. -128 p.
331. Chyung Tan Russian forms of address on TY/YU in the mirror of the Vietnamese language // Russian language abroad. 1990. - No. 3. - S. 94-99.
332. Shapovalova L.I. Forms and functions of addresses in modern Russian. Abstract dis. cand. philol. Sciences. Minsk, 1979. - 24 p.
333. Shakhmatov A.A. The syntax of the Russian language. -M., 1941. 620 p.
334. Shakhmatov A.A. Historical morphology of the Russian language. M., 1957. -400 p.
335. Yudina A.D. Occasional names of persons (According to the materials of the periodicals of the 60-80s). . Abstract dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. JL, 1989. - 20 p.
336. Yakovleva M.P. Russian mentality in appeals (According to the stories
337. A.P. Chekhov) // Res. linguistica: Sat. articles for the 60th anniversary of Dr. Philol. sciences, prof.
338. V.P. Neroznak. M., 2000. - S.332-338.
339. Yakubinsky L.P. History of the Old Russian language. M., 1953. - 368 p.
340. Yankousyu F.M. Pstarychnaya grammar of the Belarusian language. Mshsk, 1989. -302 p.
341. Ammon U. Zur sozialen Funktion der pronominalen Anrede im Deutschen // Zeitschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik. 1972. - No. 7. - S. 73-88.
342. Andrzejewicz U. Polonica. 1988. - Rocz.13. - S. 123-130.
343. Bartnicka B. Sposoby zwracania siq do rozmowcow w "Pamiatkach Soplicy" Henryka Rzewuskiego (szkis z pragmatyki historycznej) // Poradnik j^zykowy. -1989.- Z. 5.- S.276-284.
344. Bartnicka B., Satkiewicz H. Grammatyka j^zyka polskiego dla cudzoziemcow. -Warszawa, 1990.
345. Brajerski T. So zwane zwroty adresatywne w "Krakowiakach i goralach" W. Boguslawskiego // Rocz. Humanisticzne. Lublin, 1991-1992. - T. 39-40. - Z. 6: Jqzykoznawstwo. - S. 73-80.
346. Braun E. Der Name als Anrede // Sprachflege. 1978. No. 7. - S.145-146.
347. Bula D. About sposobach zwracania si$ do rozmowcy // Prace j^zykoznawcze. -No. 690. Z problemow wspolczesnej polszczyzny / Pod red. H.Wrobla. Katowice, 1985. -S. 110-124.
348. Dunaj B. Badanie wariatywnosci fleksyjnoj w polzczyznie mowionoj (na przykladzie form wolacza rzeczownikow) // Polonika. 1986. - Rocz. 12.-219-228.
349. Dunniger I. Grufi und Anrede // Deutschunterricht. 1963. - No. 15. - S. 21-35.
350. Grodzinski Rola formula grzecznosciowych w j^zykach wspolczesnych // Poradnik j^zykowy. 1977. - No. 7. - S. 305-310.
351. Huszcza R. About gramatyce grzecznosci // Pami^tnik literacki. Wroclaw etc., 1980. - Rocz. 71. - Z. 1. - S.175-186.
352. Klemensiewicz Z. Pan i obywatel // J^zyk Polski. 1946. - Z. 3-4. - S. 33-42.
353. Klemensiewicz Z. Historia jqzyka polskiego. Warszawa, 1974. - 796 s.
354. Klobus A. Jakkrol Jan III Sobieski zwracal si$ do zony i dzieci // Regionalizmy w j^zyku familijnym. Wroclaw etc., 1991. - S. 89-96.
355. Langner H. Zur Bedeutung des Substanivs "Negg" in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart // Sprachflege. 1960. - No. 11. - S. 225-229.
356. Langner H. Frau oder Fraulein? Anredeformen als Ausdruk sozialer Bezeichungen // Sprachflege. 1976. - No. 9. - S. 182-184.
357. Liebsch H. Frau oder Fraulein das ist hier die Frage // Sprachflege. - 1975. -№10.-S. 205-207.
358. Liebsch H. Discussion zur Anrede mit "Frau" oder "Fraulein" // Sprachflege. -1976.- No. 4. S. 77-80.
359. Liebsch H. Diskussion zur Anrede mit "Frau" oder "Fraulein" // Sprachflege. -1976.-No. 7.-S. 141-143.
360. Lubas W. Nazywanie osob w dialogu // Studia linguistica Polono-Jogoslavica.- CKonje. 1987. - No. 5. - C. 141-148.
361. Malyska A. Formy adresatywne w wypowiedziach parlamentarystow polskich // Poradnik j^zykowy. 1998. - Z. 3. - S. 22-31.
