1 national and literary language. Literary and national languages

The difference between language and speech

The main object of linguistics is the natural human language, in contrast to the artificial language or the language of animals.

Two closely related concepts should be distinguished - language and speech.

Language- a tool, a means of communication. This is a system of signs, means and rules of speaking, common to all members of a given society. This phenomenon is constant for a given period of time.

Speech- the manifestation and functioning of the language, the process of communication itself; it is unique for every native speaker. This phenomenon is variable depending on the speaker.

Language and speech are two sides of the same phenomenon. Language is inherent in any person, and speech is inherent in a particular person.

Speech and language can be compared to a pen and text. Language is a pen, and speech is the text that is written with this pen.

The main functions of the language are as follows:

1. Communicative function Language as a means of communication between people. This is the main function of the language.

2. Thought-forming function Language is used as a means of thinking in the form of words.

3. Cognitive (epistemological) function Language as a means of knowing the world, accumulating and transferring knowledge to other people and subsequent generations (in the form of oral traditions, written sources, audio recordings).

CONNECTION OF LANGUAGE AND MIND

1. Human thinking is verbal thinking. Its formation occurs in the process of communication between people. The formation of specifically human thinking in ontogenesis is possible only in the joint activity of an adult and a child.

Thinking as the highest mental function has four interrelated features, each of which in its own way characterizes the role of speech in its development:

human thinking - social, "divided" between people, has a social nature of labor activity, and for its implementation speech is necessary as a means of communication;

· thinking arises as a process mediated first by material tools of labor, and then by a system of signs, including oral and written speech, i.e. means of consolidating and transferring socio-historical experience;

conceptual, logical thinking- arbitrary, speech acts as a system of means, mastering which a person can consciously control the thought process, organize joint mental activity;

The extremely important and complex question of the relationship between language and thinking is one of the central problems of general linguistics. It's not only deep theoretical problem related to general questions of linguistics. Possessing methodological significance, it determines the directions of linguistic research and its methods. Thus, it intrudes into many specific linguistic problems of semasiology, lexicology, morphology and syntax.

It is quite obvious that within the framework of one lecture there is no way to consider the problem of the relationship between language and thinking in the totality of its aspects and particular tasks. Such an attempt would either lead to its simplification, and thereby inevitable distortion, or to a dogmatically unsubstantiated formulation of a number of propositions that must be taken on faith. We will consider only some and, as it seems, the most relevant aspects of the problem of the relationship between language and thinking.

First general question What needs to be resolved before proceeding to the consideration of individual aspects of the broad problem of language and thinking is to clarify the nature of the relationship between these two most important categories. One must clearly understand what lies behind those general formulas.

One of the authors of the collection "Thinking and Language" (V.3. Panfilov) points to the inconsistency in the interpretation of the question of the relationship between language and thinking (as well as the question of the forms of thinking among the deaf-mutes), which has recently been allowed in Soviet linguistic literature.

Dating back to Marx and Engels, the proposition about the unity of language and thought is one of the most essential methodological principles of Marxist linguistics. Marx called language "the immediate reality of thought", "practical, existing for other people, and only that existing and for myself a real consciousness." In these statements and in all others where Marx and Engels speak of the connection between thinking and language, they always talk about language as a whole, and not about its individual components that can enter into connection with thinking and play a certain role in its processes. Meanwhile, another point of view is possible (it was introduced by Stalin into Soviet linguistics), which, as it were, introduces a clarification into the methodological position of Marxist linguistics about the connection between thinking and language. According to this point of view, thinking always proceeds on the basis of linguistic terms or ("sound") words and expressions. If we correlate such an interpretation with the question of the forms of thinking in deaf-mutes, then this means that either they are not capable of thinking (since they are not able to rely on "sound" words and expressions), or their thinking, relying on language, uses some its other elements or forms, thanks to which the thinking of the deaf and dumb functions without relying on "sound" words and expressions.

All the evidence we have speaks against the above qualification, which actually identifies language with words. They implicitly force us to accept the second of these possible solutions the question of the forms of thinking in the deaf and dumb. Deaf-mutes, of course, think, although their thought is not clothed in the verbal forms characteristic of people who use spoken language. This means that the connection of language with thinking is not necessarily carried out through the mediation of "sound" words. The solution of this particular issue allows us to draw conclusions about the broader problem of the connection between language and thinking.

First of all, it should be noted that psychology distinguishes three types of thinking: figurative, technical and conceptual. As the name itself shows, figurative thinking is thinking in images and reaches the greatest power of manifestation in people of artistic and creative work: painters, sculptors, writers, etc. This type of thinking is carried out in extralinguistic forms. In the same way, a mechanic who examines a damaged motor, having made a series of tests and found out the causes of damage, and thereby making a definite judgment about what needs to be done to fix the motor, carries out this kind of thought process also in extralinguistic forms. In this second case, there is technical type thinking. And only the conceptual type of thinking, operating with concepts that are formed through generalization processes (this is primarily what distinguishes conceptual thinking from figurative and technical thinking), proceeds in linguistic forms.

Both figurative and technical thinking, apparently, is also present in higher animals (monkeys, dogs, cats, etc.), but conceptual thinking is only in humans. Therefore, as it seems, it would be possible not to mention the first two (and extralinguistic) types of thinking and take into account only conceptual thinking. In order to distinguish from all side questions that may arise during a detailed consideration of the problem of the relationship between language and thought that interests us, the further presentation will follow this path. However, one should not lose sight of the fact that in human mental activity all three types of thinking are closely intertwined. In certain cases (as in deaf-mutes) they are able to provide mutual assistance, and that, finally, in many respects the diffuse forms of figurative and technical thinking of higher animals cannot be compared with the same types of thinking in humans, in whom they are disciplined by conceptual thinking and have a purposeful character. .

In conceptual thinking, in turn, it is necessary to distinguish between its connections with language and with words. The fact that these are not identical phenomena convinces us of the example already discussed above with the language and thinking of the deaf and dumb. Their thinking is based on those forms of language that are available to them, and does not proceed in verbal (verbal) forms. But at the same time, it should not be assumed that the language of the deaf-mute is a completely independent formation, that each deaf-mute creates his own language. As evidenced by objective observations, the language of the deaf-mutes is a derivative of the language of the non-deaf-mutes, in whose environment they live. This is an inevitable consequence of the fact that deaf-mutes are in constant communication with people who speak a spoken language, and, therefore, must inevitably be guided by those features of a particular language that is in use by a given society.

Language is not only "sound" words, but also certain structural relationships between its elements, certain forms, certain schemes for constructing speech, certain types of division of the world of concepts. And all these parts of the language are capable of being perceived by the deaf and dumb and actually perceive and build on them their own forms of language that do not have a "sound" character.

