Lesson topic: Correctness of speech and language norms
Lesson Objectives:- to reveal the concept of "correctness of speech" and its components, to teach to master the basic language norms of the Russian literary language;
To form linguistic competence through mastering the language concepts "correctness of speech", "language norm", "speech norm", to practically master speech norms;
the formation of the ability to master the mode of action when choosing a speech norm, the ability to analyze, compare, differentiate linguistic phenomena, draw conclusions based on analysis;
to form communicative competence by mastering all types of speech activity,
to form information competence through the ability to search for the necessary information, to highlight the main and secondary information.
To foster interest in the Russian language, the culture of students' speech, to form an idea of the Russian language as a spiritual and cultural value of the people; be aware of the national identity of the Russian language; master the culture of communication.
Equipment: textbook, notebooks, didactic material.
DURING THE CLASSES
І. Organizing time.
(Student greetings, writing the number, the topic of the lesson in a notebook)
II. Reference update students' knowledge.
Front poll:
Define the key concept of today's lesson. ("Correct speech")
What is correct speech? Finish the sentence in your notebook: "The culture of speech is ..."
(2-3 statements of students according to notes in notebooks)
Based on this, try to independently formulate the goal of today's lesson.
(if students find it difficult to formulate the purpose of the lesson, the teacher helps).
Today in the lesson we will get acquainted with the communicative qualities of pral speech, repeat the concepts of "language", "speech", "language norm", "speech norm".
Checking homework.
(Ex. 19, p. 28)
ІІІ. Learning new material.
Teacher's explanation.
Correctness of speech – observance of the norms of the Russian literary language in the process of communication. The correctness of speech is the main indicator of literary language proficiency.
Language norms - rules for the choice and use of language means in a given society in a given era.
Orthoepic norms - rules for the pronunciation of individual sounds, combinations of sounds, words.
Lexical norms - the correctness of the use of words and phraseological units in accordance with their meaning, the lexical compatibility of words.
Word-building norms - determine the rules for the formation of words in the Russian language.
Morphological norms - rules for the formation of word forms.
Learning the rule.
(p. 30 - textbook).
Practical work in notebooks.
Exercise 20(P)
- Read the text. Highlight the main proposals, briefly formulate them and write them down.
- How is the literary norm cultivated?
- Make a syntactic analysis of the last sentence.
- Name the language norms, give examples of their observance in the text
Exercise 21
- Read the text. Determine the topic, the main idea of the text.
- Define the text style. Name the characteristic style features.
- Are spelling and punctuation standards observed in the text?
- Can we say that this text complies with the language norms?
PURITY OF SPEECH
One of the students in the class held a small research work. Let's listen to him.
After asking my classmates and friends, I came to the conclusion that my peers use such slang words that mean:
1. Offensive - the names of a person: sheep, wallet, goat
2. Words that call people:
sidekick - friend, dude - boyfriend
switchman - the one on whom others blame others.
snitch - scammer, yap - talker
3. Words that name parts of the body.
hawk - mouth, fins - legs, locators - ears
4. Other nouns: joke - a joke, an arrow - a fight, a bazaar - a conversation, garbage - nonsense, a bummer - an unexpectedly bad result, cabbage - money, waste - something outstanding
5. Words denoting actions: go crazy - have fun
to be surprised - to be surprised
wali - go away
glare - glare
get stuck - get caught
guess - imagine
6. Words - adjectives:
cool, cool - a high degree of quality of something
dark - ugly
unstoppable - bad
7. Phraseologisms:
filter the market - follow the speech
move your crutches - walk faster
in nature - in truth
I'm bald - I'm no worse than others
flag in hand, drum on the neck - approval of the action
without a market - no doubt
put out the lights - a complete nightmare
to crush a smile - to smirk
1. ……% of those I interviewed think that jargons are needed, they make speech more emotional
2. ……% of those I interviewed think that jargons are not needed, they clutter up speech
3. …… % refrained from answering
4.Practical work in notebooks.
Exercise 3
Before you is a written description given by an illiterate schoolboy. Your task: Remake the texts, replacing jargon with literary words. Guess the character's name.
His face did not represent anything special, it was almost the same as that of many thin shoelaces, only his chin protruded very far forward, so that he had to cover it with a handkerchief every time so as not to spit; little magnifying glasses were not yet extinguished and darted from under high-growing eyebrows like mice.
Reference words: old people, running, eyes.
Is it appropriate to use jargon?
Exercise 4
The hero of A. Platonov's story "The Secret Man" Foma Pukhov, after inspecting several steamships, drew up an act on their technical condition. Evaluate the style of the document. How do these lines characterize the hero?
In view of the broken stem and the disorganization of the fittings, it is impossible to start up the leading engine of the Tenderness steamer, and there is nothing to even think about. The steamer called "The World Council" is ill with the explosion of the boiler and the general absence of the firebox, which now cannot be found out where it has gone. The steamboats "Shan" and "Red Horseman" can be put into operation immediately if they are replaced with worn-out cylinders and sirens, and cylinders are now unthinkable to bore, since the earth does not give birth to finished cast iron, and no one touches the ore from the revolution with their hands. As for the boring of cylinders, the labor armies cannot sharpen anything, because they are covert cultivators.
Exercise 5
Read the comic text from the Literary Gazette. Find office supplies. Try to retell this text using neutral or colloquial vocabulary.
Damage to good mood
After completing my return home from work, I did some work of taking off my hat, raincoat, boots, changing into pajamas and slippers, and sitting down with a newspaper in a chair. The wife during this period of time implemented a series of activities aimed at peeling potatoes, boiling meat, sweeping the floor and washing dishes.
After some time, she began to loudly raise the question of the inadmissibility of my non-participation in the events named by her. To this, on my part, a categorical statement was made about the unwillingness to hear claims on this issue in view of the implementation by me in currently, after the end of the working day, their legal right to a well-deserved rest.
However, my wife did not draw the appropriate conclusions from my words and did not stop her irresponsible statements, in which, in particular, she reflected such a moment as my lack of a number of positive qualities, somehow: conscience, decency, shame, etc., and both during her speech and at the end of it she was engaged in assigning me the names of various animals that are in the personal use of workers and collective farmers.
After giving mutual assurances on the non-recurrence of such phenomena, we began to eat dinner, which already had a lower temperature as a result of cooling and lost its taste.
This is how we sometimes still allow damage to a good mood, as well as appetite.
І V . Summary of the lesson.
V . Homework.
Ex. 22, p. 34.
Learn the rules of paragraph 4.
The correctness of speech is the observance of the language norms of the modern Russian literary language. Speaking and writing, from the point of view of the norm, evaluate speech as correct (but r-ma) or incorrect (mistake).
The norms in the modern Russian literary language are phonetic, lexico-phraseological, word-formation, morphological, syntactic, stylistic.
Phonetic norms are the norms for pronouncing the sounds of the modern Russian literary language, placing stress in words and observing the correct intonation.
The norms for the pronunciation of sounds and the setting of stress are studied in phonetics and orthoepy (see p. 12).
