UFO of the Russian language M.F. Shatskaya. Contemporary Issues Russian language. Word formation and morphology. - M.: FLINTA: Nauka, 2014. - 152 p. - 300 copies. Not everything in a language can be fit into the existing morphological schemes; as a developing sign system, it constantly presents new

(Issues of linguistics. - M., 1973. - No. 2. - S. 3-12)

Many linguists pointed to the conventionality of the term "literary language" and, among other things, because it means not only the language of writing (written), but also the language of oral communication generally accepted by educated people. Various attempts have been made to replace this term with other designations, but they have all been unsuccessful. In particular, E. D. Polivanov proposed calling the literary language a standard language or dialect. This proposal has now been accepted
D. Brozovich, N. I. Tolstoy (“standard literary language”) and some other researchers. However, the name “standard” is unacceptable, at least on Russian soil, because one of its two meanings is “devoid of originality, originality; template, stencil ". Meanwhile, each literary language is original, original and unique. Comparative study of literary languages ​​can be fruitful if it takes into account not only the general that unites them, but also the special inherent in each of them. In any case, the term "literary language" continues to be in general use, and "standard language" and other replacements do not go beyond the jargon of a narrow circle of linguists. Here it is appropriate to recall that practice is the criterion of truth. However, it may be that the term "standard" is specifically linguistic, and the name "literary" is a common word, just as the formula H 2 O refers to chemical terminology, and the word water denotes a known object regardless of its chemical composition? However, H 2 O is a meaningful term, revealing what water consists of, and which " chemical composition» literary language defines jargon standard?

Of the numerous properties of the modern Russian literary language, in my opinion, first of all, the following should be singled out: 1) the ability to express all the knowledge accumulated by mankind in all areas of its activity, semantic universality, which determines its polyvalence, i.e., its use in all speech spheres , 2) the general obligatory nature of its norms as exemplary for everyone who owns and uses it, regardless of social, professional and territorial affiliation, 3) stylistic richness based on the presence of a variety of options for designating the same semantic units (with or without additional shades them) and means for special meanings that are relevant only in certain speech situations.

These properties are revealed by comparing the literary language with other varieties of the modern Russian language, as well as with past stages of its development. In addition to the literary language, modern Russian speech is represented by local (territorial) dialects, "semi-dialects", vernacular, professional dialects, jargons. As a kind of literary language, the unconstrained colloquial speech of educated people in everyday life is also distinguished. Separately, there is a huge area of ​​special vocabulary, which for the most part does not go beyond the limits of narrowly professional communication. Its presence allows us to raise the question of the existence of the vocabulary of a normalized language in the broad sense words. Finally, numerous artificial languages ​​(“sublanguages”) are rapidly developing, created in connection with the widespread use of computers and the various needs of science and technology, and in one way or another using the means of the Russian language. All these varieties of Russian speech are limited in their areas of use and cannot compete with the universal means of communication - the literary language.

The literary language and other varieties of the modern Russian language have complex relationships that largely determine their development and future fate.

It is well known that local dialects are currently in the process of destruction and extinction. A few decades ago, the vast majority of the Russian rural and some of the urban population spoke local dialects. Now, in connection with the spread of universal secondary education and a significant rise in culture, the circle of speakers of dialects has sharply narrowed. The vast majority of the population speaks a literary language or uses a kind of semi-dialects - a speech that is transitional from local traditional dialects to the correct literary language. Dialects as integral speech units with their own systemic organization, known from textbooks of Russian dialectology and other dialectological literature, now almost do not exist. Modern dialectologists have to extract the facts of archaic dialect systems from the general mass of real facts of dialect speech, digressing from the actual state of semi-dialects. In any case, representatives of relatively preserved local dialects have to be specifically sought out. Their speech is no longer typical of the mass speech of the rural and even more urban population. However, this does not mean that dialect features have completely disappeared and have ceased to influence the literary language in one way or another. Many of them turn out to be tenacious and remain in the form of separate elements in the speech of even highly educated people. In the speech of native speakers of the literary language, there may also be regionalisms of urban origin.

To some extent, the manifested dialect coloring of the speech of native speakers of the literary language served as the basis for asserting the existence of regional variants of the Russian literary language. However, this is a total misunderstanding. First of all, what does the word "variant" mean in relation to literary languages ​​and languages ​​in general? Explanatory dictionaries define the word option as a kind of something. A regional variant of a literary language is such a variety of it that is considered equally exemplary, socially approved, placed on the same plane as its other regional variety (or varieties). There are American and Australian regional versions of literary English, Canadian French, Central and South American Spanish, etc. But is there even the slightest reason to talk about Moscow, Voronezh, Arkhangelsk, Siberian, etc. regional variants of Russian literary language, equally exemplary and acceptable for all of us? There are no such grounds. It is impossible to put in one row the norms of the literary language and deviations from them. It is known that the literary explosive G(stunned in certain positions in To) is opposed to the South Great Russian fricative γ (stunned into X). The fricative γ is a rather stable phenomenon, it can be heard in the speech of many native speakers of the literary language - people from the South Great Russian regions. The same can be said about the bilabial w and its replacements, hardened labials at the end of words ( sem, love), traces of dissimilative akanya, okanya and related features, forms of pronouns genus-vin. case units numbers me, you, myself and about many other dialectal phenomena of all language levels, one way or another manifested in the speech of educated people as a regional sign. These and similar dialectal features are not at all variants of the corresponding literary norms; they are, without a doubt, located outside the limits of the literary language system and are doomed, as a rule, to gradual disappearance. It is necessary to study them, but not as variants of the literary language. In language fiction, and in certain cases outside of it, dialectisms are used to characterize the features of the speech of persons, eras, and for other stylistic purposes. In those cases when dialectisms acquire the rights of literary citizenship, they lose their regional character, becoming elements of the generally accepted literary language.

The situation is more complicated with phenomena that do not come from local dialects, but arise in cultural centers, but even in these cases the situation does not change in principle. It is known that the basis of modern Russian literary pronunciation is the so-called Old Moscow dialect, which became exemplary in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is usually opposed to the Petersburg dialect. Unfortunately, it is still little known how Moscow and St. Petersburg pronunciation varied within the literary norm in the 19th century - individual information and observations on this score are random and insignificant and do not allow any conclusions to be drawn with certainty. Only one thing can be said: Moscow pronunciation was oriented towards the oral speech of the indigenous Moscow population, primarily the intelligentsia, while in St. Petersburg pronunciation there was a tendency to bring Moscow orthoepic norms closer to spelling e in place of spelling e in the first prestressed syllable, pronunciation ch in accordance with the spelling instead of shn, -kiy, -hiy, -hyy instead of - ky, hy, hy and etc.). An attempt to explain the St. Petersburg-Leningrad ekanye by the dialect environment of St. Petersburg - Leningrad, as well as the assumption of the predominance of ekany over hiccups in Leningrad in the 20-30s, is not based on anything. What received the designation Petersburg-Leningrad in orthoepy, in its origins, was probably associated with the peculiarities of the speech of the Petersburg officials. But the trend towards a relative convergence of pronunciation and spelling from the very beginning was all-Russian, due to cultural and social reasons, and not territorial ones. And later, the broad masses of the population mastered the literary language, mainly learning from books, and not from pronunciation. Pronunciation of adjective endings -kiy, -hyy, -hyy was not characteristic of Russian archaic dialects, it is clearly of bookish origin. Thus, the name "Petersburg-Leningrad pronunciation" is very conditional, it cannot be taken literally. The Moscow pronunciation, which is also all-Russian in nature, does not have any territorial restrictions.