To make it clear what we are talking about in this case, let's look at an example. In a sentence in any Indo-European language, "a peasant cuts a chicken," in fact, much remains unsaid, although we do not notice this, as we have grown accustomed to the peculiarities of our native languages. Having heard this proposal, we do not know whether the peasant (invisible to us, but standing outside the door, not far from me, and you are sitting over there, far from me) is cutting the chicken (belonging to you) or whether the peasant (who lives next door to you and now standing over there, we see him) a chicken (belonging to him). And in the language of the Quacutle Indians there are special "pointing" elements that communicate all this Additional information missing in our languages. Therefore, a deaf-mute living among this tribe of Indians and communicating with his fellow tribesmen in one way or another, just as mentally, for himself, must note all these additional and optional moments from the point of view of the structure of our languages, otherwise the sentence will be incomplete and incomprehensible. According to L. Levy-Bruhl, in many Australian languages ​​there are not two numbers, but four - singular, dual, triple (which is also subdivided into inclusive and exclusive) and plural. The deaf-mutes, "speaking" these languages, must differentiate this or that action according to these four persons. In the Ewe language (Africa) there is no verb for the process of walking at all. The verb is used only with additional characteristics (over 30), which convey various types of the walking process - quickly, hesitantly, dragging legs, small steps, jumping, important, etc. Therefore, the deaf-mutes associated with this language are not able to convey the process of walking in general, but only a completely concrete form of this process (within the limits of the verbs of walking existing in the Ewe language). In other words, unless you count a small number of universal “pictorial” gestures, with the help of which you can “agree” only on the most elementary things (and even then not always, since many gestures have a conditional meaning, the language of the deaf and dumb, who live a full spiritual life, although and does not wear verbal forms, in many respects it always relies on the structure of the sound language.

Extremely interesting data on the difference between verbal and linguistic forms of thinking are provided by studies on the inner speech of a remarkable Russian psychologist - L.S. Vygotsky. Vygotsky bases his research on inner speech, i.e., on linguistic forms of thinking, “speech for oneself, and not for others,” on a large experimental material and extensive use of the existing literature on the subject, which makes his conclusions particularly convincing. The merits of his work also include a very careful and careful handling of the achieved facts, showing that he took to heart the words of L. Tolstoy that “the relation of the word to thought and the formation of new concepts is ... a complex, mysterious and gentle process souls."

Based on the premise that “a thought is not expressed in a word, but is accomplished in a word,” Vygotsky, as a result of his observations, comes to the conclusion that “inner speech is, in the exact sense, speech almost without words.” This conclusion is determined by the functions and forms of inner speech. “Inner speech,” he writes, “turns out to be a dynamic, unstable, fluid moment, flickering between the more formalized and persistent extreme poles of the speech thinking we are studying: between word and thought. Therefore, its true meaning and place can be clarified only when we take one more step inward in our analysis and manage to form at least the most general idea of ​​the next and firm plane of speech thinking.

This new plane of speech thinking is thought itself. The first task of our analysis is to single out this plane, to isolate it from the unity in which it always occurs. Every thought strives to connect something with something, has movement, section, deployment, establishes a relationship between something and something, in a word, performs some function, work, solves some problem. This flow and movement of thought does not directly and immediately coincide with the development of speech (i.e., its division into individual words, as Vygotsky writes above). Units of thought and units of speech do not match. One and the other processes reveal unity, but not identity. They are connected with each other by complex transitions, complex transformations, but do not cover each other, like straight lines superimposed on each other.

The truncated, reduced, predicative, and virtually nonverbal nature of inner speech does not at all mean that thinking is carried out in extralinguistic forms. Language creates the basis for thinking in the forms of inner speech with its other aspects, the same ones that we meet in the thinking of the deaf and dumb: structural relations and types of articulation of its elements, forms, schemes for constructing speech. All these aspects of language undoubtedly leave their mark on the forms of inner speech of a person who speaks a certain language. This means that inner speech does not have a universal character independent of structural features certain languages, but, on the contrary, is directly dependent on these latter.

At the same time, the above formulation of the question by no means deprives the word of all those necessary, extremely important, and essentially obligatory functions for the sound language that it performs. Outside the word, there is no sound language that has made an important contribution to the creation human society who accompanied humanity throughout its entire journey, giving it a powerful tool for its progress. Outside the word, thought has no real existence. Vygotsky also comes to these final conclusions after his subtle and careful analysis of the forms of the relationship between language and thinking. “A word devoid of thought,” he concludes, “is, first of all, a dead word ... But even a thought that is not embodied in a word remains a Stygian shadow, “fog, ringing and gaping,” as the poet says. Hegel considered the word as being animated by thought. This being is absolutely necessary for our thoughts.”

The word is a treasure trove human culture. Another poet is right when he says:

The tombs, mummies and bones are silent, -

Only the word is given life:

From the ancient darkness, on the world churchyard,

Only letters are heard.

And we have no other property!

Know how to save

Though to the best of my ability, in the days of anger and suffering,

Our immortal gift is speech.

(I. A. Bunin)

Concluding our consideration of this question, we thus have reason to conclude that the relation of language to thought can take on various forms and that conceptual thought necessarily takes place in linguistic forms, but not necessarily in verbal ones. This establishes the absolute correctness general position Marx and Engels on the unity (but not identity) of language and thought. More detailed and based on experimental data studies of this issue, revealing the great complexity of these relationships, clarifying and concretizing them, not only do not contradict this position, but completely confirm it. On the other hand, the identification of language with "sound" words leads to an unjustified simplification of the whole problem and does not contribute to its deeper knowledge.

The concept of national and literary language

It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of the Russian national language and Russian literary language. The national language is all spheres of speech activity of people, regardless of education, upbringing, place of residence, profession. It includes dialects, jargons, i.e. the national language is heterogeneous: it contains special varieties of the language.

Unlike the national language, literary language is a narrower concept. Literary language is a processed form of common mother tongue which, to a greater or lesser extent, has written norms.

Literary language - highest form of the national language, taken by its speakers as exemplary, is a historically established system of commonly used linguistic elements, speech means that have undergone long-term cultural processing in the texts of authoritative masters of the word, in the oral communication of educated native speakers of the national language. the literary language serves various spheres of human activity: politics, legislation, culture, verbal art, office work, interethnic communication, everyday communication.

Literary language is opposed to colloquial speech: territorial and social dialects used by limited groups of people living in a certain area or united in relatively small social groups, vernacular - supra-dialectal non-codified oral speech of limited topics.

There is a relationship between the literary language and these forms of existence of the national language. The literary language is constantly replenished and updated at the expense of colloquial speech. Such interaction with folk colloquial speech is also characteristic of the Russian literary language.
The development of the literary language is directly related to the development of the culture of the people, primarily its fiction, whose language embodies best achievements national speech culture and the national language as a whole.