Vocabulary o-f razeological norms are the norms for the use of words and phraseological units in their lexical meaning and the norms for combining words and phraseological units with other words in a sentence.
The norms of use and the norms of combining words and phraseological units are studied in vocabulary and phraseology (see p. 22) and are reflected in dictionaries (see p. 28).
When using words, phraseological units, the following types of lexical and phraseological errors are observed: 1) use of words, phraseological units in an unusual meaning, for example: “buy a cannonade”; "beat the buckets
with an ax"; 2) non-literary words (dialect; neoplasms unusual for the language, for example, "iron bucket").
With ignorance of the norms of the connection of words, phraseological units, their non-normative compatibility arises, for example, "an elderly horse", "brown stockings", "ate Demyanov's ear".
Morphological norms are the norms of inflection during declension nominal parts speech, pronouns and participles and in conjugation of verbs. With non-normative inflection, morphological errors occur, for example: “no time”, “prettier”, “lie down”, etc.
The norms of inflection are studied in morphology (see p. 53). They are described in the reference book: Difficulties in word usage and variants of the norms of the Russian literary language / Ed. K. S. Gorbachevich. D., 1973.
Syntactic and e norms are the norms for constructing syntactic constructions - phrases and sentences. With non-normative construction of phrases and sentences, syntactic errors occur, for example: “approaching the city, a business conversation started between them.”
The norms for constructing phrases * and sentences are studied in syntax (see p. 152).
"zhі
JL 264
Stylistic norms are the possession of the ability to use the language means inherent in it in one or another functional style. Stylistic norms are studied in stylistics (see p. 256). Failure to master the ability to use language means in accordance with the requirements of style leads to stylistic errors, for example: “Declare
thanks to the conductor"; "Pretty rivers flow through the Russian plain."
The correctness of speech always leads to compliance with the norms of the literary language, the incorrectness - to a deviation from them. Therefore, the definition of the correctness of speech as its main communicative quality can be considered generally recognized in science and quite clear: the correctness of speech is the correspondence of its linguistic structure to the current language norms.
The understanding of the norm has already been discussed above.
Correct speech usually better forms and expresses information about reality. Incorrect speech can either make it difficult to understand the text, or, in case of serious violations in the structure, even form incorrect information about reality, that is, be inaccurate. So, inaccuracy breeds inaccuracy.
The following structural-linguistic types of norms are distinguished.
1. Pronunciation norms regulate the choice of acoustic variants of a phoneme or alternating phonemes - at each step of the development of speech and in each syllable of a single word. You can [gold], you can’t [gold]; you can [agarot - usad "ba], you can not [agharod - usat" ba].
2. Norms of stress regulate the choice of placement and movement of the stressed syllable among the non-stressed ones. It can be a quarter, it can't be a quarter. The norms of modern Russian stress in the literary language are closely related to the morphological properties of parts of speech and turn out to be one of their formal indicators. The mobility and heterogeneity of the modern Russian stress makes it difficult to assimilate, especially by persons for whom Russian is not their native language and is not acquired by them in early childhood, which leads to the “imposition” of new accentological norms on old ones already learned in their native language.
3. The norms of word formation regulate the choice of morphemes, their placement and combination in the composition of a new word: you can be an observer, but you can’t - an observer, you can be a hunter, but you can’t - a hunter, you can forest, river, but you can’t - forest, river.
4. Morphological norms regulate the choice of options for the morphological form of the word and options for its coupling with others: it is possible for officers, engineers, it is impossible for an officer, an engineer; you can do a lot of things, there are no places and you can’t - a lot of things, there are no places.
5. Syntactic norms regulate the choice of options for constructing sentences - simple and complex; When I drove up to this station and looked thoughtfully out the window, my hat flew off my head; it is impossible (the entry of the official Yarmonkin in the complaint book - the reader, of course, remembers the story of A.P. Chekhov): “Approaching this station and looking at nature through the window, my hat flew off.”
6. Lexical norms regulate the correct use of words (impossible: a long period, you can: a long, long period).
Norms of word usage
The norms of word usage are usually understood as the correct choice of a word and the appropriateness of its use in a well-known meaning and in generally accepted combinations. The special importance of observing lexical norms is determined not only by cultural and prestigious factors, but also by the need for complete mutual understanding between the speaker (writer) and listener (reader), which is the very essence of linguistic communication.
The assessment of the acceptability of a word, the correctness of its use in one meaning or another, to a greater extent than stress and pronunciation, is associated with the ideology, worldview of native speakers, the degree of their cultural and educational level and the depth of mastering the literary tradition.
For the correct use of words in speech, it is not enough to know their exact meaning, it is also necessary to take into account the features of lexical compatibility, that is, their ability to connect with each other. So, “similar” adjectives long, long, long, long-term, long-term are “attracted” to nouns in different ways: long period, long period (but not long, long, long-term period); long way, long way; long-term fees, long-term credit. Often words with the same meaning can have different lexical compatibility (a true friend is a genuine document).
Combining words into phrases can run into various kinds of restrictions. Firstly, words may not be combined due to their semantic incompatibility. You can not say purple orange, leaned back, the water is burning. Secondly, the combination of words into a phrase can be excluded due to their grammatical nature (mine - swim, close - cheerful). Thirdly, the combination of words may be hindered by their lexical features. So, it is customary to say to cause grief, trouble, but one cannot say to cause joy, pleasure.
Speech errors associated with the wrong combination of words:
1. Mistakes that appear in speech as a result of inaccurate choice of a word - the wrong choice of a lexical equivalent: “Tatiana loves her nanny, this gray-bearded old woman”; "During February, the length of the day will increase by two hours."
2. The language must comply with the laws of logic. If we use the wrong word, alogism may arise - a comparison of disparate concepts. Example:
“The speech of the heroes of Sholokhov differs from all other heroes” (it followed: from the speech of the heroes of other authors).
3. An unsuccessful choice of a word can lead to a substitution of the concept: “Hospitable hosts fed us with a varied selection of national dishes” (What did the guests eat? National dishes Or a variety of them?
4. The reason for the illogicality of the statement sometimes lies in the fuzzy distinction between concrete and abstract concepts, generic and specific names: The idea in the sentence is incorrectly formulated: “The teacher told us about the great writer and read excerpts from his work” (follows: works).
5. In the Russian language there are many such words that seem to be “attracted” to each other. For example, we say: a herd of cows, a herd of horses, a flock of sheep, a pack of wolves...
Therefore, we are amused by an unfortunate combination of words: "A flock of ducks and hares appeared in the distance." Such an “observation” is also illogical: “A cat was sitting on the roof and squealing with pleasure” (this can be said about a dog, not a cat).
6. The main condition for the correctness of speech is the use of phraseological units in accordance with their exact value. Distortion of the meaning of stable combinations is unacceptable. Such mistakes are made by bad speakers. For example, at the traditional “last bell” holiday at one institute, a freshman began his speech rather strangely: Today we are seeing off our senior comrades on their last journey ... And talking about a fun graduation party, the young man remarked: We sang our swan song and danced for a long time.