362. Miodek J. Jeszcze about sposobach zwracania si$ do drugich // Jqzyk Polski. 1980.- No. 2-3. S. 177.
363. Mroczek K. Tytulatura w korespondencji staropolskej jako problem stosunku mi^dzy nadowc^ a odbiorc^ // Pami^tnik Literacki. 1978. - LXIX - Z. 2. -S. 127-148.
364. Nitsch K. "Pan", "ty" czy "wy" // Poradnik j^zykowy. 1907. - No. 4. -S. 49-53.
365. Nitsch K. Jak oddawac obcojqzyczne sposoby przemowiania do drugich // J^zyk Polski. 1949.-No. XXIX. - S. 167-169.
366. Obnorski S. Die Form des Vokativs im Russischen // Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie. 1925. - No. l.-S. 103-106.
367. Ozog K. Powitania i pozegnania w jqzyku mowionym mieszkancow Krakowa // J^zyk Polski. No. 2-3.-S. 130-132.
368. Pisarek L. Gratulacje jako akt mowy w j^zyku rosyjskim w porownaniu z jqzykiem polskim // Studia Neerlandica et Germania. Bratislawie, 1992. - S. 295-302.
369. Pisarkowa K. Jak siq tytulujemy i zwracamy do drugich // J^zyk Polski. 1979. - No. l.-S. 5-17.
370. Rachwalowa M. Formy adresatywne w mowach staropolskich // Poradnik j^zykowy. 1987. - Z. 7. - S.528-535.
371. Rajchert R. Sposoby zwracania si$ do osob drugich d jqzyku familijnym mieszkancow wsi Dziepole // Regionalizmy w jqzyku familijnym. Wroclaw etc., 1991. - S.41-49.
372. Sieczkowski A. Kategoria gramatyczna wolacza w j^zykach zachodnioslowianskich // Prace filologiczne. Warszawa, 1964. - T. XVIII. -cz. 2-S. 239-263.
373. Sluszkiewicz E. Kumpel towarzysz // J^zyk Polski. - 1951. - No. XXXII. -S. 234-235.
374. Starke G. Schwirigkeiten bei der Wahl der treffenden Anrede // Sprachflege. -1998. Jg. 37. - H. 4. - S. 48-50.
375. Stone G. Formy adresatywne j^zylca polskiego XVIII wieku // J^zyk Polski. -1989. -#3-5. S.135-142.
376. Szober S. Gramatyka jQzyka polskiego. Warszawa, 1966. - 390 p.
Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms.
There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
Appeal is one of the important and necessary components of speech etiquette. The appeal is used at any stage of communication, throughout its duration, serves as its integral part. At the same time, the norm of the use of the address and its form have not been finally established, cause controversy, and are a sore spot in Russian speech etiquette.
This is eloquently stated in a letter published in Komsomolskaya Pravda signed by Andrei: “We, probably, in the only country in the world do not have people turning to each other. We don't know how to address a person! Man, woman, girl, granny, comrade, citizen - pah! Or maybe a female face, a male face! And it's easier - hey!
To understand the peculiarity of the address in the Russian language, you need to know its history. The social stratification of society, the inequality that existed in Russia for several centuries, was reflected in the system of official appeals. As an appeal, the names of ranks were used (lieutenant general, coront, cornet, as well as your excellency, your highness, gracious sovereign, etc.)
The monarchical system in Russia until the 20th century. retained the division of people into classes: nobles, clergy, raznochintsy, merchants, philistines, peasants. Hence the appeal lord, madam in relation to people of privileged social groups; sir, madam - for the middle class or master, mistress for both and the absence of a single appeal to representatives of the lower class.
In the languages of other civilized countries, unlike Russian, there were appeals that were used both in relation to a person occupying a high position in society and to an ordinary citizen: Mr., Mrs., Miss (England, USA), Signor, Signora, Signorina (Italy ), pan, pani (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia).
After the October Revolution, all the old ranks and titles were abolished by a special decree. Universal equality is proclaimed. Appeals lord - madam, master - mistress, sir - madam gradually disappear. Instead of all the appeals that existed in Russia, starting from 1917-1918, the appeals citizen and comrade are spreading. The history of these words is remarkable and instructive.