The literary language, including the Russian literary language, has a number of features that distinguish it from other forms of existence of the national language. Among them are the following:

1. Tradition and written fixation (almost all developed literary languages ​​are written).
2. Obligatory nature of norms and their codification.
3. Functioning within the literary language of colloquial speech along with book speech.
4. An extensive polyfunctional system of styles and an in-depth stylistic differentiation of means of expression in the field of vocabulary, phraseology, word formation.
5. The literary language is characterized by the category of variance, which finds its expression, first of all, in the synonymous series of linguistic units and their variants, which have stylistic and semantic, semantic shades.
6. For all evolutionary changes experienced by the literary language as any living socio-cultural formation, it is characterized by flexible stability, without which the exchange of cultural values ​​between generations of speakers of a given literary language is impossible.

characteristic features literary language are:

polyfunctionality, those. the ability to convey the experience gained by people in various areas of their activity, and as a result, be used in all speech areas. The consequence of polyfunctionality is the presence of a developed system of functional styles;

normalization and binding standards for everyone who uses the language, regardless of the social, professional, territorial or national affiliation of the speaker. Public approval of the norm (ie the totality of the most stable and unified language means and rules for their use, consciously fixed and cultivated by society) occurs through its codification in grammars and dictionaries;

processed by masters of the word, suggesting a wealth of expressive means: a variety of ways and options for naming objects, phenomena and their evaluation, differing in semantic, stylistic or emotionally expressive shades. Literary Russian is the language of literature, science, periodicals, schools, theater, radio and television, oral communication of educated people. This is a language that is the subject of attention and care on the part of both state bodies, masters of the artistic word, philologists, and a huge army of lovers of the native word.

To a certain extent, folk dialects are opposed to the literary language, which is a public property. Dialects are common in limited areas and have their own specific, local language features at the level of phonetics, vocabulary and grammar.

In conclusion, we emphasize that the literary version of the national Russian language is a normalized language processed by masters of the word. Live communication alone in the appropriate social environment is not enough for its complete assimilation, its special study and constant self-control over the literary character of one's oral and written speech are necessary. But the reward for mastering the high style and all the functional variants of the native language will be high status, respect for a person with a high culture of communication, trust, freedom, self-confidence and personal charm.

NATIONAL LANGUAGE (NE) In philosophy and linguistics, there is a thesis about the unity of the NE. If we keep in mind that the GL functions in a variety of its forms, such as literary language, dialect languages ​​(otherwise called dialects), colloquial language (otherwise called vernacular), social languages ​​(or social and professional dialects [jargons]), it should be clarified that the mentioned unity of the NE is nothing but the dialectical unity of its varieties. True, the structure of the Russian GL is not always interpreted in the same way by different researchers. So, Yu. V. Rozhdestvensky differentiates the Russian NY as follows: literary Russian, the language of fiction, rural or local, dialects, urban vernacular, professional jargons (otherwise unwritten arg ó ) 3 [Rozhdestvensky 2002: 129–130].

According to V. V. Vinogradov, the presented device of the NY reflects two realities: social and psychological. “The social reality consists in the fact that the language in its peripheral areas breaks up into separate spheres of communication associated with division in the areas of everyday life, differentiation of occupations and literary and written practice. The psycholinguistic reality is that language changes are reflected in the linguistic consciousness of its speakers, i.e. there is a change in the assessments of the facts of the language by speakers and writers in this language. Thus, a literary educated person evaluates and distinguishes the facts of a language related to the general literary language from the facts of the author's literary and artistic language, and the facts of these two kinds - from scientific and technical terminologies (jargon), dialects and vernacular" [Rozhdestvensky 2002: 130].

National language – language, which is the means of written and oral communication of the nation. NY is a historical category: it develops during the period of development of a nationality into a nation. A nation as a historical community of people is characterized by a common language, territory, economic life and mental make-up, manifested in a common culture [PR. Encyclopedia: 410].

In structural-linguistic In terms of NY, it completely inherits the structure of the national language. NY is a national language, that is, it is formed by all types of speech means of communication between people: systems of territorial dialects, social dialects (jargons), vernacular and the system of the literary language. This is the totality of a given language, united by the commonality of the main vocabulary, grammatical and, to a certain extent, phonetic systems. In the real structure of the GL, two kinds of phenomena are combined in one row: these are the permanent elements of the language system that equally exist in any type of GL, and the mobile elements that are present in one or more varieties of the GL and are absent in another or its other varieties. With all the variety of moving elements, they never play a decisive role in the language; the possibility of mutual understanding of people speaking the GL is determined by the presence of constant elements of the language that allow us to talk about a single GL.

The systems included in the GL are unequal: local dialects are doomed to die out in the process of developing the GL, the literary language is called upon to displace and replace all other varieties of the GL. “Dialect speech, as unwritten speech, is gradually losing its differences, since, along with the development of literacy and literary education, the population is moving to the general use of the Russian literary language. Dialect differences persist only among the semi-literate, predominantly rural population” [Rozhdestvensky 2002: 129].

Subjected to regulation and regulation, oral literary speech is gradually becoming a form of NY that is potentially ready to become the only means of oral communication between people in official and informal situations of communication. Thus, the development of the language in the national era turns the literary language of the nation into a processed, normalized, higher type of NY, which has both written and oral-colloquial forms.

normalization- the most important feature of the highest form of NY, and national norms are developed first in grammar, vocabulary and spelling, later - in orthoepy.

Russian NY begins to take shape in the 17th century. At the same time, the literary language began to take shape. The era of the direct formation of the Russian literary language in Russian studies is considered to be the time boundary of the 18th-19th centuries. The founder of the Russian literary language is A. S. Pushkin. Since the beginning of the 19th century, the Russian literary language has been developing the already established structure, enriching the vocabulary and improving the grammatical structure.

It should be noted that the above-mentioned division of the national language into such varieties as the literary language, territorial dialects, vernacular, professional and social jargons, in relation to the Russian national language in its current state, is true only in its essence. Such a structure characterizes the Russian national language of the Pushkin and post-Pushkin (approximately until the middle of the twentieth century) pores, and this state of the national Russian language is reflected in most scientific and educational works. Thus, considering the various relationships between different forms of the existence of the Russian language, researchers interpret them as strictly delimited language formations, homogeneous in their structures (internal language structure) and compositions (a set of language tools). Or, describing the vernacular language, scientists call it such a subsystem of the Russian national language, which is used in speech communication by an uneducated or poorly educated part of the urban population. In the materials devoted to social jargon, much attention is paid to the so-called secret, or conditional, languages ​​used in relatively closed social groups of people that were once common in Russia - itinerant merchants, migrant artisans, beggars, etc.

The modern researcher L.P. Krysin rightly notes: “Although the allocation of these subsystems as a whole correctly reflects the picture of the social and functional differentiation of the Russian language, there is a lack of historicism and historical perspective in such division: it is quite obvious that the content of such concepts as “literary language”, “territorial dialect”, “vernacular”, “social jargon”, whether we mean the Russian language of Pushkin’s times or the Russian language used by the inhabitants of Russia at the end of the 20th century” [Krysin 2003: 33]. Such a statement of the linguist is objectively conditioned by the internal and external factors of the functioning of the language itself. Human language is not a once-and-for-all formation, it, like everything else in the world around us, is changing. Moreover, not only the language itself and its varieties are changing, but also the composition of speakers given language, as well as the composition of people owning its various territorial and social forms. Therefore, following the indicated and other linguists, we can state that in modern conditions different forms existence of the Russian language have changed their linguistic and social nature. “So, the literary language, in relation to the period of the late nineteenth - early twentieth centuries. considered as a single education, is now clearly divided into two independent varieties - book and conversation. Territorial dialects, subjected to the strongest shattering and leveling influence of the literary language, almost never exist in their pure form - intermediate formations that combine the features of a dialect, literary speech and vernacular are becoming more widespread. Among social jargons, corporate "languages", like the "language" of the ofenes, do not have a social basis for their existence (at least "relic"), but various forms of professional vernacular are being developed, both socially and functionally fundamentally different from corporate jargons. . Finally, the social status of vernacular and its linguistic essence have undergone such significant changes over the past half century that at present we can talk about a certain heterogeneity 4 of this subsystem of the Russian national language" [Krysin 2003: 34].