Phraseologisms, as a rule, are used in a figurative sense, however, in some cases, the content of the speech suggests their misinterpretation, for example: This year Aeroflot managed to keep the flow of passengers on high level; Aviators on their wings always come to the rescue in time (walk on wings?).
Violation of lexical compatibility can be dictated by the conscious desire of the speaker (writer) to surprise listeners (readers) with an unusual combination of words. Then incompatibility becomes a means of creating a comic sound of speech. Many vivid examples of deliberate violation of lexical compatibility are found in Ilf and Petrov: Alexander Ivanovich Koreika was in the last fit of his youth - he was 38 years old; The commission, hung with beards, arrived at the artel "Revenge".
Violation of lexical compatibility as a vivid stylistic device for creating a comic effect underlies various jokes: Genius was recognized alive; It is difficult to forgive other people's shortcomings, but it is even more difficult to forgive other people's virtues.
Grammatical correctness of speech
The grammatical correctness of speech consists in the correct use of endings and suffixes that have variants. For example, a conductor is a conductor, a hall is a hall. In the first example, the feminine form is used only in colloquial speech, it is inappropriate in book styles; in the last example, only the masculine noun is used in modern Russian, the feminine form is obsolete. This indicates that with the development of the language, the stylistic assessment of some forms changes. Let us consider in more detail the variant endings of various parts of speech.
Stylistic variants appear in the gender forms of some nouns. How to say sick callus or sick callus, right shoe or right shoe. That's right - the first option, in the literary language these nouns are feminine.
There are nouns in which different gender forms coexist without differing stylistically: giraffe - giraffe; aviary - aviary, lobster - lobster. Nouns differ from them, in which one of the parallel forms has become obsolete: sanatorium - sanatorium; movie - movie. Obsolete variants are now absent from dictionaries or are given with a mark (obsolete).
Special attention is required for nouns, in which generic variants differ in stylistic coloring: rail - rail (simple); shoe - shoe (simple); jam - jam (dial.). Violation of the literary norm can become a means of speech characterization of the hero: I finish in one second, comrade Nagulnov. Wait, do not raise your weapon (Sholokhov.).
Of particular difficulty is the definition of the gender of indeclinable nouns of foreign origin. All indeclinable animate nouns should be referred to the masculine gender: kangaroo, cockatoo, chimpanzee, however, if the context indicates a female, they can also be used as feminine nouns: Kangaroo carried a cub in a bag. Inanimate indeclinable nouns should be classified as neuter: depot, muffler, cinema, taxi. But it should be noted that such a division does not cover all cases of the use of borrowed indeclinable nouns. There are many feminine words: avenue, hummingbird, ivasi, kohlrabi, tsetse.
When using indeclinable foreign nouns denoting persons, the gender form must strictly correspond to the gender - sweet lady, tired coolie, cheerful caballero, young miss.
Options case endings nouns cause particular difficulties in choosing the correct form.
Variant endings can have special shades in the meaning of the case form: A lumberjack's ax (N.) was heard in the forest - the ending -y indicates the place of action. But: The actor became famous for playing the main role in Ostrovsky's "Forest" - the ending -e indicates the object. In other cases, variant endings may differ in stylistic coloring: valves (general use) - valves (special); on vacation (lit.) - on vacation (colloquial).
Of greatest stylistic interest are those variant forms that have developed a variety of stylistic shades. In this regard, the leading role in the Russian language belongs to the nominative case of plural nouns. In this form, along with the traditional ending -i (-s), the new -а (-я) is widely used, and for a large number words, it has already become the main one: professors, directors, poplars, etc. Forms in -a (-z) are rich in professional speech and vernacular. Let's remember the words from V. Vysotsky's song: We don't say storms, but storms... Winds - not winds - drive us crazy. Compilers of dictionaries usually indicate the consolidation of such forms of professional speech.
In the genitive case, the endings zero and -ov actively compete in speech, less often - zero and -ey. They get colloquial coloring in pairs: a few oranges - oranges, a hectare - hectares, a gram - grams, a kilogram - kilograms, a tangerine - tangerines, a sock - socks, a tomato - tomatoes. In these pairs, the -ov ending has become the norm. The second words in pairs are also literary correct: dol - share, uncle - uncle, aunt - aunt, nursery - manger. Some variants of this case have become archaic: candles (with modern candles) - the game is not worth the candle.
An extensive scientific literature is devoted to the history and competition of the genitive case forms in -а (-я) and in -у (-ю): sugar - sugar, tea - tea. It is generally accepted that the gradually obsolete form in -u (-u) in modern language they retain the following categories of names: 1) real nouns when denoting a part of a whole (a mug of kvass, a piece of cheese); 2) some collective and abstract nouns (many people, little heat); 3) some nouns in prepositional combinations (from the forest, with fright) and as part of stable phraseological turns (with the world on a string, our regiment arrived, go astray).
In other cases, it is recommended to use the ‑а (‑я) form: the taste of tea, sugar production, among the people, etc. Usually, the stylistic difference between these case forms is also indicated: the ‑у (‑ю) forms, in contrast to neutral forms in -а (-я), stylistically somewhat reduced, are colloquial in color.
Syntactic norms
The correctness of speech largely depends on the arrangement of words in a sentence. Bad word order can distort or obscure the meaning of the statement. For example, having heard the phrase: The village feeds the lake, we will express bewilderment: does the lake need to be fed? Apparently, the lake feeds the village (that is, the inhabitants of the village trade in fishing). We are used to the fact that in such constructions the subject comes first.
When coordinating the main members of the sentence, the problem arises of choosing the forms of the number of the predicate, when the subject points to many objects, but appears in the singular.
1. The nouns majority, minority, multitude and the like, despite the grammatical form of the singular, denote not one object, but many, and therefore the predicate can take not only the form of the singular, but also the plural. Compare: On this pond ... countless ducks were hatched and kept (T.); A lot of hands are knocking on all the windows from the street, and someone is breaking on the door (Forest.). Which form would you prefer?
It is possible to single out contexts in which it is preferable (and for book styles the only correct one) to use a certain form of the number of the predicate.
Consider examples:
1) The majority agreed with the speaker.
3) Most writers strongly rejected the editor's corrections.
7) Most of the editors received the order, got acquainted with its content and made the necessary conclusions. The singular form of the predicate is fully justified in the first and second sentences, replacing it with the plural form will give them a colloquial connotation. In the third sentence, the predicate indicates the active nature of the action, and the plural form emphasizes this. The meaning of the subject is also not indifferent: if it names animate objects, plural coordination is preferable (cf .: Most of the students answered well in the lesson. But: Most of the objects were in disorder).
If the subject is separated from the predicate by a participial, participle turnover (examples 4 and 5), as well as when listing homogeneous members in the subject or predicate (examples 6 and 7), the use of the plural form of the predicate is stylistically justified.
The semantic side of speech also determines the coordination of the forms of the predicate in the plural, if this predicate indicates the action of many persons (Most of the participants in the rally met for the first time), and also if the predicate is nominal, it can only be expressed in the form of the plural: Most of the visitors were veterans.