The word citizen is recorded in the monuments of the XI century. It came to the Russian language from the Old Slavonic language and served as a phonetic version of the word city dweller. Both of them meant "resident of the city (city)". In the XVIII century. this word acquires the meaning of "a full member of society, the state." Then he gets the meaning: "a person who is devoted to the Motherland, serves her and the people, takes care of the public good, subordinates personal interests to the public."
Why, then, such a socially significant word as a citizen did not become popular in the 20th century? commonly used way of addressing people to each other?
In the 20-30s. a custom appeared, and then it became the norm when addressing arrested, imprisoned, convicted employees of law enforcement agencies and vice versa, not to say comrade, only citizen: citizen under investigation, citizen judge, citizen prosecutor. As a result, the word citizen for many has become associated with detention, arrest, the police, and the prosecutor's office. The negative association gradually “grown” to the word so much that it became its integral part, so rooted in the minds of people that it became impossible to use the word citizen as a commonly used address.
The fate of the word comrade was somewhat different. It is recorded in the monuments of the XV century. In the Slavic languages, this word came from the Turkic, in which the root tavar meant "property, livestock, goods." Probably, initially comrade meant "companion in trade." Then the meaning of this word is expanded: a comrade is not only a "companion", but also a "friend". With the growth of the revolutionary movement in Russia at the beginning of the XIX century. the word comrade, like the word citizen in its time, acquires a new socio-political meaning: "a like-minded person fighting for the interests of the people." Since the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, Marxist circles have been created in Russia, their members call each other comrades. In the first years after the revolution, this word becomes the main appeal in Russia.
After the Patriotic War, the word comrade gradually began to emerge from the everyday informal appeal of people to each other. On the street, in the store, in public transport, the appeals of a man, a woman, grandfather, father, granny, boyfriend, aunt, uncle are increasingly heard. Such appeals are not neutral. They can be perceived by the addressee as disrespectful to him, unacceptable familiarity.
Since the end of the 80s. in an official setting, the appeals sir, madam, sir, madam began to revive.
At present, the appeal, Mr., Madam, is perceived as the norm at meetings of the Duma, in television programs, at various symposiums and conferences. Among civil servants, businessmen, entrepreneurs, the address Mr., Mrs. in combination with the surname, title of position, rank becomes the norm.
The appeal comrade continues to be used by the military, members of communist parties, as well as in many factory teams. Scientists, teachers, doctors, lawyers prefer the words of colleagues and friends. Appeal respected, respected is found in the speech of the older generation. The words woman, man, which have become widespread in the role of communication, violate the norm of speech etiquette, testify to the insufficient culture of the speaker. In this case, it is preferable to start a conversation without appeals, using etiquette formulas: be kind ..., be kind ..., sorry ..., sorry ...
Thus, the problem of common circulation remains open. It will be resolved only when everyone learns to respect himself and treat others with respect, when he learns to defend his honor and dignity, when he becomes a person, when it does not matter what position he holds, what his status is. It is important that he is a citizen of the Russian Federation.
3 Dictionaries - a source of knowledge
The study and description of the language of the people, the nation is considered a matter of paramount importance for the state, the people themselves, the nation, each person.
The French writer Anatole France called the dictionary "the universe arranged in alphabetical order", since in it "every word of the lexicon corresponds to a thought or feeling, which was the thought or feeling of countless beings."
The dictionary is a historical story about the life of people, their thoughts, aspirations, troubles and joys, about everything that surrounds them; each word placed in the dictionary is associated with the life, deeds and deeds of the people - the creator of the language.
A word is an object of description in linguistic dictionaries. They give the pronunciation of words, their spelling, determine the meaning, compatibility of words, word formation, indicate grammatical forms. In addition to words, linguistic dictionaries describe stable combinations, morphemes.
The object of characterization can be not only language units, but also concepts (scientific and everyday), historical events, phenomena of the animal and plant world, prominent figures, geographical realities, etc. This is all the subject of description of encyclopedic dictionaries.
From encyclopedic dictionaries, we learn about the geographical, historical, economic features of any country in the world; about the life and work of politicians, military men, scientists, writers, artists, composers, artists of all times and peoples, as well as about people famous in a particular area.
Encyclopedic dictionaries are general and private. The general ones include: “Big Encyclopedic Dictionary” in 30 volumes (3rd ed., 1969-1978), “Encyclopedic Dictionary” in 2 volumes (2nd ed., 1963-1964) and others. Private: “Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary ", (2nd ed., 1989); "Encyclopedia. Russian language”, 1997, etc.