LITERARY LANGUAGE (LA) - the form of the historical existence of the national language, taken by its speakers as an exemplary one, is one of the systems of GL along with the system of vernacular, the system of territorial dialects and the system of social dialects (jargons). LA is a historically established system of linguistic elements, speech means that have undergone long-term cultural processing in texts (written and oral) of authoritative masters of the word, in oral communication of educated native speakers of the national language. The formation of the norms of LA is inextricably linked with the name of A. S. Pushkin. The language of the Russian nation at the time of the appearance of LA (XIX century) was very heterogeneous. A. S. Pushkin, choosing all the best from the folk language, crystallized in his works such a language that was accepted by society as an exemplary one. The functional purpose and internal organization of the LA are determined by the tasks of ensuring speech communication in the main areas of activity of the entire historically formed group of people who speak this national language. Language means of LA are called upon to most accurately, clearly and differentiatedly express the dialectically complex world of ideas, ideas, feelings of its bearers, the whole variety of objects, concepts of phenomena of reality in their interdependence and correlation with a person. The most expressive and commonly used national idioms are concentrated in LA, associated with the peculiarities of the worldview, expressed in the specifics of the Russian language picture of the world. LA is opposed to popular colloquial speech: territorial and social dialects used by limited groups of people living in a certain area or united in relatively small social groups, vernacular - supra-dialectal non-codified oral speech of limited topics. There is a relationship between the LA and these forms of existence of the NE. LA is constantly replenished and updated due to popular colloquial speech. Such interaction with folk colloquial speech creates the national identity of the Russian language.

The development of the LA is directly related to the development of the culture of the corresponding people, first of all, its fiction. The language of fiction (YHL (see)) embodies the best achievements of the national speech culture, the main advantages of the language of this people, the national language as a whole.

LA has the following features that distinguish it from other forms of existence of the national language:

1. Traditionalism and written fixation (practically all developed LA are written). Language in general, incl. and LA, traditional in nature. This is due to the very nature and purpose of LA: to be the language of culture, to ensure the historical, spiritual continuity of generations, people, nation. In different historical periods, LA is being improved: the already existing means of linguistic expression, stylistic trends adapt to new socio-cultural tasks and conditions of speech communication, taking into account mentality specifics, and in connection with this, some of them change. This is facilitated to the maximum extent by the fixation of intellectual, ideological-aesthetic, emotionally-expressive content in literary (mainly written, partly oral) texts. LA is traditional. One of the tasks of the teaching about the culture of speech is the preservation and development of the traditions of the national speech culture, their approval and promotion, the linguistic education of LA speakers on the best examples of the national speech culture.

2. Normization of the language (speech), universal validity of norms and their codification (fixation in dictionaries and reference books). “To be generally accepted, and therefore generally understandable” is the main property of a literary language, which, “in essence, only makes it literary” (L. V. Shcherba). Within the LA, all its units and all functional areas, i.e. both bookish and colloquial speech are subject to a system of norms, thanks to which the rational functioning (the term of L. V. Shcherba) of the LA is carried out. The codification of norms implies, on the one hand, their fixation in academic grammar, in explanatory dictionaries for LA, in a set of spelling rules, in a spelling dictionary, in various philological reference books of orthological purpose. On the other hand, the system of literary norms is taught in high school, they are obligatory for all print and electronic media, all types of printed products, for the theater, variety art, for oral public speaking, in official documents, official and business correspondence. Research and popular science, educational activities in the field of speech culture are focused specifically on the system of existing norms of the FL (specific FL), on the approval, strengthening, cultivation in speech practice (written and oral) of FL carriers, on the conscious, creative attitude of FL carriers towards them .

The language norm opens the way for new trends that are replacing obsolete, obsolete forms of LA, selects from the colloquial speech those linguistic elements that have or can acquire national significance.

3. LA - a dichotomous system that combines book (book-literary) speech and colloquial speech. The norms of book and colloquial speech constitute a single system of literary norms that are correlated with each other. The norms of colloquial literary speech are less "strict" in comparison with the norms of book speech. This, as a rule, is due to the informality and ease of communication between communicants, which do not require strict control over either how correctly the addressee speaks, or the extent to which the speech of his addressee is orthologically correct. The interaction and mutual correlation of these two main functional and stylistic spheres of the FL (when they are opposed to each other) ensure its socio-cultural purpose - to be a means of communication for FL speakers, the main means of expressing national culture. With serious changes in the conditions of the social existence of the Russian FL, determined by profound transformations in the social, political, cultural, economic life of society, the mutual permeability of book and colloquial speech in the FL intensifies. The convergence of these functional and stylistic spheres is observed not only in the Russian language, but also in many modern literary languages.

4. A branched polyfunctional system of styles and an in-depth stylistic differentiation of means of expression in the field of vocabulary, phraseology, word formation, grammatical variation, forming a single dynamic structure of LA.

The functional and stylistic stratification of LA is due to the social need to specialize language é dstva, to organize them in a special way in order to ensure the speech communication of LA carriers in each of the main areas of human activity. The same goals are served by the differentiation of stylistic means of expression. Functional varieties of LA are implemented in written and / or oral form. In modern LA, oral speech has become more active due to the development of the media, including electronic ones, the Internet style.

5. LA is inherent in the category of variance. This finds its expression in syntagmatic (linear, horizontal) and paradigmatic (columnar, vertical) rows of language units and their variants, which have stylistic (expressive-stylistic, functional-stylistic) and semantic (semantic) shades.

6. LA is characterized by a tendency towards functional and semantic demarcation of language units in overcoming duplication. This is associated, on the one hand, with the constantly implemented variability of means of expression inherent in the FL, on the other hand, such features typical of the FL as the richness and variety of lexico-phraseological and grammatical synonymy (as a distinctive feature of the FL), a branched and stylistically developed system of word formation, lexico-semantic differentiation of single-root words, semantic division of homonymy, subject-logical correlation of antonyms and conversives, deep stylistic differentiation of literary vocabulary. “The dignity of LA is determined ... by the wealth of ready-made opportunities to express various shades” (L. V. Shcherba). The dialectical nature of LA, the flexibility of its stylistic structure, are manifested in the interaction of ready-made means of expression and constantly renewed, creatively created expressive possibilities for conveying new concepts, ideas and other information, including through expedient word creation, leading to the emergence of occasional elocutionisms. 5

7. With all the evolutionary changes experienced by the LA, it is characterized by flexible stability (W. Mathesius). Without it, the exchange of cultural values ​​between generations of carriers of this LA is impossible. The stability of the LA is achieved, on the one hand, by maintaining stylistic traditions thanks to written texts, and on the other hand, thanks to the action of generally binding codified norms that serve as a reliable regulator of the synchronous existence and development of the LA. The stability of the Russian LA is also facilitated by its unity, integrity, and the absence of local variations.