The orthoepic variants that exist in the modern literary language (and there are many of them) are either characteristic of the speech of any native speaker of the literary language, or their predominant use depends on age, cultural skills, the stylistic setting of speech, and other reasons. Local varieties of pronunciation are of a completely different nature. At present, it is completely excluded that any territorially isolated linguistic phenomena identical in function (we are talking about the Russian language) would be equally normative, exemplary. What is considered right or wrong in Moscow is evaluated in the same way in Leningrad and in any other place where the Russian literary language is heard. It is necessary to decisively distinguish literary language norms (and their variants, the property of which is often functional non-identity), which every cultured person should strive for complete mastery, from the dialect coloring of the speech of individual speakers of the literary language (a special functional load that does not carry), which is socially perceived as a linguistic defect. as something that is outside the literary norm. Of course, the dialectal coloration, which we are talking about here, is in itself an interesting object of linguistic research, still little studied. It is only important to correctly determine its place in relation to the literary norm.

It is possible, however, that in some cases the generally accepted pronunciations in different localities are used unequally often. It is possible (although it is difficult to verify this in practice, since a mass, if not total, linguistic survey of the population, and not a random sample) should have been carried out) that in Moscow soft pronunciation is used somewhat more often in words like ne[t "l"]A(ok and ne[tl"]A) than in Leningrad, but the statement of this fact has nothing to do with the problem of local variants of the literary language, since t "l" And tl" are equally normative throughout the territory of Russian literary speech. It can even be considered undoubted that many variational norms are of dialectal origin, but one should not confuse the origin of phenomena (diachronic plan) with their current functioning (synchronous plan). If both options are considered equally exemplary for all who speak the Russian literary language, then their local origin is indifferent in terms of the norm, it is of interest only to historians of the Russian language.

To the above, it should be added that the false theory of local variants of the Russian literary language merges with the opinion that some writers have that the Russian literary language with its strict centralized norms does not exist at all, that V. I. Dal was right when he proposed to open unlimited access to literature to all non-normative means of Russian speech; all the huge work to improve the speech culture of the population, which is being carried out in our country, from this point of view, turns out to be unnecessary. But we well remember the task of V. I. Lenin to create a dictionary of the exemplary Russian language (which was completed by Soviet linguists), his instruction on the need to fight for the purity of the Russian language, we remember the attitude of A. M. Gorky to regional words and expressions.

Much remains to be clarified in relation to the codified literary language of vernacular and colloquial speech. Common speech is usually understood as linguistic means (words, grammatical forms and turns, pronunciation features) used mainly in oral speech for a rough, reduced image of the subject of thought. For example, words and expressions such as moaning, it’s not dripping over us, guardhouse(not that neutral sentry- in the guardhouse can be placed not only the guard, but also the watchman), on all fours, hag(abusive name for an old woman) karachun, kaput, kayuk, roll(go, go), etc. in all modern explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language are defined as vernacular. In linguistic literature, there has long been a debate whether to include vernacular in the composition of the literary language or to put it outside of normative use. There are different points of view on this matter, which, in my opinion, are based on a misunderstanding. There is not one, but two vernacular: 1) vernacular as a stylistic means of the literary language, 2) vernacular as the speech of persons who have not mastered the literary language enough. At the same time, their material composition largely coincides.

The modern literary language cannot consist only of neutral, stylistically homogeneous means of expression, although these means form its basis. What is referred to in dictionaries as a colloquial means can be used in a suitable situation by any educated person. To remove the colloquial speech functioning in it from the composition of the literary language would mean depriving the literary language of the means of reduced speech, which usually carry a high emotional and evaluative load. Everything that is used in the literary language and is currently generally accepted, popular in its written and oral varieties, belongs to its system. There is a fundamental difference between vernacular and dialectisms and jargon, which also fall into the literary language: the first is popular, and the second is used only in the speech of certain groups of the population or individual writers, therefore, they cannot be attributed to the normative, generally accepted means of the literary language. By the way, the calculation of the stylistic positions of words in the 7th volume of the Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language (letter H) gives interesting results. Out of 15,530 such positions (a stylistic position is any element of the dictionary - a word, the meaning of a word, a phrase, a form of a word, an accent - that has a stylistic mark or does not have it when there is no stylistic coloring), 11,606 (75%) turned out to be neutral, stylistically marked 3925 (25%). According to these data, the neutral basis makes up three-quarters of the elements of the modern Russian literary language. The vernacular accounts for 24.40% of stylistically marked positions (6.22% of all positions), for colloquial elements, respectively, 38.47% (9.71%), for dialectisms only 3.72% (0.94%), for other stylistically colored elements 23.41% (8.13%). Of course, the given figures must be attributed to the written variety of the literary language and, above all, to the language of fiction, which is determined by the sources of the indicated dictionary. We do not know what the ratio of neutral and stylistically marked elements in the oral variety of the literary language would look like. It is risky to assert that there are more stylistically marked elements in oral speech, since the boundaries of stylistic assessments in written and spoken literary language do not coincide in everything. It is also necessary to keep in mind a certain conventionality of stylistic marks in the dictionary, and although there is no reason to exaggerate this conventionality, the difficulty of distinguishing between colloquial and colloquial elements is an indicative fact in the sense that these phenomena belong equally to the literary language. P. N. Denisov and V. G. Kostomarov calculated the ratio of stylistic marks throughout the text of S. I. Ozhegov’s dictionary, in which the standardization in the assessment of vocabulary is naturally higher than in a large academic dictionary. They have a litter "razg." it turned out 33.92%, on "simple." 9.29% and on the "reg." 1.76%. The discrepancy in the numbers is not very large, and it is explained primarily by the specifics of these dictionaries.

Arguing that vernacular is an organic component of the system of the literary language, performing a certain stylistic role in it, we at the same time recognize that there is also vernacular outside the literary language. Modern non-literary vernacular should be understood as the language of that part of the population, especially the urban one, which has not yet sufficiently mastered the literary language norms. In practice, this vernacular and "semi-dialects" merge. In the "semi-dialects" their old dialect basis only comes through more clearly, and there is no doubt that with the growth of education, the role of "semi-dialects" in communication will inevitably decrease. The difference between non-literary vernacular and archaic vernaculars is that character traits vernaculars usually do not have territorial restrictions, they are ubiquitous. For vernacular (in this sense), as well as for "semi-dialects", the presence of incorrect (compared to literary norms) vowels, stresses, forms of words and grammatical phrases in neutral use, etc., is characteristic, which creates something different compared to the literary language stylistic understanding of speech elements. Sometimes a view is expressed according to which vernacular in itself is one, it is only evaluated differently: those who speak a literary language use it as a stylistically reduced, non-normative layer of the language, which is a kind of spicy seasoning for literary speech, and for those who do not know the literary language, vernacular - normal, neutral way of communicating. Of course, a different assessment of vernacular is an objective phenomenon, but the matter is not limited to this. There are non-literary colloquial words that a speaker in a literary language will not allow in his speech under any circumstances (except for a deliberate fake under "nationality" or tomfoolery). If for native speakers of the literary language extreme(last in line) trolleybus(trolleybus), semi-clinic, in kiné, without a coat, want, want, places, theirs etc. are intolerant and can only be used to create the effect of reduced speech, stylization, then in common parlance these similar deviations from the literary language are neutral.