The importance of dictionaries in the life of every person is difficult to overestimate. Reading dictionaries, constant reference to them improves the culture of speech. Dictionaries enrich the individual vocabulary and phraseological stock, introduce the norms of the Russian language, warn against misuse words, their grammatical forms, pronunciation. Dictionaries expand our knowledge of the language, deepen the understanding of the word, and contribute to the development of logical thinking.
From the biographies of scientists, public figures, writers, poets, it is known that many of them highly valued encyclopedic and philological dictionaries, turned to them for information, read dictionaries as fascinating literature.
N.V. Gogol wrote to S.T. Aksakov, the author of the book “Childhood of Bagrov - grandson”: “Before you is a community - the Russian language. Deep pleasure calls you, pleasure to plunge into all its immensity and catch its wonderful laws... Read carefully... the academic dictionary. Gogol himself often turned to dictionaries, from which he learned the origin of the word, its history, meaning, spelling.
The French poet Beranger admitted that he did not write a single line without looking into the dictionary: "I have been studying them incessantly for forty years"; "Without dictionaries, I could not have written ten poems." The poetess V. Inber (1890-1972) writes in her book “Almost Three Years”: “Yesterday half a day I reveled in Dahl’s dictionary, read the letter “Sh”. I need this for tree noise. But I am convinced that Dahl should be read daily.
Dictionaries are a source for finding the right, precise, expressive word. Famous writer 50-60 years. Aleksey Yugov, in his article “For the People's Language” (1961), addressing journalists, wrote: “Remember the integrity of the Russian language. Make the biggest, biggest dictionary your favorite reading, and you'll never find yourself on the air in such a position that you can't find the words.
Dictionaries provide politicians, public figures, writers, journalists and anyone interested in the Russian language with material for judgments and for supporting their thoughts.
For example, journalist M. Rassadin talks about the feeling of pride: is it positive or negative? He compares the data of two dictionaries (one published in the Soviet era, the other before the revolution). The first word has several meanings. Two of them characterize pride as a positive quality, and the third as a negative one, equivalent to arrogance, arrogance. In the second (“The Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by V.I. Dal), only one negative meaning is given: “Be proud of something, be proud, boast, be arrogant, swagger, be haughty; brag about something, be conceited; to put something to one's merit, to an advantage, to be self-satisfied.
Comparing the material of two dictionaries, citing the words of the New Testament ("PRIDE - sin"), the publicist reveals the social causes of changes in the conceptual content of the word, in its public assessment, the reasons for the emergence of new phrases that are presented in modern Russian.
Another interesting example is related to the search for a new name and its justification. At the beginning of perestroika in our country, as a result of new economic trends, it became possible to organize individual farms in the countryside. Not only the villagers, but also the townspeople undertake this business. The question arises: How to call a "sole proprietor"? "Peasant or farmer?" - Yu. Chernichenko asks, speaking with an article in the Ogonyok magazine in 1990. He is looking for the answer in dictionaries. "Peasant", according to Dahl, is "a rural inhabitant, belongs to the lower taxable class." "Farmer" - "the owner or tenant of the farm." And in another dictionary, even "the owner of an agricultural enterprise." After comparing these dictionaries and determining the characteristics of the nascent owners of the land (“craving for will, respect”), preference is given to the name farmer.
A lot of cognitive content is contained in etymological dictionaries, which explain the origin of words. Reading etymological dictionaries allows you to understand why the subject is so named, with what other names this word is etymologically connected and why. For example, the word portfolio came to Russian from French. Franz. porte-feuille - addition based on porter - “wear” and feuill - “papers, documents (< листы)». Слово портфель входит в один ряд со словами портмоне (monnaie - «деньги»), портсигар (cigares - «сигары»), портупея (ерее - «шпага») и т.п. Это все названия предметов, в которых что-то носят.
Figuratively and accurately in the poem "Dictionary" S.Ya. Marshak, using the example of words, phrases, phraseological units, determined the content of the dictionary, its essence and meaning in the history of any nation:
In all words - event printing.
They were given for good reason to man.
Reading Vek. From a century. Forever.
Live a century. God did not give his son a century.
A century to seize, a century to heal with a plague ...
The words sound reproach, and anger, and conscience
No, not a dictionary lies before me,
And an ancient scattered story.