To characterize a particular LA for understanding its national specifics, the social conditions of its existence, or the linguistic situation in which the LA is formed, functions and develops, are of fundamental importance (see Lecture 2). The importance of the language situation as a sociolinguistic category is determined by the fact that it has a cardinal multifaceted impact on LA: on the formation and implementation of a functional system of styles in speech communication, on the functioning and specific gravity individual styles, their interaction with other varieties of LA, the state of the system of norms, the interaction of LA with colloquial speech, the promotion to the core or retreat to the periphery of certain lexical and phraseological categories, grammatical variants and synonyms, the activation of certain evolutionary processes, primarily in vocabulary, phraseology, word formation, orthoepy, to a lesser extent in the syntax of LA, on the system of figurative means of artistic speech, on national idioms, on the typology of literary texts, their compositional and speech organization.

LA in the context of the doctrine of the culture of speech acts as a central, fundamental category. It is a factual basis for observations of speech phenomena, trends in literary speech, speech communication in general, and for their study in the aspect of speech culture. In addition, to develop recommendations on the appropriate use of language tools in certain contexts and situations of communication, in certain types of texts and genres, in certain functional and communicative conditions and circumstances. At the same time, in the circle of attention of the culture of speech, along with normative units, the norms of their use, there are also extra-literary phenomena (elements of colloquial speech, barbarisms, foreign inclusions, occasionalisms, obvious mistakes, involuntary and deliberate, as well as unusual - violation of literary norms - use normative means) appearing in literary texts, oral and written, usually used for certain stylistic purposes, with a special functional task. All of them are considered from the standpoint of the motivation for their use, from the point of view of compliance with the established traditions of the national speech culture, enshrined in artistic, journalistic, scientific, and partly folklore texts, in the everyday speech of LA speakers.

The main feature of modern LA is the existence of uniform norms common to all members of the national community and covering both book and colloquial speech, i.e. all spheres of speech communication. The main principle of LA becomes the principle of communicative-stylistic expediency and relevance.

LANGUAGE OF ART LITERATURE (YHL).

The correlation of the concepts "Literary language" and "Language of fiction" is important, as they are often confused.

If the concepts of GL and LA are related as general and particular: the concept of LA is narrower than the concept of GL: LA is one of the systems of GL, along with systems of extraliterary means (dialects, vernacular, jargon), then the correlation of the concepts of LA and YCL is more complicated and multifaceted.

Historically, YCL is a broader concept in relation to the concept of LA, since LA was formed through the language of the works of A.S. Pushkin, that is, through YCL. Today, YAHL is one of the LA book styles, which makes the concept of LA broader.

In this regard, it is worth noting the following. LA and YAHL are intersecting concepts. They have a common zone (overlay zone) and autonomous segments. All other book styles (except artistic) and colloquial style become the autonomy of LA, while non-literary elements (dialects, jargons, vernacular) that have the right to exist in the fabric of works of art, the purpose of which is an aesthetic impact on the interlocutor (in LA) should be called the autonomy of YCL. their use is unlikely). For YHL, see Lecture 10.

Literature:Vinogradov 1955: Vinogradov V. V. Results of the discussion of stylistics issues // Linguistics Issues. 1955. No. 1; Zemskaya 2004: Zemskaya E. A. Literary colloquial language // Language as an activity: Morpheme. Word. Speech. - M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2004. - 291-354; Krysin 2003: Krysin L.P. Social differentiation of the modern Russian national language system // Modern Russian language: Social and functional differentiation / Ros. academy of sciences. Institute of the Russian Language. V. V. Vinogradova. - M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2003; Pekarskaya 2000: Pekarskaya I.V. Contamination in the context of the problem of systematic stylistic resources of the Russian language. Parts 1, 2. - Abakan: Publishing House of KhSU named after. N.F. Katanov, 2000; Christmas 2002: Rozhdestvensky Yu. V. Lectures on General Linguistics: Textbook. - M .: ICC "Akademkniga", LLC "Dobrosvet", 2002; Russian language 1979: Russian language. Encyclopedia / Ed. F. P. Filina. – M.: Modern Encyclopedia, 1979. Panov 1979: Panov M. V. On the literary language // Russian language in the national school. 1972. No. 1; Shmelev 1977: Shmelev D.N. Russian language in its functional varieties. M., 1977.

There is a difference between the literary language and the national language. The national language appears in the form of a literary language, but not every literary language immediately becomes a national language. Each of the languages, if it is sufficiently developed, has two main functional varieties: the literary language and live colloquial speech. Every person masters live colloquial speech from early childhood - dialects, urban vernacular, youth and professional jargon, slang. The assimilation of a literary language occurs throughout the development of a person, right up to old age. The literary language should be generally understandable, that is, accessible to perception by all members of society. The literary language must be developed to such an extent that it can serve the main areas of human activity. In speech, it is important to observe the grammatical, lexical, orthoepic and accentological norms of the language. The national language is a system of several forms of language existence: the literary language (oral and written forms), the colloquial language (varieties of language and dialects). In the process of the formation of the national language, the relationship between the literary language and dialects changes significantly. The national literary language is a developing form that occupies a leading position, gradually replacing the dialects that dominated the early stages of language development, especially in the field of oral communication.

language norm. Norm functions. Kinds.

The language norm is a generally recognized exemplary, fixed in dictionaries, use of elements of the Russian language.

Norm functions.

1. Language protection function (helps the literary language maintain its integrity and intelligibility, protect the literary language from the flow of dialect speech).

2. The function of reflecting the history of the language (the norms reflect what has developed in the language historically).

Types of norms

1. Orthoepic norms - it is a set of rules that establish uniform pronunciation.

2. Lexical norms are the rules for the use of words in accordance with their meanings and compatibility possibilities.

3. Morphological norms are the rules for the formation of words and word forms.

4. Syntactic norms These are the rules for constructing phrases and sentences.

5. Stylistic norms- these are the rules for choosing language means in accordance with the situation of communication.

6. Spelling norms- spelling rules.

7. Punctuation norms- punctuation rules.

8. Dynamism of norms. The concept of norm variance.

The constant development of the language leads to a change in literary norms. What was the norm in the last century and even 15-20 years ago today may become a deviation from it. In the Russian language, grammatical norms, spelling and lexical norms. An example of a change in stylistic norms is the entry into the literary language of dialect and vernacular words. Each new generation relies on existing texts, stable turns of speech, ways of thinking. From the language of these texts, it selects the most the right words and turns of speech, takes from what was worked out by previous generations what is relevant for him, bringing his own to express new ideas, ideas, a new vision of the world. Naturally, new generations refuse what seems archaic, not consonant with the new manner of formulating thoughts, conveying their feelings, attitudes towards people and events. Sometimes they return to archaic forms, giving them new content, new perspectives of understanding.

Under the variance of the norm, we understand the existence of variant means in the synchronously considered literary norm.

orthoepic norms.

Orthoepic norms - it is a set of rules that establish uniform pronunciation. Orthoepy in the proper sense of the word indicates how certain sounds should be pronounced in certain phonetic positions, in certain combinations with other sounds, as well as in certain grammatical forms and groups of words, or even individual words, if these forms and words have their own pronunciation features.