It should be noted that non-literary vernacular is still very poorly studied. Historically, it is associated with the old colloquial and everyday speech of the urban strata of the population, which is opposed to the bookish language at a time when the norms of the oral variety of the literary language have not yet been developed. The stratification of the old vernacular and oral literary speech, apparently, began somewhere in the middle of the 18th century. As V. D. Levin suggests in his interesting article, “colloquial speech itself as a language layer opposed to colloquial and literary speech did not exist at that time (in the era of Peter I. - F. F.); a more or less noticeable stratification of colloquial and everyday speech occurred already in the second half or even at the end of the century. In the future, vernacular becomes predominantly a means of communication for illiterate and semi-literate urban strata of the population. It had a serious impact on the development of the literary language, constantly giving it the means for a reduced style. However, all this is still to be studied.

A special place in the structure of the Russian language is occupied by colloquial elements in the literary language and colloquial speech itself. The oral variety of the literary language is directly related to the normalized language of writing, especially when it acts as a means of mass communication (the language of radio and television, cinema, theater, reports, lectures and other public speaking). At the same time, it is constantly influenced by vernacular, jargons and local dialects, it also has its own development trends, which leads to various shifts in the system of the literary language and is reflected in its written variety. Along with the oral speech of mass communication, there is also a casual-dialogical everyday speech.

As L. V. Shcherba once said, it is primarily characteristic for her that her “consciousness” (that is, her conscious orientation towards literary and written samples) tends to zero. The features of informal colloquial and everyday literary speech, as it turns out thanks to the works of E. A. Zemskaya and other researchers, are primarily manifested in the structure of syntax (fuzziness in dividing the speech text into sentences, various kinds of reticence, breaks, repetitions, peculiar constructions, unusual word order , alogisms, etc.). It is enough to look at the transcripts of unprepared colloquial and literary speech to be convinced of this. For printing, such transcripts usually need to be rewritten. The most expressively insufficient syntactic organization is manifested in intimate-familiar speech. Mutual understanding in this case is achieved through additional extra linguistic means (facial expressions and gestures, environment, knowledge of circumstances related to the subject of speech, etc.).

Certain shifts are also observed in stylistic assessments. What in a strictly organized literary language has the coloring of ease and familiarity, some reduction, in unprepared and intimate colloquial and literary speech may turn out to be neutral. Few of us in a conversation will use "I'll go by electric train", it will be usual electric train. In the official language, however, it is used electric train, and the word electric train all modern dictionaries (from the standpoint of literary norms) are unanimously defined as "colloquial", that is, having a reduced color. It follows from this that the concept of "colloquial", as well as the concept of "colloquial", is dual, it denotes a stylistic layer of relaxed and reduced elements in an exemplary literary language (a significant layer, accounting for more than a third of all noted stylistic positions) and neutral colloquial everyday speech .

In everyday speech, apparently, one can find increased variability of vocabulary, some shifts (especially occasional ones) in the meanings of words, various other occasionalisms, a greater proportion of vernacular, dialectisms and jargonisms, but basically the vocabulary remains the same, as in the exemplary literary language. Phonetic norms are also largely preserved.

Some linguists tend to consider unprepared colloquial speech as a special "colloquial language" that has its own independent system. This is a clear exaggeration that cannot be proven. Written-literary and colloquial-everyday varieties of the literary language are organically intertwined with each other, constantly interact, nourishing and enriching each other, and the leading role remains with the written-literary variety. We speak and write under all life circumstances in one, and not in two Russian literary languages. To claim otherwise is to misinterpret the concepts of "language" and "language system".

In passing, it should be noted that the term "language" should not be abused at all. In some works recent years the expressions “dialect language”, “dialect type of language”, the content of which does not go beyond the concept of “local dialects, dialects, adverbs”, have become widespread. In addition to confusion, these terms do not contribute anything to science. Language is a certain system of expression at all levels. The modern literary language undoubtedly represents such a system with its own specific features. The local dialect is also a system, albeit currently being transformed into a semi-dialect, and can in a certain sense be opposed to the literary language, but the totality of all dialects does not have its own special system and is just the sum of many local systems. What unites all the dialects of the Russian language is the common language that is present in all varieties of the Russian language, including the literary language, which makes the Russian language a national means of communication. No one can prove that all dialects of the Russian language taken together have the same systems as the literary language or a separate dialect; therefore, no "dialect language" exists and cannot exist.

Very importance for the development of the vocabulary of the literary language has the development of scientific, technical and industrial terminology. In our age of the scientific and technological revolution, there is an enormous growth of special terms, the emergence of new terminological systems. No one knows even approximately how many terms there are currently in the Russian language. In any case, there are millions of them. The overwhelming majority of them are outside the general literary use, remaining the property of workers, employees and scientists of certain professions. Undoubtedly, this situation will continue in the future, since it is impossible to imagine such a person whose vocabulary of language would be millions of words.

However, some of the special terms are pouring into the common language with a stormy stream. Of particular interest in this regard is the reference dictionary "New words and meanings" ed. N. Z. Kotelova and Yu. S. Sorokin. This dictionary contains words that are not included in modern explanatory dictionaries of the Russian language and extracted by the compilers from various written sources in 1964-1968. Of course, the specified dictionary takes into account only some part of the vocabulary that got on the pages of the general press, but it is also indicative. In total, the dictionary includes about three and a half thousand words, and almost all of them belong to the field of special terminology: adenoviruses(viruses that infect the lymph glands), amidopyrine(pyramidon), anid(a type of synthetic fiber similar to nylon), Hula Hup(a gymnastic hoop rotated around the body), etc., etc. According to my rough estimates, there are about 730 new formations created on the basis of Russian language means, or only about 20% of the new words and meanings taken into account. This the percentage will increase slightly if we take into account compound words, which, along with foreign ones, also include Russian stems ( radio eye- about the radio telescope, antiworld, biocommunication etc.), and formations with Russian prefixes ( subroutine- the program of a separate part of the computational process, subsystem- subdivision, part of any system, etc.). Consequently, in modern terminology, borrowings play a leading role (especially from the English language). Russian vocabulary is growing primarily due to special terminology, and this terminology is dominated by foreign words. Whether this is good or bad (thoughtless imitation of foreign models and enthusiasm for foreign terminological fashions is, of course, bad), but the fact remains. Of course, even as part of the general literary language, special vocabulary does not lose its terminological character.

An incomparably more modest role in the development of the literary language is played by various kinds of jargon, limited in its use, which are usually a sign of a low culture of speech or are used as elements of an emotionally colored reduced style. Some of the jargons were included in the above-mentioned New Words and Meanings Dictionary: bagel(about zero points, points in sports competitions), married (married man), blunder(error, miss) figure out(to drink some kind of alcoholic drink, to drink a share), cheat(do something illegal, cheat, cheat), etc. Of course, jargon should be studied by linguists both on their own and as a stylistic means, but from the standpoint of literary norms, they are mostly verbal garbage, which has no place in the speech of cultured people.