2. With a subject expressed by a quantitative-nominal combination, the same problem arises: in what number is it better to use the predicate. At Chekhov we find: Some three soldiers stood side by side at the very descent and were silent; He had two sons. L. Tolstoy preferred the following forms: Three men and a woman sat in a sleigh; Two feelings fought in his soul - good and evil. Comparing these examples, one can see that here, too, the active action (they fought) and the designation of animate objects as the subject (three soldiers) prompted the choice of the plural form. Verbs meaning being, presence, presence, as a rule, are put in the singular, in contrast to those that call active action. Compare: There were three telephones on the table. Three phones rang at the same time.
However, for such sentences, one should also take into account the nature of the numeral used as part of the subject. So, the numeral one will tell the singular number of the predicate: Twenty-one people confirmed this.
The numerals two, three, four more often than others require the use of a plural predicate: Three houses are called for the evening; There were three troikas (P.) at the barn. However, the larger the number is indicated, the easier it is for us to comprehend it as a whole, so the predicate can be in the singular form: One hundred and thirty-seven delegates have already registered, and five people were late.
If the quantity is indicated approximately or specified by the words only, only, everything, the predicate is put in the singular: There are about twenty of us sitting in a large room with open windows (L.T.); Only five people signed up for the club.
3. Of particular interest is the coordination of the predicate with the subject expressed by some pronouns. Let's compare a few examples: One of the poets said...; Someone in a wig, with glued-on eyelashes and bright lips, nodded in my direction; None of the students, even the most able ones, could solve this equation; None of the girls, and Lena herself, could think of anything. We see that from sentence to sentence, the influence of the context increases, which determines the coordination of the predicate. However, preference for the semantic principle gives the statement a colloquial coloring. In book styles, such coordination of the predicate is not stylistically justified: with these pronouns, it must be in the singular masculine form, regardless of the fact that the pronouns indicate women, many people.
Control options
Choosing the right form of management is perhaps the most difficult thing in modern speech and writing. How should I say: a review of a dissertation or a dissertation, control over production or production, capable of sacrifices or sacrifices, a monument to Pushkin or Pushkin, to decide destinies or destinies?
Many errors in the form of management are explained by the indistinguishability of words that are close, but not identical in meaning. In one of the school essays I came across, for example, the following phrase: It is important to distinguish friends from enemies. The misuse is caused by the confusion of the verbs distinguish and distinguish, which have different forms of administration. Common Mistake entrants' confidence in victory was born under the influence of constructions with the synonymous word faith (belief in victory).
To avoid errors in the form of management, one should distinguish not only the lexical meaning of words, but also the grammatical content of a particular construction. For example, the word monument in the sense of "a sculptural structure in honor of a person" in a turnover indicating the addressee is used with the dative case - a monument to whom; for example: a monument to Pushkin, Suvorov, etc. When referring to the performer (sculptor's name), the genitive case of belonging is put - a monument to whom; for example, the monument to Anikushin, Kozlovsky, etc.
How to say: upon receipt of a response or upon receipt of a response? Do we miss you or you? The preposition po in the meaning “after” controls the prepositional case, therefore: upon receipt of the answer, at the end of the performance, after studying the question - book versions, and after receiving, etc. – neutral options. In the meaning of the reason (he retired for health reasons) or the purpose (work, greening the city), the preposition po governs the dative case.
It is more difficult to answer the question: Do we miss you or miss you? If in combination with nouns (we miss our son, we miss children) and with personal pronouns of the 3rd person (we miss him, we miss them), the preposition po controls the dative case, then in combination with personal pronouns of the 1st and 2nd faces, the same preposition is used with the prepositional case: we miss you (not you), miss us (not us). Such are the vagaries of this preposition.
It also has a stylistic feature: when designating an object that needs to be obtained, obtained, the use of the preposition po has a colloquial colloquial character, for example: go mushrooming (for mushrooms).
In order to clarify the management options, you need to use a dictionary, for example: Rosenthal D.E. Management in Russian: Dictionary-reference book. - M., 1997.
Pronunciation norms
For the success of the speaker's speech, expressiveness of speech is essential, which is achieved by a clear, clear pronunciation, correct intonation, and skillfully spaced pauses. Particular attention should be paid to the pace of speech, the strength of the voice, the persuasiveness of the tone, as well as the requirements of oratory: posture, gestures, facial expressions. An important role is given to literary pronunciation and stress, which are studied in a special section of the science of language - in orthoepy.
Russian orthoepy includes the rules for pronunciation of unstressed vowels, voiced and deaf consonants, the rules for pronunciation of individual grammatical forms, words of foreign origin, as well as the placement of stress.
The most important features of Russian literary pronunciation developed in the first half of the 18th century on the basis of the spoken language of the city of Moscow.
Pronunciation of unstressed vowels
In unstressed syllables, vowels undergo changes as a result of the weakening of articulation. Qualitative reduction is a change in the timbre of the sound of a vowel; quantitative reduction is a decrease in its longitude and strength. The vowels in the first pre-stressed syllable change slightly, the vowels of the remaining unstressed syllables are reduced to a greater extent.
In the first pre-stressed syllable, the sound [a] is pronounced in place of the letters a and o. It differs from the struck [a] in a shorter duration. For example: tr [a] va, s [a] sleep.
In the remaining unstressed syllables, in place of the letters a and o, a short sound is pronounced, the middle one between [s] and [a], denoted in transcription by the sign [b]. For example: tr [b] vyany, z [b] lot, school [b], call [b] to.
At the beginning of a word, unstressed a and o are pronounced like [a], for example: [a] zot, [a] bladat.
After hard hissing [w] and [w], the vowel [a] in the first pre-stressed syllable is pronounced like [a], for example: w[a] rgon, w[a] gat. But before soft consonants, a sound is pronounced, the middle between [s] and [e], for example: f [ye] fly, losh [ye] dey.
After soft consonants in the first pre-stressed syllable, in place of the letters e and i, a sound is pronounced, the middle between [i] and [e], for example: v [ie] sleep, ch [ie] sy.
In the rest of the unstressed syllables, in place of the letters e and i, a very short [and] is pronounced, in transcription denoted by the sign [b], for example: in [b] lykan, take out [b] sti, p [b] wheelbarrow, pull out [b] .
In place of combinations of letters aa, ao, oa, oo, vowels [aa] are pronounced in pre-stressed syllables, for example: s[aa] falter, s[aa] bottom, p[aa] English, v [aa] brazil.
Pronunciation of consonants
At the end of words and in their middle before deaf consonants, voiced consonants are stunned, for example: yastre [n], break [k], zapa [t], bag [w], tra[f] ka, ska [s] ka.
In place of deaf consonants before voiced ones (except for c), the corresponding voiced ones are pronounced, for example: [z] run, o [d] quit, into [g] hall.