Pronunciation of vowels.

In Russian speech, only vowels that are under stress are pronounced clearly: s[a]d, v[o]lk, d[o]m. Vowels that are in an unstressed position lose clarity and clarity.

· In an unstressed position (in all unstressed syllables, except for the first pre-stressed one) after hard consonants in place of the letter o pronounced briefly unclear sound, the pronunciation of which in different positions ranges from [s] to [a]. Conventionally, this sound is denoted by the letter [b].

After soft consonants in the first pre-stressed syllable in place of letters a, e, i pronounce sound, middle between [e] and [u]. Conventionally, this sound is indicated by the sign [and e].

· Vowel [and] after a solid consonant, preposition, or when the word is fused with the previous one, it is pronounced as [s].

Pronunciation of consonants.

The basic laws of pronunciation of consonants in Russian - stun and likeness.

· voiced consonants, standing before the deaf and at the end of words, are stunned.

· [G] pronounced like [X] in combinations of gk and gch.

Voiceless consonants before voiced ones are pronounced as their corresponding voiced ones.

· In the pronunciation of words with a combination of ch, there is a fluctuation, which is associated with a change in the rules of the old Moscow pronunciation. According to the norms of the modern Russian literary language, the combination ch that's how it's usually pronounced [h], this is especially true for words of bookish origin, as well as for relatively new words. Chn is pronounced like [sn] in female patronymics on –ichna.

Some words with a combination of ch in accordance with the norm have a double pronunciation.

In some words, instead of h be pronounced [w].

The letter g in the endings -whoa-, -his- reads like [in].

final -tsya and -tsya verbs are pronounced like [tsa].

· Pronunciation of borrowed words.

· As a rule, borrowed words obey modern orthoepic norms and only in some cases differ in features in pronunciation. For example, the pronunciation of the sound [o] is sometimes preserved in unstressed syllables(m [o] del, [o] asis) and solid consonants before the vowel [e]: an [te] nna, co [de] ks, ge [ne] tika). In most borrowed words, the consonants are softened before [e].

· Variant pronunciation is allowed in the words: dean, therapy, claim, terror, track.

· Pay attention to for setting the accent. Stress in Russian is not fixed, it is mobile: in different grammatical forms of the same word, the stress can be different:

Morphological norms.

Morphological norms are the rules for using grammatical forms different parts speech. Morphological norms regulate morphology- a section of linguistics, which includes the doctrine of word forms and ways of expressing grammatical meanings, as well as the doctrine of parts of speech and their features.

The morphological norm regulates word formation and inflection.

When morphological norms are violated, various speech errors. Examples of such violations are the use of words in a form that does not exist for them: shoes, theirs, victory, etc.

A typical violation of morphological norms is the use of a word in an inappropriate context or in a non-existent form. For example: imported shampoo, railway rail, patent leather shoes, registered parcel post, lobster - lobster, mongoose - mongoose, sprat - sprat. Many difficulties and fluctuations in terms of morphology arise in the formation and use of various grammatical forms and categories of nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals, verbs and verb forms.

1. Compoundly abbreviated words (abbreviations) formed by combining the first letters from the words of the full name determine their gender according to the gender of the leading word of the compound name. For example: CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States). The main word is commonwealth, which means an abbreviation of the middle gender. CIS arose…. ITAR (Information Telegraph Agency of Russia) is the main word agency, therefore they say: ITAR reported. However, sometimes in the minds of people, such words are associated with well-known ones by gender: if the ending is zero, then it is perceived as masculine. For example, Yulian Semenov titled his novel "TASS is authorized to announce." Or the housing office allowed ..., although the main word in the first example agency, in the second - office.

2. The gender of indeclinable nouns of foreign origin is defined as follows: if indeclinable nouns denote inanimate objects, they belong to the middle gender, except for the word coffee (coffee is masculine). For example: scarf, kimono, domino. If indeclinable words denote living beings, their gender depends on the gender of the latter: old frau, famous maestro, young croupier or young croupier. If they denote animals, birds, then they refer to the masculine gender, except when the female is meant: funny pony, huge chimpanzee. But chimpanzee feeding a baby.

The gender of nouns denoting geographical names is determined by the generic name: river, city, lake, island ( beautiful Capri, magnificent Sochi)

Indeclinable nouns, which have a generic name in Russian, correlate with the genus of the latter: salami- well. R. (sausage), kohlrabi- f.r. (cabbage).

The names of the letters refer to words of the middle gender: Russian BUT, capital D; the name of the sounds - middle or masculine: unstressed BUT - unstressed BUT; Note names are neuter: long mi.

The gender of nouns formed as a result of the addition of two words is determined depending on the animateness and inanimateness of the name. At animate nouns gender is determined by the word indicating the gender of the person: female astronaut- female, miracle hero- m.r. For inanimate nouns, the gender is determined by the gender of the first word: museum-apartment- m.r., dressing gown- cf.. If a compound noun has an indeclinable word in its composition, then the gender is determined by the inflected noun: cafe-dining room- f.r. taxi car- m.r.

3. Proper name and norms of its use.

Among proper names there is a large number of immutable, and determining the gender of such words can be difficult. Immutable proper names include:

1) foreign nouns with a vowel stem. For example: Rabelais, Sochi. Ontario and etc.;

2) Ukrainian surnames ending in -ko: Matvienko, Sergienko, Shevchenko etc.;

3) Russian surnames ending in - s, - them, - ago, - ya

go, - ovo: Black, White, Durnovo, Zhivago, etc.;

4) Women's surnames with a basis in a consonant: Voynich, Perelman, Chernyak etc.;

6) names - abbreviations formed by adding the first letters: BSPU, Moscow State University, power lines.

syntactic rules.

Syntactic norms- these are norms that regulate the rules for constructing phrases and sentences. Along with morphological norms, grammatical norms are formed.

Syntactic norms regulate both the construction of individual phrases (attaching definitions, applications, additions to the main word), and the construction of entire sentences (word order in a sentence, subject and predicate agreement, the use of homogeneous members, participial and adverbial phrases, the connection between parts complex sentence).

Order of words in a sentence

In Russian, word order in a sentence relatively free. The main one is the direct word order adopted in the neutral style: subject + predicate: students write lecture.

Changes in word order depend on the actual division of the sentence - the movement of thought from the known (theme) to the new (rheme). Compare: The editor read the manuscript. The editor has read the manuscript.

A change in word order is called an inversion. Inversion is a stylistic technique for highlighting individual members of a sentence by rearranging them. Usually inversion is used in works of art.

Difficult cases of agreement between subject and predicate

The relationship between subject and predicate is called coordination and is expressed in the fact that the subject and predicate are consistent in their general categories: gender, number. However, there are also difficult cases of coordination. Usually in such cases, the subject has a complex structure - it includes several words.

Coordination of definitions with the word being defined

1) Definition + counting turnover (= numeral + noun). What matters is the position the definition occupies!

Definition ahead of the countable turn: in the form of the Nominative case: recent two years, new five letters young three girls.