As can be seen from the foregoing, the Russian literary language, itself heterogeneous in its composition, is closely connected with various varieties of the Russian national language, affects them and is itself influenced by them. As a result of this influence, it is not only replenished with new means of expression, but also enriched stylistically, increases the variance of its elements, gaining the opportunity to designate the same phenomenon with different words and forms. Variation is one of essential conditions development of the language, because through a change in the ratios between the options (some options remain equal for certain periods of time, but in such equality there is always the possibility of imbalance; others are stylistically differently colored, and their color is also changeable; others strengthen their positions or, vice versa , give them up, passing into the category of obsolete or obsolete elements) there are many shifts at all language levels. The replacement of one option by another often proceeds unevenly and depends on many reasons. Changing the boundaries between the varieties of the tongue (and these boundaries are not only mobile, but also by no means always defined)! is also often carried out through the stage of variance in the broad sense of the word. At the same time, the modern Russian literary language is characterized by strict normativity, which legitimizes the use of variants - either equal, interchangeable, or stylistically limited. We all, to varying degrees, in our speech activity make certain deviations from established norms, but one cannot put an equal sign between the speech of an individual and the language of society. Linguistic norms in their social existence are a beacon to which the linguistic community is guided in the endless sea of ​​speech activity.

Of course, the presence of exemplary norms does not at all mean their immutability, since the language, like life itself, is constantly changing in some way, but changes in it do not occur randomly, not anarchically, but within the framework of the internal laws of language development, corrected by society. It is not uncommon to read and hear (especially from individual writers) that normativity fetters language creation, “deads” the language, that it is necessary to give complete freedom to “folk speech” (in the Dahl sense or something like that) and to abolish, in particular, stylistic restrictions, “ imposed” in dictionaries by lexicographers, and other codifiers. This is all an unfortunate misunderstanding. The literary language and the language of the writer are not the same thing. The language of fiction is very important, but it carried only an integral part of the literary language that serves various spheres of society. The writer is free in his language creation, and the beauty of his language lies in his individual and unique originality, but he is free only to a certain extent. Remarkable Russian writers enriched the literary language, and the great Pushkin reformed it in his time, but they correctly guessed the internal laws of its development, contributed to their better implementation, and did not go against them. The norms of the literary language, flexible enough due to their variability, are obligatory for everyone. As for stylistic marks in dictionaries, grammars and other publications of a codifying nature, it is not the fault of linguists that objectively, regardless of their will, there is stylistic diversity and richness in the language (and it is good that it exists). Their trouble is that they do not always adequately reflect the stylistic system of the literary language.

The language of fiction is an extremely important, but integral part of the general literary language, the functions of which cover all types of human communication. However, at the same time, it is wider than the general literary language, since writers (depending on their talent and the intended purpose of their works) often use linguistic means of other systems - elements of bygone eras (the so-called historicisms), foreign words and expressions (sometimes without translation). ), dialectisms, extra-literary vernacular, jargon and other linguistic means that are outside the norms of the generally accepted literary language. Many of these means, thanks to successful finds, the vital necessity and authority of the writer, become normative, exemplary. Only hopeless purists can meet with hostility any linguistic creativity of writers. Between the language of fiction and the normative literary language there is not and cannot be an identity, but the closest and organic connection between them is beyond doubt. By the way, we note that such a stubborn opponent of the very concept of normativity (without which no literary language is conceivable), as the writer A. Yugov, he himself writes in ordinary Russian normative language.

We have tried here to present concisely and schematically the structure of the modern Russian language in its various ramifications. Its peculiarities will become even more evident if we turn to past times for comparison, when the division of the Russian language was different, but this is a topic for a separate work.

Literature

1. E. D. Polivanov, On the literary (standard) language of our time, “Native language at school”, 1927, 1; his own, For Marxist Linguistics, M., 1931,) p. 119 and others.

2. D. Brozovich, Slavic Standard Languages ​​and Comparative Method, VYa, 1967, 1; D. Brozovic, Standardnijezik, Zagreb, 1970

3. N. I. Tolstoy, On the question of the dependence of the elements of the style of the standard literary language on the nature of its “standardness”, Sat. "Development of stylistic systems of the literary languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR", Ashgabat, 1968.

4. "Dictionary of the modern Russian literary language", 14, M.-L., 1963, p. 719.

5. “Russian language and Soviet society. Phonetics of the modern Russian literary language, M., 1968, p. 26 et seq.

6. P. N. Denisov, V. G. Kostomarov, Stylistic differentiation of vocabulary and the problem of colloquial speech (according to S. I. Ozhegov’s Dictionary of the Russian Language, 3rd ed., M., 1953). "Questions of educational lexicography", M., 1969, p. 112.

7. With good reason, K. I. Chukovsky wrote: “Under no circumstances, until the end of my days, I could neither write nor say in a conversation: coat, coat or coat"(K. I. Chukovsky, Alive as life, M., 1962, p. 20).

8. V. D. Levin, Peter I and the Russian language (On the 300th anniversary of the birth of Peter I), IAN OLYA, 1972, 3, p. 217.

9. “New words and meanings. Dictionary-reference book”, M., 1971.

Responsible editor

V.M. Levin, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor

R 89 Russian language and culture of speech: textbook. allowance / comp. N. G. Keleberda. - Rostov n/a: Russian Customs Academy, Rostov branch, 2010. - 82 p.

Proposed tutorial is the first part of the course "Russian language and culture of speech". The material is presented in accordance with curriculum course "Russian language and culture of speech".

The manual contains theoretical material on modern theory communication and functional style using traditional linguistic terms.

This manual is not an alternative to textbooks for obtaining fundamental knowledge of the discipline.

Intended for students of specialties 030501.65 "Jurisprudence"; 080115.65 "Customs"; 080502.65 "Economics and management at the enterprise (customs)"; 080102.65 " World economy» Rostov Branch of the Russian Customs Academy.

© Russian Customs Academy,

Rostov branch, 2010

FOREWORD…………………………………………………………..5

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION. STRUCTURE, SUBJECT AND OBJECTIVES

COURSE "MODERN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE AND

A CULTURE OF SPEECH"….............................................. ....................................6

1.1. Russian language in modern world………………………………..6

1.2. The origin of the Russian language…………………………………..7

1.3. The structure of the language……………………………………………………..7

1.4. The concept of literary language…………………………………....9

1.5. Language norm……………………………………………………..12

Questions for self-control……………………………………………… 15

CHAPTER 2. SPEECH COMMUNICATION. TYPES

SPEECH SITUATIONS.............................................. ............................15

2.1. The essence of the concept of communication…….………………………..15

2.2. Types, types and forms of communication.……………………………………..16

2.3. The structure of speech activity….…………………………….19

2.4. Use of non-verbal means

in business communication………………………………………………………… ......................21

2.5. The effectiveness of speech communication.

Speech etiquette …………............................................ ...............................23

Questions for self-control………………………………………………25

CHAPTER 3

DESCRIPTION, NARRATORY, REASONING……............26

3.1. General characteristics. Basis for classification……26

3.2.Description……………………………………………………………...28

3.3. Narration……………………………………………………….31

3.4. Reasoning…………………………………………………………….34

3.5. Briefing…………………………………………………………..37

Questions for self-control……………………………………………....39

CHAPTER 4. FUNCTIONAL STYLES

MODERN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE……………………………..40

4.1 Theory of functional styles. Expressive Styles……40

4.2. Scientific style of speech………………………….…………………....46

4.3. Official business style ……………………………….……..54

4.4. Newspaper-journalistic style …………………………….…63

4.6. The language of fiction and colloquial speech ...... .72

Questions for self-control…………………………………………………74

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………….75

LIST OF USED LITERATURE………………….76

APPENDIX………………………………………………………….78

FOREWORD

Proficiency in the Russian language and the culture of speech is an integral part of the professional competence of a modern specialist who must freely navigate in a rapidly changing information space. The profession of a customs officer belongs to linguo-intensive professions, since verbal communication plays on public service important role. Therefore, the customs officer's speech culture is not only a part of his general culture, but also an important component of his professional competence.