In some cases, consonants before soft consonants are pronounced softly. For example: [z "d"] es, gvo [z "d"] and, e [s "l"] and, ku [s "n"] ets, ne [n "s"] iya. There are two pronunciation options for some words, for example: [z"l"]it and [zl"]it, after [s"l"]e and after [sled"]e.
Double pronunciation is observed in combinations with labial consonants, for example: [d "v"] er and [dv"] er, [z "v"] er and [sv"] er. The first options sound less and less.
Double consonant letters correspond to a long consonant sound, usually when the stress falls on the previous syllable, for example: group [pp] a, ma [ss] a, program [mm] a. If the stress falls on the next syllable, then double consonants are pronounced without longitude, for example: a[k]ord, ba[s]ein, gram[m]atika.
Pronunciation features foreign words
In words of foreign origin, not completely assimilated by the Russian language, the letter o in an unstressed position is pronounced clearly: [o], that is, without reduction: b[o]a, [o]tel, kaka[o], radio[o]. Sometimes a double pronunciation is allowed: p[o]et - p[a]et, s[o]no - s[a]no, etc.
Before a vowel, denoted by the letter e, in many foreign words, consonants are pronounced firmly: a [te] lie, ko [de] ks, ka [fe], Sho [pe] n. In order not to be mistaken, you should look into the dictionary of literary pronunciation.
To determine the stress in the initial form of words, we turn to dictionaries. How to pronounce derivative forms? They are given in grammars, in which we find the following indications of stress norms.
Noun
1. Many monosyllabic masculine nouns have a singular in the genitive case. stress on the end: bandage - bandage, pancake - pancake, bob - bob, screw - screw, harm - harm, coat of arms - coat of arms, hump - hump, mushroom - mushroom, tourniquet - tourniquet, umbrella - umbrella, bucket - bucket, sickle - sickle, trace - trace, pole - pole.
But: goose - goose, cake - cake, coal - coal and coal.
2. Feminine nouns in the accusative singular have an accent either on the ending or on the basis of:
a) spring, earl, ash, hut, goat, burrow, sheep, dew, saliva, grass.
Double emphasis: river and river, plank and plank;
b) harrow, mountain, earth, winter, time, back, wall, price, cheek.
3. Some monosyllabic nouns of the 3rd declension, when used with the prepositions в and на, have an accent on the ending: in the bone, in the blood, in the night, on the stove, in the shadow, on the chain, in honor.
4. Nouns of the 3rd declension in the genitive plural. have an accent either on the basis or on the ending:
a) insolence, localities, honors, profits, sermons.
Double emphasis: branches and branches, spans and spans;
b) branches, handfuls, positions, poles, fortresses, tablecloths, speeds, degrees, canes, quarters, slots.
Double emphasis: statements and statements.
5. Sometimes prepositions take on stress, and then the noun or numeral following them turns out to be unstressed. For example: without: missing, without a year a week, to no avail; for: for the hair, for the head, for the soul, for the winter, for the year, for the city; from: out of sight, out of the house, out of the forest, out of the nose; on: on the water, on the head, on the mountain, on the soul, on the leg, on the hand, on the side, on the shore, on the year; by: through the forest, by sea, by ear; two, one hundred, two, three; under: downhill, under the feet, under the arms, under the nose.
Adjective
Many short adjectives have an accent on the first syllable of the stem, except for the feminine form, where it goes to the ending: boek, boiko, boiki; merry, merry, merry; stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid; proud, proud, proud, proud.
Double stress in the plural form: pale and pale, close and close, harmful and harmful, hungry and hungry, thick and thick, friendly and friendly, empty and empty, cramped and cramped, cold and cold.
1. For many verbs II ref. in connection with the general trend of approaching the stress to the beginning of the word, the stress in the forms of the present tense is now placed on the basis, and not on the ending: cooks, twirls, loads, makes friends, glues, gives, salts and salts, beckons and beckons. But: calling.
2. The stress in the forms of the past tense can be on the basis and on the ending. There are three groups:
a) verbs with stress on the basis in all forms: beat - beat, beat, beat, beat; shave - shave, shave, shave, shave; put - put, put, put, put; neigh - neigh, neigh, neigh; steal - stole, stole, stole;
b) verbs with stress on the basis in all forms, except for the feminine form, in which it passes to the ending: take - took, took, took, took; to be - was, was, was, were; take - took, took, took, took; give - gave, gave (gave), gave.
c) verbs with an accent on the prefix in all forms, except for the feminine form, in which it passes to the ending: to pester - pestered, pestered, pestered; freeze - froze, froze, froze; occupy - occupied, occupied, occupied; start - started, started, started.
Double emphasis: lived and lived, drank and drank, gave and asked, gained and gained, took and took away, drank and drank, gave and gave, raised and raised, sold and sold, lived and lived, drank and drank, spilled and spilled , distributed and distributed.
3. In passive past participles, the stress in the feminine form in some cases falls on the ending, in others on the prefix:
a) taken - taken, twisted - twisted, obsolete - obsolete, started - started, accepted - accepted;
b) in participles on -swearing, -called, the emphasis falls on the prefix: dobrana, taken away, bullied, called, elected, tattered, recruited, named, selected, recalled, picked up, interrupted, tidied up, called, called, called, assembled, convened.
4. In the verbs on -irovat, two groups are distinguished: with emphasis on and and with emphasis on a:
a) to run, block, guarantee, discredit, debate, etc.;
b) bombard, engrave, make up, drape, varnish, seal, reward, corrugate, etc.
5. Passive past participles formed from verbs on -irovat are divided into two groups: the form on -irovat corresponds to the form on -ed, the form on -irovat corresponds to the form on -irovat:
a) block - blocked, plan - planned, illustrate - illustrated, etc.
b) bombard - bombarded, varnish - varnished, seal - sealed, reward - rewarded, etc.
Variation of accents
However, should all discrepancies in stress be unconditionally considered a mistake? Of course not. For stress, there is also the concept of variance, which means the presence in some words of stress variants used in different situations communication.
In order to avoid mistakes in setting stress, one should know not only the norm, but also the types of options, as well as the conditions under which one or another of them can be used. To do this, it is recommended to use special dictionaries and reference books. It is best to resort to the help of the "Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language". It gives a system of normative marks (single for evaluating pronunciation, accent and morphological variants), which looks like this.
1. Equal options. They are united by the union and: waves and waves; sparkling and sparkling; autarky and autarky; barge and barge; salmon and salmon. In terms of correctness, these options are the same.
2. Variants of the norm, of which one is recognized as the main one:
a) litter "permissible" (add.): cottage cheese and add. cottage cheese; gave extra. gave, weekdays and extra. weekday; cooking and more cooking. The first option is preferred, the second one is assessed as less desirable, but still within the correct range. Most often used in colloquial speech;
b) the mark “tolerably obsolete” (additional obsolete): industry and additional. obsolete industry; gathered and obsolete gathered.
The litter indicates that the variant she evaluates is gradually being lost, and in the past it was the main one. Of the two options, one of which is recognized as the main one, it is recommended to use the first option, which is considered preferable.
The dictionary also includes options that are outside the literary norm.