The language, its stable constructions, reflects the richest experience of the people, the uniqueness of their traditions, customs, conditions and way of life. Speech illustrates the subjective perception of the picture of the world, corresponding to the consciousness and mentality of its bearer. At the same time, the language also influences the native speaker directly, shaping his personality. This is primarily due to the fact that in the process of mastering the native speech, a person absorbs both the national culture, which contains the features of the national character, and the peculiarities of the worldview.
speech behavior
In socially oriented communication, the public roles of listeners and speakers are of particular importance. At the same time, a certain character of the speech behavior of the participants is set by the role position. At the same time, those used in communication construct a situation. Speech is considered one of the most important tools that contribute to the approval of a person. The formation of an adequate understanding of the linguistic message between the participants in communication is carried out using different ways of designating social relationships within which communication is supposed to unfold. Along with direct representations, in which the most significant ones are indicated with the role of participants, there are also indirect ones. The latter are means of a socio-symbolic type and are used to demonstrate the status and role positions of interlocutors. One of these tools is the appeal in Russian. Let's consider this tool in more detail.
Appeals. General information
What is an address in Russian? This construction can reveal the social hierarchy, with equality of status - to express the personal attitude of one interlocutor to another. In this case, special words-addresses can be used. In Russian, as, indeed, in other speech systems, such constructions can indicate the title of the person with whom the dialogue is being conducted. Such elements, in particular, include "sir", "your honor", "your majesty" and others. At the same time, forms of address in Russian can emphasize the informality or, on the contrary, the formality of relations. For example: "my friends", "comrades", "ladies and gentlemen", "dearest", "respected", "darling", "son" and others. I must say that a similar function is inherent in a number of structures used as farewells or greetings. For example: "Hello", "Hello", "Salute", "All the best" and others.
civil status
Speaking about what such an appeal is in the Russian language, one should also mention the position of a person in society, which is clearly indicated by certain elements. In this question, both civil status and a certain assessment of the interlocutor are considered. In the first case, one can take as an example the following constructions: "citizen Petrov", "comrade Ivanov", "Ivan Petrovich". The following can be cited as evaluative elements: “Do you understand the task?”, “Did you care why this is so?”, “If it’s easier for you to start with this, please. But in general, I would like you to later…”. It is believed that such an address in Russian as "assistant manager" (instead of "ticketer"), "sanitary officer" (can be used instead of "garbage man"), contributes to an increase in social status and self-esteem of a person.
"Deliberate Imitation"
There are different types of addresses in Russian. In general, the topic under consideration is not limited to specific constructions, the meaning of which is directly directed at the interlocutor. Intentional imitation during pronunciation acts as a verbal socio-symbolic means. So, for example, often, in order for the child to better understand the parents, the latter adjust their speech to the nursery. But on the other hand, when there is a desire to move away from the interlocutor or a group of people, you can use elements, on the contrary, emphasizing the differences. For example, French Canadians like it better when their politicians deliver their speeches to the public in English, using a strong French accent (even if the politician speaks pure English). In the Russian language, as a rule, this difference is reflected in the style of speech.
"High" and "low" styles
This tool also refers to the tools of verbal socio-symbolic communication. This group can be divided into several subgroups. "High" style implies emphatically correct and correct construction and further use of words and their combinations. Such speech is perceived as more formal, official, somewhat distant. "Low" style is As a rule, slang words and slang prevail here. Such pronunciation is perceived as informal.
"Influential" style
Using certain techniques, the speaker can contribute to the creation of a certain image. So, for example, the use of certain constructions can make a person more confident in the eyes of others or more influential. But the opposite can also happen. An inappropriately used speech element can remove interlocutors from a person, and he will lose the favor of others. Someone who speaks words in an influential way tends to use the following sentence construction: "Let's have dinner tonight" instead of "I think we could have dinner tonight." It is believed that such an appeal in Russian, as given in the first case, implies a call to action, directs the interlocutor to commit it.
"Influential" style
The researchers identified several forms of messages that do not have a significant impact on the interlocutor. These include, in particular:
"you" and "you"
Changing the style of address can be in itself a technique that is aimed at "lowering" or "raising" the status of the interlocutor. It is believed that such an address in Russian as "you" is associated with friendly, informal relations. While "you" reflects emotional distance, formality, formality.
Chantilly Castle - the second in France after Versailles Chantilly Castle how to get from Paris
Amusement park "The Land of Legends Theme Park" in Turkey
Holy places in Greece. Greece Orthodox. Pilgrimage to the feast of St. Nicholas
Picodi: All discounts in one place!
How to get to Dolmabahce Palace