During its professional activity Every day, a customs officer has to communicate with a wide range of people, hold official meetings and business negotiations, participate in scientific and practical discussions, speak to the public, draw up official papers and documents. Therefore, his professional speech should be exceptionally competent, clear, convincing, effective. Thus, along with other indicators, the professionalism of a customs officer is determined, among other things, by the level of his speech culture.

Speech errors divert attention from the content of the statement and can undermine the credibility of the customs officer as a representative of the state. Therefore, the customs officer must be able to distinguish the literary norms of the language from non-normative elements: jargon, vernacular, foreign borrowings and bureaucratic language; be able to select those elements of the language that are appropriate in a particular situation of communication.

But even the most complete course of the Russian language and culture of speech cannot answer all questions. This means that it is necessary to constantly develop your speech culture, comprehend the depths of the Russian language.

No textbooks and federal programs can replace the thoughtful and respectful attitude of the person himself to his native language.

Thus, the issues of improving the speech culture of a customs officer go beyond purely linguistic problems and are one of the components of human spirituality.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION STRUCTURE, SUBJECT AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COURSE "MODERN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE OF SPEECH"

Russian language in the modern world

Any natural language that people use is an extremely complex phenomenon. This is the basis of human life, without language there would be no rational person. In total, there are several thousand different languages ​​​​on our planet. Some languages ​​are more common, others less, many are gradually falling out of use and dying off. The Russian language is the language of world significance. Together with English, French, Spanish, Chinese and Arabic, it is one of the six most widely spoken languages ​​on our planet. Russian language is one of official languages United Nations.

The Russian language is the language of great literature. Many foreigners begin to study it only because they have read the works of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov in their native language. Interest in Russia, and hence in its language, is constantly growing. The Russian language is now being studied all over the world, the journal Russian Language Abroad is being published, and there is an association of teachers of Russian as a foreign language. The Russian language is a means of international communication in the CIS. The leaders of Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, Belarus and Kazakhstan speak Russian among themselves.

All this imposes on future professionals with higher education very big responsibility. After all, language exists, language is created in the speech of those who speak it, and it depends on us whether the Russian language will be just as rich, diverse, expressive, or fall under the onslaught of foreign terms, jargon, vernacular and verbal garbage. We must carefully manage the wealth that we have inherited. The prestige of the country and the richness of the language are interdependent phenomena. In the same way, interdependent phenomena are the culture of speech, the richness of the language of an individual and his career, his professional suitability. In the work of a lawyer, customs officer, manager, the role of the word is extremely important. Knowledge of the language, its laws, the possibilities inherent in it, knowledge of rhetoric, i.e. the art of speaking, allows you to influence other people, use the word as a weapon.

Language structure

The Russian language is diverse. Representatives from different regions different professions, different social strata use various words, incomprehensible to residents of other regions or representatives of other professions, form the forms of words in different ways, pronounce individual sounds differently.

In the Russian national language, first of all, there are dialects- territorial differences in language. An example of dialectal differences in phonetics can be “okanye” (pronunciation of unstressed O not as A, but precisely as O); in grammar - forms at me, at the sister; in vocabulary - beetroot (beetroot), veksha (squirrel), kochet (rooster). When the Russian national language was being formed, it was based on the dialects of the Moscow principality and the northern dialects. Each dialect has a set of phonetic, grammatical, and lexical differences. The dialect exists only in oral form. The dialects retain archaic features. With the development of radio and television, dialects are disappearing. Dialect vocabulary can penetrate into fiction. In Russian literature, I. Turgenev and L. Tolstoy introduced dialectisms into the language of their works; in the XX century - M. Sholokhov, V. Shukshin, V. Belov. Great amount dialect words collected in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by Vladimir Ivanovich Dahl. In total, this dictionary has 200,000 words. For comparison: the modern explanatory dictionary of S. Ozhegov and N. Shvedova has 80,000 words.

vernacular - speech of illiterate or insufficiently literate sections of the urban population. This is a set of linguistic forms that violate the norms of the literary language. The carriers of vernacular do not realize such a violation of the norm, they do not understand the difference between literary and non-literary forms. Examples of phonetic vernaculars: chauffeur, tranway, semi-clinic, stool. Morphological: lay down, bake, cut, beautiful tulle, run.

Jargon - social speech and professional groups people united by a common occupation, interests, social status. In modern Russian, youth jargon is distinguished, or slang, professional jargon, camp jargon is used in places of deprivation of liberty. The speech of certain socially closed groups (thieves, vagabonds, etc.) is called slang. This is a secret, artificial language of the underworld. It, like other types of jargon, exists only in oral form. Separate argotisms are spreading outside of slang: thieves, split, fraer.

In our time, youth jargon, popular with schoolchildren and students, has become widespread. Jargons, as a rule, have equivalents in the common language; hostel- hostel, stipuha - scholarship, tail - academic debt.

Jargon is a rather old phenomenon in the language. Since ancient times, there have been jargons of hunters, fishermen, etc. Jargons are distinguished by vulgar coloring. In addition, the meaning of many slang words varies depending on the context. Therefore, the use of jargon makes speech not only rude, but also careless, fuzzy.

The concept of literary language

The highest form of the national language is literary language. This is a codified language, i.e. with established rules and regulations. The literary language consists of common language elements that have undergone cultural processing; it concentrates the best ways to express ideas, thoughts and emotions, designate concepts and objects. Its development is directly related to the development of the culture of the people, primarily fiction. It is characterized, firstly, by written fixation, and secondly, by normalization.

The protection of the literary language, its norms is one of the main tasks of the culture of speech. Such protection is a matter of national importance, since the literary language unites the nation in linguistic terms. The creation of the norms of the modern literary language is associated with the name of A. S. Pushkin. The language of the Russian nation at the time of the appearance of the literary language was very heterogeneous. It consisted of dialects, vernacular and some other isolated formations. Dialects are local folk dialects, very different in terms of pronunciation (okayut in the North, Yakayut in the South), vocabulary, and grammar. Vernacular is more united, but still insufficiently ordered according to its norms. Pushkin was able, on the basis of various manifestations of the folk language, to create in his works a language that was accepted by society as a standard.

The literary language and the language of fiction are different concepts. The basis of the language of fiction is the literary language. And, moreover, the literary language, as it were, grows out of the language of fiction. However, the language of fiction is a special phenomenon. Its main distinguishing feature is that it carries a great aesthetic load. To achieve aesthetic goals, dialects and other non-literary elements can be involved in the language of fiction. A detailed study of the language of fiction is not the purpose of this tutorial.