To indicate these options, the so-called prohibition marks are introduced:
This litter may have the additional characteristic "Obsolete" (not rec. obsolete). Variants bearing this mark represent the former form. Today they are outside the norm, for example: dialogue! not rivers. obsolete dialogue; point! not rivers. obsolete point;
2) "wrong" (wrong) - an athlete! not right. athlete, wrong, athlete; kitchen! not right. kitchen; loan! not right. loan.
3) “grossly wrong” (grossly wrong) - a document! grossly wrong. document; engineers! grossly wrong. engineer; solicitation! grossly wrong. petition.
Anyone whose speech should be exemplary should not use options that have prohibitive marks.
Questions for self-control:
1. Name the main types of norms.
2. What speech errors do you know?
3. Variability of morphological, syntactic and pronunciation norms.
Correctness is the main, main communicative quality of good speech, because thanks to correctness, the unity of speech is ensured, on which the mutual understanding of those who communicate depends. Therefore, wrong speech cannot be good.
The lack of correctness can make it difficult to understand, it can cause an unplanned impression on the addressee (as from the speech of a person who is not very cultured (cf. calls instead of normative ringing)). Sometimes it just distracts the listener's attention from the content of what was said.
Correctness of speech can be defined as a necessary property of good speech, due to the observance of generally accepted rules, certain principles for using the entire set of language means in speech.
Thus, it can be argued that the basis of the correctness of speech is the criterion of compliance with the norms. Therefore, the speech corresponding to the norm is called correct.
What is a "norm"? There are two understandings of this term: narrow and wide.
In a broad sense, the norm refers to traditional and spontaneously developed ways of speaking. So, we can talk about the norm in relation to the territorial dialect: for example, okanye is normal for northern Russian dialects, and akanye is normal for southern Russian dialects.
In a narrow sense, a norm is the result of a purposeful codification (legalization) of a language, i.e. the result of prescriptions, rules, instructions for use, recorded in dictionaries and grammars. “Such an understanding of the norm is inextricably linked with the concept of the literary language, which is a codified form of the national language. Urban vernacular, territorial and social dialects are not subject to codification, and therefore the concept of a norm in the narrow sense of this term is not applicable to them" [Krysin 2003: 58]. Literary language is organized system: all means in it are delimited in accordance with the needs of communication. The norm serves as a regulator of this differentiation.
One of the first in linguistics is a dual understanding of the norm (descriptive: that which as they say, How it is customary to say in this society; and prescriptive : how to, How speak correctly) was put forward by the Uruguayan linguist E. Koseriu.
The study of the nature of the norm is presented in two works by E. Koseriu: "System, Norm and Speech" (1952) and "Synchrony, Diachrony and History" (1958). E.Koseriu proceeded from the understanding that the language has a public character, so there must be a category that could adequately express this. Following F. de Saussure in the definition of a system (a system is a set of linguistic phenomena that can be represented as a network of oppositions - structures; these phenomena perform a certain function), E. Coseriou understands the norm as a set of linguistic phenomena that do not perform in the language direct function, but act as generally accepted (traditional) implementations.
The norm, according to E.Koseriu, is a stable state (balance) of the system on a given synchronous slice. The norm exists as a resultant of the collective linguistic consciousness. Language norms were not invented by someone (say, linguists), but objectively developed as a result of centuries-old speech practice of people.
Since consciousness is changeable, the norm, on the one hand, is also mobile, on the other hand, it is a system of mandatory implementations. In this idea lies the future (formulated by other researchers) distinction objective And subjective norms.
objective the norm corresponds to the capabilities of the language system, and subjective forms the personality of speech.
Thus, it can be stated the two-sided nature of the norm: on the one hand, it contains the objective properties of an evolving language (the norm is the realized possibility of the language), and on the other hand, public taste assessments (the norm is a stable way of expression fixed in the best examples of literature, preferred by the educated part of society). It is this combination of objective and subjective that creates the somewhat contradictory nature of the norm: for example, the obvious prevalence and general use of a linguistic sign does not always (or at least not immediately) receive approval from codifiers. Here the living forces that direct the natural course of the development of the language (and the consolidation of the results of this development in the norm) and the traditions of linguistic taste collide.
The objective norm is created on the basis of the competition of variants of linguistic signs. Therefore, when a codifier describes a system of norms and develops normative rules, he seeks to present a system of objective norms in the description, but he is forced to focus to a certain extent on his own perception of a linguistic fact, i.e. bring subjectivity to the assessment.
The objective norm is formed in the usage, i.e. in the generally accepted use of a language unit, mass and regular. Therefore, in order to identify an objective norm, it is necessary first of all to investigate the usage (custom of use).
In this situation, one can notice a contradiction, which O.A. Lapteva points out: speech, according to Saussure, is individual, and speech activity, according to Coseriou, is regulated by a mass and universal norm [Lapteva: 57].
This contradiction can be removed by introducing the concept of subjective norm. Linguists point to the discrepancy between the norm and the actual use of the language, which depend on the structure of society and the characteristics of the speech situation. This is where, as O.A. Lapteva points out, the subjective aspect of the norm is manifested, depending on the attitude of the individual (having a set of social, age, educational, personal characteristics) to the objective norm and affecting the nature of its use [Lapteva: 58].
So, the norm as a national and socio-historical phenomenon characterizes, first of all, the literary language - recognized as an exemplary form of the national language. The norm determines what is right and what is wrong, it recommends some language means and ways of expression as legitimate and rejects others as contrary to linguistic custom, tradition.
The norm is based on useus, custom of use, the codified norm officially legitimizes the usage (or in some particular cases rejects it (cf. the use of the variant sq. á rotal in the city of Angarsk, Irkutsk Region, under the regulatory quart A l)); in any case, codification is a conscious activity.
The literary norm, as a reflection of tradition and the result of codification, is a set of rather rigid prescriptions and prohibitions that contribute to the unity and stability of the literary language. Some researchers also point to a quantitative factor - the prevalence of the norm, although a mistake can also be common.
The norm has some feature set, which must be present in it in their entirety.
So, obligatory nature and hence unity norms are manifested in the fact that representatives of different social groups must adhere to traditional ways of linguistic expression, as well as those rules and regulations that are contained in grammars and dictionaries and are the result of codification.
Norm stable And conservative.
The conservatism of the norm ensures the comprehensibility of the language for representatives of different generations. The norm is based on traditional ways of using the language and is cautious about language innovations. A.M. Peshkovsky explains this as follows: “If the literary dialect changed quickly, then each generation could only use the literature of its own and previous generations, many - two. But under such conditions there would be no literature itself, because the literature of every generation is created by all previous literature. If Chekhov did not already understand Pushkin, then there would probably be no Chekhov either. Too thin a layer of soil would give too little nutrition to literary shoots. The conservatism of the literary dialect, uniting centuries and generations, creates the possibility of a single powerful centuries-old national literature” [Peshkovsky: 55].