· Definition within countable turnover: in the Genitive case for masculine and neuter nouns, and for nouns female- in the nominative case: two recent years, five new letters, three young girls.

2) Homogeneous definitions+ noun (denoting similar but separate objects):

a noun in the singular, if objects and phenomena are closely related in meaning or have a terminological character: In the right and left half Houses. Industrial and agricultural a crisis.

a noun in the plural, if you need to emphasize the difference between objects and phenomena: Biological and chemical faculties . Amateur and professional tournaments .

3) Definition + homogeneous nouns: the definition is in the singular or in the plural, depending on whether it refers in meaning to the nearest word or to the entire phrase: Russian literature and art. Capable student and student.

4). Definition + noun with attachment: the definition agrees with the main word (that is, with the noun): new laboratory car.

Coordination of applications with the word being defined

Applications have an additional meaning in relation to the noun (profession, status, occupation, age, nationality). For this reason, it is perceived as a single unit with the noun:

1) the application, which is written with a hyphen, is consistent with the word being defined: on the new sofa e-bed and .

2) appendices that are written separately from the defined word do not agree with the defined word: in the newspaper "Working Territory".

þ The norm related to the harmonization of geographical names is being changed. Today it is possible to coordinate with the word being defined Russian geographical names and names on -and I : In the city of Smolensk, in the village of Goryukhino, on the Volga River, in the Republic of India.

However, there is no such agreement in the case of foreign geographical names and astronomical names: In Texas, on Mount Elbrus, on the planet Venus.

Features of the use of homogeneous members

There are rules for constructing sentences with homogeneous members:

1) It is impossible to make words that are heterogeneous in meaning homogeneous members. Wrong: By that time he already had a young wife and big library .

2) It is impossible to make words with generic and specific meanings homogeneous members (only: genus → species!). Wrong: Release of equipment(generic concept), devices and instruments(species concept).

3) It is impossible to make lexically and grammatically incompatible words homogeneous members. Wrong: Wishes and conclusions expressed(only: Wishes are expressed and conclusions are drawn). Supervise and manage work(only: To supervise and supervise the works).

4) It is impossible to make homogeneous members grammatically and syntactically different words(different parts of speech, word and part of a complex sentence). Wrong: Books help us in our studies and generally learn a lot of new things.(only: Books help us in our studies, give us the opportunity to learn a lot of new things). Wrong: The dean talked about academic performance and that exams are starting soon(only: The dean talked about academic performance and exams that will be coming soon).

5) If there is a preposition before homogeneous members, it should be repeated before each homogeneous member: Information received as from official and from unofficial sources.

7. The use of participial and participial phrases

It is necessary to follow the rules for constructing sentences with the participial and action participle turnover:

1) The participial turnover should not include the word being defined. Wrong: Fulfilled plan plant(only: factory-made plan or factory-made plan).

2) Participles agree with the word being defined in the form of gender, number and case, and with the predicate in the form of time. Wrong: He went down the path paved his father(only: padded). Wrong: speaker with a closing speech, the speaker answered questions (only: speaker).

3) Participles cannot have the form of the future tense and cannot be combined with the particle by. Wrong: A student who is about to graduate. Wrong: Plans that would find leadership support.

þ If it is difficult to correct a sentence with a participial turnover, the sentence can be restructured into an NGN with an attributive clause (with allied word which).

1) The actions of the predicate and adverbial turnover are performed by one subject. Wrong: Passing the station, I flew off hat (only: when I drove up to the station, my hat fell off).

2) The adverbial turnover should not be attached to impersonal and passive constructions. Wrong: Opening the window, I It became cold(only: when I opened the window, I froze).

þ If it is difficult to correct a sentence with an adverbial turnover, the sentence can be restructured into NGN with an adverbial clause (with conjunctions when, if, because).

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-02-13

It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of the Russian national language and the Russian literary language.

The national language is all spheres of speech activity of people, regardless of education, upbringing, place of residence, profession. It includes dialects, jargons, i.e. the national language is heterogeneous: it contains special varieties of the language.

Unlike the national language, literary language is a narrower concept. The literary language is a processed form of the national language, which has, to a greater or lesser extent, written norms.

The literary language is the highest form of the national language, accepted by its speakers as an exemplary one, it is a historically established system of commonly used language elements, speech means that have undergone long-term cultural processing in the texts of authoritative masters of the word, in the oral communication of educated native speakers of the national language. the literary language serves various spheres of human activity: politics, legislation, culture, verbal art, office work, interethnic communication, everyday communication.

Literary language is opposed to colloquial speech: territorial and social dialects used by limited groups of people living in a certain area or united in relatively small social groups, vernacular - supra-dialectal non-codified oral speech of limited topics. There is a relationship between the literary language and these forms of existence of the national language. The literary language is constantly replenished and updated at the expense of colloquial speech. Such interaction with folk colloquial speech is also characteristic of the Russian literary language.

The development of the literary language is directly related to the development of the culture of the people, especially its fiction, the language of which embodies the best achievements of the national speech culture and the national language as a whole.

The literary language, including the Russian literary language, has a number of features that distinguish it from other forms of existence of the national language. Among them are the following:

1. Tradition and written fixation (almost all developed literary languages ​​are written).

2. Obligatory nature of norms and their codification.

3. Functioning within the literary language of colloquial speech along with book speech.

4. An extensive polyfunctional system of styles and an in-depth stylistic differentiation of means of expression in the field of vocabulary, phraseology, word formation.

6. With all the evolutionary changes experienced by the literary language as any living socio-cultural formation, it is characterized by flexible stability, without which the exchange of cultural values ​​between generations of speakers of a given literary language is impossible.

Any developed language, including Russian, performs a variety of functions, is used in a variety of situations, in large areas and in the most different people, which are sometimes united by only one common property- they all speak this language, so the latter has a complex and branched structure. In this regard, it becomes necessary to introduce a number of concepts (later they will be actively used in other chapters) that make it possible to reflect the differentiation of the language and give an idea of ​​the features and purpose of each of its varieties.

The Russian language has a rich history and is constantly evolving. Naturally, to read, say, "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" without translation modern man is extremely difficult, therefore, to begin with, it is necessary to determine when the language appeared that can serve as a means of communication for us without requiring translation from Russian into Russian, i.e., in other words, to introduce chronological boundaries modern Russian language.

In Russian studies, it is believed that the modern stage of development of the Russian language begins with the era of A.S. Pushkin - approximately from the 1830s. It was then that the literary variety of the language was formed, which still serves as the basis for the development of the dictionary, grammar, and the system of functional styles, and phonetics, and orthoepy. It is this circumstance that serves as the basis for counting the current stage in the development of the Russian language.

A huge role in creating the system of the modern literary language as a set of means of expression and ideas about the literary norm as the basis of this system was played by A. S. Pushkin, who went down in history not only as the "sun of Russian poetry" (in the words of V. F. Odoevsky), but also as a great reformer - the creator of the modern Russian literary language.