One of the main functions of the literary language is to be the language of the entire nation, to rise above individual local or social limited language formations. Literary language is what creates, of course, along with economic, political and other factors, the unity of the nation. Without a developed literary language, it is difficult to imagine a full-fledged nation. The well-known modern linguist M.V. Panov names such as the language of culture, the language of the educated part of the people, and the consciously codified language among the main features of the literary language. The last is the conscious codification of the language - a direct task of the culture of speech: with the advent of the literary language, a "culture of speech" also appears. The codified norms of the literary language are those norms that all native speakers of the literary language must follow. Any grammar of the modern Russian literary language, any of its dictionary is nothing but its modification. The statement that a noun is feminine with the ending -a in nominative case in the prepositional case, it has the ending -e (and not some other), - this is a statement about the norm. However, such norms are natural for native speakers of the Russian language, their codification is extremely simple, any grammarian can cope with such codification, and there is nothing for a speech culture specialist to do here. The culture of speech begins where the language, as it were, offers a choice for codification, and this choice is far from unambiguous. Quite often you can hear O meter, but the norm is only a kilo e tr, no less often sounds d O dialect, but the norm is Great Danes O r, although now it is no longer strictly prohibited and d O dialect, whereas thirty years ago such an accent was forbidden. This testifies, among other things, to the fact that the modern Russian literary language, although it can be considered as a language from Pushkin to the present day, does not remain unchanged. It is constantly in need of regulation. If, however, to follow the once and for all established norms, then there is a danger that society will simply cease to reckon with them and will spontaneously establish its own norms. Spontaneity in such a matter is far from good, since what seems acceptable to some will be unacceptable to others. Therefore, constant monitoring of the development and change of norms is one of the main tasks of the linguistic science of the culture of speech.

Normativity is one of the most important (but not the only) aspects of speech culture. The Czech linguist K. Gauzenblas writes: “There is nothing paradoxical about the fact that one is able to speak on the same topic in a non-literary language and look more cultured than another speaker in a literary language.” One can cite a large number of texts of the most varied content, impeccable from the point of view of observance of general literary norms, but not too intelligible. Consequently, it is not enough to achieve the normativity of the text, it is also necessary to make this text understandable.

The language has a large arsenal of tools. The main requirement for a good text is as follows: to create it, from all language means, those must be selected that fulfill communicative tasks as fully and accurately as possible. The study of a text from the point of view of the correspondence of its linguistic structure to the tasks of communication in the theory of speech culture is called the communicative aspect of the culture of language proficiency. The communicative aspect of the culture of speech involves not only understanding, but also the active interaction of communication partners.

Another aspect of speech culture is ethical. Every society has its own ethical standards of behavior. They also apply to many aspects of communication. Ethical standards, or otherwise - speech etiquette, relate primarily to the appeal to “you” and “you”, the choice of a full or abbreviated name (Vanya or Ivan Petrovich), the choice of appeals such as citizen, mister, etc., the choice of ways to greet and say goodbye (hello, hello, salute, goodbye, all the best, everything, see you, bye, etc.). Ethical norms in many cases are national: for example, the sphere of communication on “you” in English is narrower than in Russian; English language, unlike Russian, allows abbreviated names in official speech. A foreigner, getting into the Russian environment, often, unwillingly, looks tactless, introducing his own language etiquette into this environment. That's why prerequisite good knowledge of the Russian language is the knowledge of Russian language etiquette.

The ethical aspect of speech culture is not always explicit. The outstanding linguist R. O. Jacobson identifies six main functions of communication: the designation of extralinguistic reality ( It was a beautiful mansion), relation to reality ( What a beautiful mansion!), magic function ( Let there be light!), poetic, metalinguistic (judgments about the language itself: This is not the way to say it; Need another word here.) and actual, or contact-setting. If during the performance of the first five functions named here, the ethical aspect manifests itself, say, usually, then when the contact-establishing function is performed, it manifests itself in a special way. The contact-establishing function is the very fact of communication, while the topic does not have of great importance; it doesn't matter whether the topic is well or badly revealed. The ethical aspect of communication comes to the fore. For example, it is inconvenient for you to walk silently with your acquaintance, with whom, however, there is not much that connects you, and you start a conversation about the weather, although you and your interlocutor are indifferent to it at that moment. The purpose of such a conversation is one - to establish contact.

So, the culture of speech is defined as a set of communicative qualities of good speech. These qualities include: the correctness of speech, that is, normativity, its purity, which implies the absence of dialectisms, jargon, etc., accuracy, logicality, expressiveness, figurativeness, accessibility, effectiveness and relevance.

Thus, the culture of speech is such a choice and such an organization of language means that, in a certain situation of communication, while observing modern language norms and ethics of communication, make it possible to achieve the set communicative tasks.

Language norm

The language norm is the rules of pronunciation, grammatical and other language means adopted in the social and speech practice of educated people. The norm of the literary language in the minds of the speakers has the qualities of special correctness and universality. For written speech, there are also orthographic norms - a system of rules that establish a uniform transmission of sound language in writing.

Sources of the norm:

1. Historical development living language of educated people.

2. Fiction.

3. Conscious activity of philologists and literary critics to improve the language.

4. Description and study by philologists of the living speech of native speakers of a given language. The information received is entered into dictionaries and grammar. They are used in teaching, mass media etc. – thus, the circle is closed.

The norm is one of the most important conditions for stability, unity and originality of the national language. At the same time, language norms are a historical phenomenon. Changing norms is due to the constant development of the language. What was the norm 15-20 years ago may become a departure from it today. This is a natural, objective phenomenon. A supporter of the normalization of the Russian language was M.V. Lomonosov. With his works, he laid the foundations of the normative grammar and style of the Russian language. In 1748, his work "Rhetoric" was published, and in 1755. - "Russian grammar". The norms of the Russian language developed by him largely determined further destinies its development, prepared a reformist creative activity A.S. Pushkin.

Norms differ imperative and diapositive. Imperative (i.e. strictly obligatory) - those, the violation of which is regarded as a poor command of the Russian language. Such rules do not allow options. For example: alphabet And t(not alpha A vit ), etc And took (not accepted) I l ), whereby, but not thanks to which. Diapositive norms (i.e. supplementary, non-strictly obligatory) allow options. For example: b A rye barges A , tv O horns creat O G . Fluctuations in the norm are usually associated with its development, and variants can be transitional steps from an obsolete norm to a new one.

The reverse side of the language norm is speech errors.

Speech error means violation of pronunciation or conciliation norms of the literary language. This is an incorrect pronunciation and syntactic combination of word forms.

Speech errors have two fundamental features: unconsciousness of use and the presence of a grammatically normative variant. The error interferes with the understanding of speech.

Norm variant it's not a mistake. This is an acceptable form of using a language unit in speech, for example, tv O horn and creation O g, clips__ and clips A etc.

The question of preventing or eradicating speech errors can only be raised with an understanding of their essence. . Therefore, in order to avoid speech errors, it is necessary to be able to classify them and evaluate them as facts of incorrect language models that need to be corrected. Linguists distinguish different parameters for classifying speech errors.

First, they distinguish errors by language levels. Language levels - phonetic (pronunciation), lexical, derivational, morphological and syntactic - form a language system.

Secondly, they distinguish errors associated with the meaning of a word or phrase in a speech stream. As a result of an incorrect choice of a word, the content of the statement may be deformed: either the phrase acquires a different meaning, does not express the intention of the speaker, or ambiguity arises, subtext not provided for by the speaker (for example, hold the brush in your hand so as not to break it).

Thirdly, errors that violate the quality competent speech, i.e. consistency, accuracy, grammatical correctness. For example, In UTU and customs authorities of the region completed and ongoing next activities… In this example, the unconscious connection of antonyms leads to a violation of one of the laws of logic, which sounds like this: “Two statements cannot be true at the same time, one of which asserts something about an object, and the other denies the same thing, about the same object, at the same time.”

There are errors that appear at all levels of the language. These errors include:

· contamination - a mixture of language units in speech, or otherwise, the intersection of language units of different series, for example, the sounds "Kazan Cossack", - instead of "Kuban Cossack", or words in the phrase "solve the problem", - instead of "solve the problem" and "overcome problem."