Since the norm is conservative, it is aimed at preserving linguistic means and the rules for their use. However, the conservatism of the norm does not mean its complete immobility in time. Another thing is that the pace of normative changes is slower than the development of a given literary language as a whole. In different eras, the language norm is not the same.
In Pushkin's times they said houses, housings, Now - Houses, corpsA, then there was music, Now - music. In Pushkin's "Monument ..." we read: and don't argue with the fool, now only do not dispute. Pushkin Arise, prophet need to understand how get up, not how raise a rebellion. F.M. Dostoevsky wrote: Here ticklish Yaroslav Ilyich ... rushed his eyes to Murin, now the word ticklish cannot be applied to a person (cf. ticklish question,delicate matter). A.N. Tolstoy in one of his stories described the actions of a hero who became follow the flight of kites over the forest(cf. follow the flight of kites). Chekhov said on the phone, and we - by phone.
Such a time difference of the norm is a natural phenomenon: the language develops, and the norm develops along with it. But the change in the literary norm is slower than the change in the entire language as a whole, since the norm does not borrow everything from the language stream, but selects only what is needed. Thus, the norm is historically changeable and relatively stable, which allows not to destroy the unity of the literary language, does not interfere with its general intelligibility. This happens because the norm traditional, which is why it is customary.
The stability and traditional character of the norm also explain some degree of its retrospective. Despite its fundamental mobility and variability, the norm very carefully opens its borders for innovations, leaving them for the time being on the periphery of the language. A.M. Peshkovsky convincingly and simply said about this: “The norm is what was, and partly what is, but by no means what will be.”
All of the above allows us to formulate the following definition: norm- relatively stable, regularly reproduced in the speech of native speakers, ways of expression, reflecting the laws of the language system and preferred by the educated part of society.
The definition of a norm includes the main criteria for choosing a normative option:
1. system criterion, which predetermines the compliance of the normative variant with the language system (the law of linguistic analogy);
2. functional criterion, predetermining the regular reproducibility of a linguistic phenomenon in communication, the frequency of use;
3. aesthetic criterion, based on the preference of the variant by the educated part of society (cultural tradition, authority of the source).
Each of the criteria separately can influence the choice of a particular linguistic phenomenon as a normative one, but an appeal to one criterion is not enough. In order for a language tool to be recognized as normative, a combination of features is necessary. So, for example, errors are very common, and they can maintain their stability over a long period. In addition, the language practice of a sufficiently authoritative printed organ may be far from ideal. As for the credibility of the artists of the word, then there are special difficulties in assessing, because. language fiction- a phenomenon of a special plan: the implementation of the aesthetic function becomes possible as a result of the free use of the language.
The criterion of norm stability manifests itself differently at different language levels. This criterion is directly related to the systemic nature of the language as a whole; at each language level, the ratio of "norm and system" manifests itself to a different degree; for example, in the field of pronunciation, the norm depends entirely on the system (cf. the laws of alternation of sounds, assimilation, pronunciation of groups of consonants, etc.); in the field of vocabulary, the norm is determined by the system to a lesser extent: the content plan dominates the expression plan; moreover, the systemic relationships of lexemes can be adjusted under the influence of a new content plan.
The third criterion is directly related to such a sign of the norm as its codification,- official recognition of the norm and its description in the form of rules (prescriptions) in authoritative linguistic publications. In other words, codification is the development of a set of rules that brings normalized variants into a system, “legitimizes” them. Thus, codification is understood as the explication (written fixing) of a norm, which usually has a retrospective character and is carried out with a focus on linguistic authorities (on the opinion of writers and scientists).
It should be noted that both spontaneous and conscious processes are involved in the formation and evolution of the modern language norm.
To recognize the normativity of a linguistic phenomenon or fact, as already mentioned (see the three criteria of the norm), it is necessary to be based on combined data on the correspondence of the phenomenon to the language system, on the fact of mass and regular reproducibility of the phenomenon and on its public approval. The form of such approval is codification, which fixes in dictionaries, grammars and reference books spontaneously formed phenomena in speech practice. Since codifiers - both individual scientists and creative teams - may have different views and attitudes, different degrees of manifestation of prohibitive intentions, recommendations in officially published documents often do not coincide, especially with regard to stylistic marks in dictionaries, fixing a number of grammatical forms, etc. . Such disagreements testify not so much to the fact that different criteria can be used when covering linguistic facts, when establishing a norm, but rather to the inconsistency of the linguistic material itself: the language is rich in variant forms, so the choice is sometimes difficult.
So, the codification of the norm is the result of normalizing activity, and the codifiers, observing the speech practice, fix the norm that has developed in the language itself, giving preference to the option that is most relevant for a given time.
Orientation to tradition, to maintaining the conservatism of the norm on the part of codifiers, some group of professionals or "lovers of literature" is sometimes perceived by the public as a ban on everything new. The desire, out of conservative motives, to keep something (for example, in a language) unchanged, to protect it from innovations is called purism(French purisme, from Latin purus - clean).
Purism can be different. In the history of Russian literature, for example, ideological purism, associated with the name of A.S. Shishkov, admiral, president of the Russian Academy since 1813, later minister of public education, who acted as an archaist who did not tolerate any innovations in the language, especially borrowed ones. Shishkov's purism was consistent and uncompromising. He called, for example, instead of the word piano use the equivalent tigogrom, galoshes suggested calling wet shoes, a boulevard– promenade. There was, for example, such a parody of his artificial style: “ The horoshische goes through the abyss from the disgrace to the lists", which corresponded to the phrase from the words already known at that time:" Frant walks along the boulevard from the theater to the circus».
And modern authors, categorical in their rejection of foreign borrowings, turn out to be no more original than Shishkov in specific sentences. The sentences look almost ridiculous computer call counter, TV – visionary, shop – shop, A office – presence.
Nowadays, one may encounter taste purism when linguistic facts are evaluated from everyday positions: “it cuts or does not cut the ear” (it is clear that the ear can have different sensitivity), as well as with purism scientists which deserves more attention as it can influence the development of recommendations. These are most often the emotions of a bibliophile who is a prisoner of tradition. This is revealed in prohibitive recommendations placed in dictionaries, manuals, etc. In part, such purism can be useful, it has the quality of a deterrent.
Unlike the tendentious statements of some guardians, their opponents - L.P. Krysin, O.B. Sirotinina and others - oppose categorical judgments about the inadmissibility of borrowings in the Russian language. So, L.P. Krysin believes that "our language is from" futures"does not suffer much: grammar - its backbone, its flesh - remains" and "foreign words sometimes very accurately express the essence of the subject." According to the researcher, the use of anglicisms should be regulated not by administrative measures, but by promoting the culture of the language (“Komsomolskaya Pravda”, 02/19/1998).
Convincing evidence of the viability of foreign words is " Dictionary living Great Russian language” by V.I.Dal. Against the wishes of the author, who included in his dictionary foreign words only in order to show the superiority of their synonyms (originally Russian words) over them and thus to get rid of them from Russian speech, most of the borrowings noted in the dictionary became stronger in the vocabulary of the Russian language. These are socio-political terms ( aristocracy, agitation), financial and economic ( auction,bill of exchange), scientific ( hypothesis,definition), everyday vocabulary ( curtain, pudding, the vinaigrette) and etc.