However, almost 200 years have passed since Pushkin's time, and the language has inevitably undergone significant changes, especially in the 20th century. During this period, first the October Revolution, and after 70 years the collapse of the USSR significantly influenced the development of both the lexical-phraseological, grammatical (albeit to a lesser extent), and especially the functional-stylistic system of the Russian language. There has also been a transformation social conditions his existence. For example, in connection with the introduction of compulsory school education after the revolution, the circle of native speakers of the literary language expanded. In connection with the ubiquity of the media, territorial dialects die off and remain only as a fact of the history of the language. Other changes are also taking place.

Although Pushkin's language remains both generally understandable and exemplary for us, we ourselves, of course, no longer speak, let alone write, Pushkin. This was noted back in the 1930s. Soviet linguist L. V. Shcherba: "It would be ridiculous to think that now you can write in the sense of the language quite in Pushkin's way." In this regard, it became necessary to single out a period at the present stage of the evolution of the language, which would take into account exactly the ongoing metamorphoses.

This is how the idea arose of the actual modern stage of language development, the beginning of which dates back to the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.

Thus, the stage of evolution of the modern Russian language begins with the reform of A. S. Pushkin, and within this period, from the beginning of the last century, the actual modern language which we use.

Now let's answer the question: what language is called national? In short, the national language is the language of the Russian nation as a whole, a developed multifunctional and multifaceted system. Being the main means of communication, it serves all spheres of public and private life of people and is essential element national consciousness and unity. Historically, the Russian national language has been formed into an integral entity since the 17th century. together with the transformation of the Great Russian people into the Russian nation.

On the one hand, the national language includes elements that are generally understood and generally accepted, used in any situation, and on the other hand, those whose use is limited either by attachment to a certain type of activity, or by territory, or by social reasons.

The structure of the national language can be represented as follows.

The core of the national language is literary Russian language, i.e. historically established exemplary form of existence of the national language, which has a number of the most important properties, which allow it to play the role of a generally understood, socially sanctioned means of communication and serve all the most important spheres of life. These properties are:

• 1. Literary language - processed tongue. All its elements (pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, stylistics) have gone through a long historical process of processing and selection in folk art in the works of writers and poets, in the language of other authoritative masters of the word, therefore the resources of the literary language are the most accurate, figurative and expressive and most adequate. reflect the features national mentality, create a Russian linguistic picture of the world, serve as the basis of Russian culture.
• 2. Literary language - normalized language, with an established generally accepted system of units of all levels and a unified system of rules for their use. Vocabulary, phraseology, grammatical forms of the literary language, as well as the rules for using these units (from pronunciation and spelling to stylistic features) are described and fixed in dictionaries, grammars, reference books, educational literature, and geographical, administrative, historical and some other names are fixed by law.
• 3. Literary language - language both traditional and developing. Each younger generation inherits the language of the older one, but at the same time develops those of its means and trends that most fully reflect its socio-cultural tasks and conditions of speech communication.
• 4. Literary language - integral branched stylistic system. In it, along with neutral means applicable in any situation, there are means that are stylistically colored. Stylistic coloring reflects the attachment of language resources to the oral or written form of the language, to various thematic areas, conveys various expressive, emotional and other shades of meaning. AT explanatory dictionaries, for example, this is reflected by the system of stylistic labels that a word or expression is supplied with: book.- bookstore unfold- colloquial iron. - ironic poet.- poetic rough.- rude mouth- obsolete, etc.

In addition, several functional styles are distinguished in the literary language - varieties of the literary language, each of which serves a specific area of ​​communication. According to the classification of V. V. Vinogradov, these styles include the following: colloquial, scientific, business, journalistic, style of fiction. Currently, the nomenclature of styles is being specified: in particular, many researchers single out a preaching, or religious, style.

5. Literary language functions in two varieties - book and colloquial. In general, any of the styles belongs to one of these forms. Business, scientific, journalistic, religious styles represent book speech, colloquial - respectively colloquial. Art style with its dominant aesthetic function, it combines both literary and colloquial features.

However, within the limits of book business and scientific styles, oral genres are distinguished (job interview, conference call, oral reprimand), and accordingly, the possibilities of using colloquial speech resources are expanding.

• 6. Literary Russian language accumulates all the best what is in national language. This allows him to be a model, to serve as a universal means of communication, to perform the functions state language and one of the working languages ​​of international communication.
• 7. Literary language - language that exists and functions in two varieties: oral and written(see 1.5). Written fixation, along with traditionality, allows the literary language to become the basis for the accumulation and inheritance of knowledge and experience of predecessors, the continuity from the older generation to the younger of the achievements of science, material and spiritual culture and civilization as a whole.

The periphery of the national language is vernacular, territorial dialects, social and professional jargons. Unlike literary, non-literary varieties of the national language, which will be discussed, of course, can be recorded in writing, but they function in oral form.

Territorial dialects- These are variants of the national language, characteristic of a particular area. They differ from each other in pronunciation. For example, in northern dialects they are okayut (they say words like beard, sequentially distinguishing sounds a and about), and in South Russian akayat (pronounce barada). Vocabulary is also partially different in different dialects (for example, delusional in the Pskov dialect means willow), phraseology, morphological and syntactic forms (for example, K. I. Chukovsky in the book "Alive, like life" gives a dialect form a person (What kind of person are you?), whereas in literary language the form Human). Invaluable observations of the dialectal features of word usage are given by the dictionary of V. I. Dahl.

In general, the subject of speech communication in folk dialects is rather limited, which is reflected in the thematic groups of vocabulary: rural and household, interpersonal relationships, folklore, traditions and rituals.

At present, due to the ubiquitous spread of electronic media focused on oral literary speech, the territorial dialects of the Russian language as integral systems, the territorial varieties of the national language are dying off. Only elderly people remained among their speakers, while younger people often retain only some features of dialectal pronunciation.

Remain outside the literary language jargon- group varieties of the national language. According to the functions and who are their carriers, they distinguish professional and social jargon. The first group is oral, everyday colloquial equivalents professional languages: jargon of doctors, lawyers, rock musicians, computer, etc. The second group is the jargon of social groups: school, student, sports fans, social bottom (drug addict, criminal), etc. Jargon is characterized by its own vocabulary, relatively quickly replaced and highly emotional, generally reduced stylistic coloring, the predominance of certain thematic groups in the vocabulary, its own phraseology, sources of its replenishment and word-formation models. So, for youth and school jargon, truncation of the bases is characteristic as a way of word formation (people- Human, teacher or prep - teacher, nerd, bot(from slang botanist)- a diligent student) and replenishment of the lexical composition to a large extent due to anglicisms and jargons of the social bottom.

In addition to the term "jargon", the concepts of "social dialect" (otherwise "sociolect"), "slang", "slang", "interjargon" are used to designate group varieties of the national language. The latter includes words common to several jargons, and this brings it closer to urban rough vernacular. Argo is a secret, secret group language, like thieves' slang.

Not included in the literary language and vernacular- the speech of an insufficiently educated part of the urban population, the urban lower classes. There are two types of vernacular: rude (starting from rough vocabulary and ending with taboo curses) and illiterate - non-normative (non-normative can be observed at the level of pronunciation, vocabulary, morphology, syntax).

Words that go beyond the literary language are not included in general language dictionaries and are recorded only in specialized publications, for example, in jargon dictionaries.