· tautology and pleonasm - excessive use of morphemes, words. Moreover, tautology can be purposeful, permissible and forced. For business speech tautology is a forced phenomenon, because formed by words that name the titles of officials, the names of institutions, compound terms, etc. In these cases, it is not considered an error. Pleonasm occurs at different levels of language. The essence of this error is that in one phrase they combine words that partially or completely coincide in lexical or grammatical meaning. For example, memorial monument, one thousand, month of June, VIP person; at the level of grammar - the simultaneous use of two forms of degrees of comparison of adjectives - further, deepest, best etc.

At the same time, it should be noted that the possession of the norms of the language and their conscious violation serves as a tool for creating figurative and expressive means of the language and indicates high level culture of the speaker.

Questions for self-control

1. What is the role of language in human life?

2. Name the main functions of the language.

3. What is the difference between the concepts of "language" and "speech"?

4. Name the place of the Russian language in the system of other languages.

5. What is the modern Russian literary language? What are its historical boundaries and modern tendencies development?

6. What linguistic phenomena are outside the literary language? Why?

CHAPTER 2

Types, types and forms of communication

There are several classifications of types of communication, each of which is based on some of its own features.

Linguist A.A. Kholodovich, characterizing the speech behavior of a person, establishes the following five signs of a speech act:

- a means of expressing a speech act (sound, written sign, gesture);

- the degree of communicativeness of the speech act;

- Orientation of the speech act (whether there is an expectation of an answer);

- the number of participants in the speech act;

- the contact of the speech act.

Based on the fourth feature, such types of communication are distinguished as dialogue(a conversation between two participants) and polylogue(conversation of more than two participants).

Depending on the social status and personal relations of the participants in communication, they distinguish formal and informal communication.

Monologue and dialogue are two main types of speech, differing in the number of participants in the act of communication.

Dialogue is a conversation between two or more people. The basic unit of dialogue is dialogic unity - the thematic association of several replicas, which is an exchange of opinions, each subsequent of which depends on the previous one. The nature of the replicas is influenced by the so-called code of relations between communicants. There are three main types of interaction between participants in the dialogue: dependence, cooperation and equality.

Any dialogue has its own structure: the beginning - the main part - the ending. The dimensions of a dialog are theoretically unlimited since its bottom border can be open. In practice, any dialogue has its own ending.

Dialogue is considered as the primary form of verbal communication, therefore it has received its greatest distribution in the field of colloquial speech, however, dialogue is presented in scientific, journalistic, and official business speech. Being the primary form of communication, dialogue is an unprepared, spontaneous type of speech. Even in scientific, journalistic and official business speech, with the possible preparation of remarks, the deployment of the dialogue will be spontaneous, since usually the remarks - the reactions of the interlocutor are unknown or unpredictable.

For the existence of a dialogue, on the one hand, a common information base of its participants is necessary, and on the other hand, an initial minimum gap in the knowledge of the participants in the dialogue. Lack of information can adversely affect the productivity of dialogic speech.

In accordance with the goals and objectives of the dialogue, the situation of communication, the role of the interlocutors, the following main types of dialogues can be distinguished: everyday, business conversation, interview.

Monologue can be defined as a detailed statement of one person. There are two main types of monologue. Firstly, monologue speech is a process of purposeful communication, a conscious appeal to the listener and is characteristic of the oral form of book speech: oral scientific speech, judicial speech, oral public speech. The most complete development of the monologue was in artistic speech. Secondly, a monologue is a speech alone with oneself. The monologue is not directed to the direct listener and, accordingly, is not designed for the interlocutor's response.

The monologue can be both unprepared and premeditated. According to the purpose of the utterance, monologue speech is divided into three main types: informational, persuasive and motivating. Informational Speech serves to convey knowledge. In this case, the speaker must take into account the intellectual abilities of information perception and the cognitive capabilities of the listeners. Varieties of informational speech - lectures, reports, messages, reports. persuasive the speech is addressed to the emotions of the listeners, in this case the speaker must take into account his susceptibility. Varieties of persuasive speech: congratulatory, solemn, parting words. motivating speech is aimed at encouraging listeners to various kinds of actions. Here they distinguish political speech, speech-call for action, speech-protest.

Monologue speech is distinguished by the degree of preparedness and formality. Oratorical speech is always a pre-prepared monologue, delivered in a formal setting. However, to a certain extent, a monologue is an artificial form of speech, always striving for dialogue. In this regard, any monologue can have the means of its dialogization.

Depending on the method of expression of a speech act, there are written and oral forms communication. Oral speech is primary, and for languages ​​that do not have a written language, this is the only form of their existence. Literary oral speech is represented by two varieties:

a) colloquial speech, which implies ease of communication, informality of relations between interlocutors, unpreparedness, strong reliance on an extralinguistic situation, the use of non-verbal means, the fundamental possibility of changing positions “speaking” - “listening.”

b) codified speech (lat. Codificatio - systematization of the laws of the state in certain branches of law), which is used mainly in official situations of communication - meetings, congresses, meetings of commissions, conferences, television appearances. Most often, such a speech is prepared in advance (report, message, report, information), it does not rely heavily on an extralinguistic situation, non-verbal means are moderately used.

Oral speech sounds, that is, it uses phonetic (sound) and prosodic (from the Greek “prosodia” - the doctrine of the ratio of syllables in a verse - stressed and unstressed, long and short) means. talking man creates both the form and the content of speech, therefore it is finite in time and cannot be corrected.

Orally communicating communicants most often see each other, and direct visual contact contributes to mutual understanding.

Oral speech is much more active than written - we speak and listen more than we write and read. In written speech, a system of graphic means of expression is used, and it is perceived visually. Writer and reader, as a rule, not only do not see each other, but do not imagine the external appearance of their communicant at all. This makes it difficult to establish contact, so the writer should strive to improve the text as much as possible in order to be understandable. Written speech exists indefinitely, and the reader always has the opportunity to clarify an incomprehensible expression in the text.

The linguistic features of written speech are as follows: the predominance of book vocabulary, complex sentences over simple ones, strict adherence to norms, and the absence of non-verbal elements.

In business communication

Two-thirds of the messages received by the participants in the conversation come through non-verbal communication channels, mainly through gestures. The effectiveness of business communication is determined by the ability to correctly interpret visual information, i.e. the look of the partner, his facial expressions, gestures, as well as the timbre and pace of speech. However, not everyone can fully control their own gestures, facial expressions, postures. Eyes, movements often betray a person, they are a kind of information leakage channels. The ability to "read" non-verbal signals gives a business person the following advantages: 1) he can recognize the difficulties that arise at the level of relationships at their very inception: "intercept" signals about them, reorganize during the conversation, change the tactics of the conversation; 2) he can double-check the correctness of his interpretation of the perceived signals, as well as control the truth of the observation (for example, tears came out: they can be with suffering and pain, or they can be tears of joy, etc.).

Non-verbal means of communication are divided into groups:

a) kinesic (from the Greek kinesis - movement) - visually perceived movements of another person, performing an expressive - regulative function in communication. These include posture, gesture, facial expressions, gaze, gait, direction of movement.

b) prosodic (from the Greek prosoidia - stress, chorus) - rhythmic - informational features of speech: pitch and loudness of the voice tone, voice timbre, stress force.

c) extralinguistic (lat. extra - outside, over, lat. lingua - language) - psychophysiological manifestations included in speech. This is a pause, sighs, coughing, laughter, crying and others.

d) takesic (from Latin taktus - touch, sensation) - this is a dynamic touch in the form of a handshake, a pat on the shoulder, knee, back, kisses, body touch.

e) the smell emitted by partners is rarely distinguished in the academic literature as a non-verbal means of communication.

Non-verbal communication usually includes the following:

- gestures, common in human society, have come a long way of evolution. Despite the unity of the biological roots of mankind, which is manifested, in particular, in the genetic connection of human gestures with similar phenomena in the communication of higher animals, in modern cultures there are significant differences both in the intensity of gestures and in the repertoire of paralinguistic phenomena typical for a given culture. These differences are sometimes summed up in the form of common ideas about how certain peoples behave;

- posture usually indicates certain interpersonal relationships, the social status of the partner. It can change depending on the mood and emotional state of the person. However, when interpreting, it is necessary to take into account the cultural potential of a person and generally accepted etiquette conventions that should be observed in certain specific situations;

- facial expressions provides an opportunity for a broad interpretation, concealment or demonstration of emotions, helps to understand information transmitted through speech, "signals" about the attitude towards someone or something;

- sight allows you to read a wide variety of signals: from showing interest in someone or something to demonstrating absolute neglect. The expression of the eyes is closely related to verbal communication;

- paraverbal and extraverbal signals. The meaning of the statement may change depending on what intonation, rhythm, timbre were used to convey it. Speech shades affect the meaning of the statement, signal emotions, the state of a person, his confidence or shyness.

Thus, body language itself is a kind of “parallel” language, which, as a rule, accompanies a person’s speech expressions and covers all his movements, including mental (psychomotor).

Questions for self-control

1. Formulate the basic principles of verbal communication.

2. What factors determine the effectiveness of p

This textbook is intended primarily for students of philological specialties of higher educational institutions. But it is also designed for use in educational process in a wide range of humanitarian specialties - of course, primarily those where the possession of the expressive means of literary speech is a prerequisite for successful professional activity. It seems that in any case the textbook will be useful to future lawyers, teachers, art critics, and journalists.

The peculiarity of the publication - conciseness and compactness of the presentation of the material - takes into account the diversity of the needs of a possible audience. Therefore, the duration of the lecture course, practical and self-study using this textbook may vary depending on the direction, the specialty of training humanities, as well as the form of education: daytime, evening or correspondence.

The textbook contains all sections of the modern Russian language course; vocabulary and phraseology, phonetics, phonology and orthoepy, graphics and spelling, word formation, morphology, syntax and punctuation.

In preparing this edition, achievements in the field of the Russian language over the past fifteen years have been taken into account. The wording of certain theoretical positions has been changed, new concepts have been introduced, terminology has been clarified, illustrative materials and bibliography have been partly updated, active processes in the modern Russian language, especially in the field of vocabulary and syntax, have been highlighted.

The content of sections and paragraphs has been supplemented with new information, in particular: the provision on the slightly changed status of the literary language is substantiated; the list of word formation methods has been expanded; tendencies in the use of grammatical number forms are noted; data are given on sentences of real and irreal modality, coordination of forms of the subject and predicate, genitive sentences, as well as on the ambiguity of resolving the issue of homogeneity and heterogeneity of predicates, etc.

Thus, the title of the textbook - "Modern Russian Language" - reflects the essential features of what is presented in it. educational material. Moreover, the textbook to some extent reveals those trends that, as can be foreseen today, will determine the development of the Russian language in the 21st century.

This sixth edition was prepared by N.S. Valgina based on the stable textbook of the same name, which went through five editions.

The modern Russian language is the national language of the great Russian people, a form of Russian national culture.

The Russian language belongs to the group of Slavic languages, which are divided into three subgroups: Eastern - Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian; southern - Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonian; western - languages ​​​​Polish, Czech, Slovak, Kashubian, Lusatian. Going back to the same source - the common Slavic language, all Slavic languages ​​\u200b\u200bare close to each other, as evidenced by the similarity of a number of words, as well as phenomena of the phonetic system and grammatical structure. For example: Russian tribe, Bulgarian tribe, Serbian tribe, Polish plemiê, Czech plémě, Russian clay, Bulgarian clay, Czech hlina, Polish glina; Russian summer, Bulgarian lato, Czech léto, Polish lato; Russian red, Serbian krásan, Czech krásný; Russian milk, Bulgarian milk, Serbian milk, Polish mieko, Czech mléko, etc.

Russian National language represents a historically established linguistic community and unites the entire set of linguistic means of the Russian people, including all Russian dialects and dialects, as well as social jargons.

The highest form of the national Russian language is Russian literary language.

At different historical stages of the development of the national language - from the language of the people to the national one - in connection with the change and expansion of the social functions of the literary language, the content of the concept of "literary language" changed.

The modern Russian literary language is a standardized language that serves the cultural needs of the Russian people; it is the language of state acts, science, the press, radio, theater, and fiction.

“The division of the language into literary and folk,” wrote M.A. Bitter, means only that we have, so to speak, a “raw” language and processed by masters.

The standardization of the literary language lies in the fact that the composition of the dictionary is regulated in it, the meaning and use of words, pronunciation, spelling and the formation of grammatical forms of words obey the generally accepted model. The concept of the norm, however, does not exclude in some cases options that reflect the changes that are constantly taking place in the language as a means of human communication. For example, accent variants are considered literary: far o - far, high - high, and now - otherwise; gram. forms: waving - waving, meowing - meowing, rinsing - rinsing.

The modern literary language, not without the influence of the media, noticeably changes its status: the norm becomes less rigid, allowing variation. It focuses not on inviolability and universality, but rather on communicative expediency. Therefore, the norm today is often not so much a ban on something as a choice. The boundary between normativity and non-normativity is sometimes blurred, and some colloquial and vernacular linguistic facts become variants of the norm. Becoming a common property, the literary language easily absorbs previously forbidden means of linguistic expression. It is enough to give an example of the active use of the word "lawlessness", which previously belonged to the criminal jargon.

The literary language has two forms: oral and written, which are characterized by features both in terms of lexical composition and grammatical structure, because they are designed for different types of perception - auditory and visual.

The written literary language differs from the oral language primarily in the greater complexity of the syntax and the presence of a large number abstract vocabulary, as well as terminological vocabulary, in particular international. Written literary language has stylistic varieties: scientific, official business, journalistic, artistic styles.

The literary language, as a normalized, processed common language, is opposed to local dialects and jargons. Russian dialects are combined into two main groups: the North Russian dialect and the South Russian dialect. Each group has its own distinctive features in pronunciation, in vocabulary and in grammatical forms. In addition, there are Central Russian dialects, which reflect the features of both dialects.

Modern Russian literary language is the language of interethnic communication of the peoples of the Russian Federation. The Russian literary language introduces all the peoples of Russia to the culture of the great Russian people.

Since 1945, the UN Charter has recognized the Russian language as one of the official languages ​​of the world.

There are numerous statements of great Russian writers and public figures, as well as many progressive foreign writers about power, wealth and artistic expressiveness Russian language. Derzhavin and Karamzin, Pushkin and Gogol, Belinsky and Chernyshevsky, Turgenev and Tolstoy spoke enthusiastically about the Russian language.

The course of the modern Russian language consists of the following sections: vocabulary and phraseology, phonetics and phonology, orthoepy, graphics and spelling, word formation, grammar (morphology and syntax), punctuation.