Many anglicisms are included in synonymous rows with words that have long been used in the Russian literary language, cf .: manager–manager–director; pressure–pressure–pressure; sponsor–philanthropist - philanthropist–philanthropist; broker–intermediary–broker; grant–loan–gift and others. At the same time, native speakers of the Russian language increasingly prefer words of English origin due to their greater semantic accuracy and economy.
It is in a critical historical era that mass borrowings denoting new concepts are inevitable and natural. Any attempt to artificially impede this process through administrative measures, without taking into account the ability of the language to self-purify, can be harmful. Neologisms, which reflect new phenomena and concepts, processes taking place in society, have a serious chance of being firmly rooted in the language system (see more about this in the "Purity of Speech" section).
Norm Options
Changing the norm is a natural phenomenon, since the development of a language depends not only on linguistic, but also on social factors. With the development of science, culture, social relations, the language also changes.
Sources for updating the language norm are diverse. First of all, this is colloquial speech, it is mobile, changeable, it allows what is often not approved by the official norm: an unusual stress, an expressive word (which is not recorded in dictionaries), a syntactic turn that is not provided for by grammar. With repeated repetition, these innovations gradually enter into literary use. Thus, there are options.
A conscious appeal to the norm occurs precisely in this case - when there are options.
Variation is the most important feature of the language norm, which is closely related to its dynamics. It is through the appearance of variants that the norm changes and develops.
Options(in the narrow sense) are varieties of the same language unit that have the same meaning and do not have any differences. In a broad sense, variants are understood as two or more linguistic means, one of which has an additional semantic connotation or differs in the scope of use (most often the term "variant" is used in the second meaning).
The presence of variance is the result of the evolution of the language itself, it is it that ensures the choice of the most appropriate variants of the linguistic expression.
The exemplary, reference standard of a normative language means increasingly depends on the requirements of expediency and convenience. The mobility of the language norm sometimes leads to the fact that for the same meaning in certain time periods there is not one way of expression, but more. This happens because the old norm has not yet been lost, but along with it a new one arises (cf. the pronunciation of adjectives in - gyi, cue, -hyi(type strict, brief, quiet) or verbs in - gyrate, - nod,-hivat (stretch out, repel, swing) with both hard and soft posterior linguals). “The existence of double norms in the literary language that arose in the course of its historical development, does not exclude the parallel existence of variants associated with the presence of functional varieties, the distinguishing feature of which may also be variant forms ( on holiday– on vacation, workshops– workshops, condition– condition)" [Golub, Rosenthal: 113].
The change in norms is preceded by the appearance of their variants, which actually coexist in the language at a certain stage of its development and are actively used by its speakers. Let's denote the original version of the norm by the letter A, the replacement version by the letter B and see how the competition between them takes place.
1. The only form dominates (option A), option B is outside the literary language.
2. Option B penetrates the literary language, is considered acceptable in colloquial speech. In the future, depending on the degree of prevalence, it acts as an equal option.
3. Option A loses its dominant role, finally giving way to option B.
4. Option B becomes the only norm, option A goes out of use.
The current state of the Russian language, the wide representation of variant forms in it, their stylistic differentiation made it possible to form a new view on the nature of the norm: the characteristics "normative" - "non-normative" turned out to be insufficiently accurate and inadequate in relation to a number of linguistic phenomena. It turned out that the norm is elastic, as close as possible to the situation of communication, to the topic of communication, to the environment of communication, and therefore the term turned out to be in demand. norm options.
According to the level of obligation norms differ imperative(universal, strictly obligatory) and dispositive(additional, allowing choice, variant). For example, stresses in words are obligatory for all alphabetAnd T, Wede dstva, dosat G,rolledO G, whereas when pronouncing the word cottage cheese variation is allowed.
Violation of imperative norms is regarded as poor language proficiency ( beautiful tulle , new shampoo, whereby?(Not thanks to which!)). Such rules do not allow options.
The dispositive norms of the variants allow double use: cuffs And cuff, on holiday(neutral) and on vacation(colloquial).
In addition, the norm is general language(with or without options) and situational(stylistic), the latter most often characterizes professional speech, for example, the general language literary norm requires an ending - And, -s in many h. masculine nouns engineers,editors,correctors,accountants;profiles,navigators etc. Professional and colloquial speech allows options for - A, -I: engineer,editor,corrector,accountant;profile,navigator. With the general language norm ToO mpas, stocks sailors use uniforms compA s, slipway etc. Physicians have many professional options, for example: drug addict And I in common language form people's commissar A nia and even A alcohol(instead of the common language variant alcoholO eh).
situational the norm can distinguish between variants of the semantic plan: wait for the train(any) wait for the train(specific); a variant can mean a style affiliation: to be on vacation And on vacation(the second characterizes colloquial speech), may be due to semantic and stylistic differences: have a walk in the forest,But in Ostrovsky's "Forest"(meaning the play); in the garden, But in "The Cherry Orchard" by Chekhov and etc.
Variants turn out to be transitional steps from an obsolete norm to a new one or serve as a means of stylistic differentiation: weekday[h]ny And weekday[w]ny, high And high[b]th, a glass of tea and a glass of tea.
The fact that the norm has variants, but at the same time it has the properties of unity and universal validity, makes it possible to talk about the tolerance of the norm (L.P. Krysin’s term).
The concept of tolerance in relation to the language norm allows us to consider the norm not only as a linguistic, but also as a social construct, the formation of which is influenced by social preferences and prohibitions.
Tolerance of a language norm has several dimensions, of which the most significant are the following:
§ structural,
§ communicative,
§ social.
Structural tolerance- this is the assumption by the norm of variants that differ in their structure (phonetic, morphological, syntactic) with the identity of the content side.
For example, phonetic variants: boring– sku[shn]o, [zhe] fly–[zh] to fly, accent: tv O horn– creation O G, at the same time O – at the same time e exactly, morphological: in the shop –in the shop, caplet– dripping, derivational: hysterical – hysterical, syntactic: Russian language textbook– Russian language textbook,jar for sour cream–jar for sour cream.
All these options are within the literary norm and do not differ in meaning.
Communicative tolerance- this is the use of variable means of the language, depending on the communicative goals pursued by the speaker in certain communication conditions.
So, it is impossible to write in business legal document slang lawlessness, colloquial in bulk, but in casual communication the use of these lexemes is frequent.
social tolerance- this is the assumption by the language norm of variants distributed among different social groups of speakers of a given language.
In normative dictionaries, such options are marked with the litter "prof.", "mor.", "med." etc.
We are not talking about storms, but storms,
The words come out short and savory;
Winds - not winds drive us crazy,
Uprooting the masts from the decks.
V.Vysotsky
One and the same native speaker, communicating with representatives of different strata of speakers, can consciously choose those options provided by the language, with the help of which he hopes to achieve a certain communicative comfort in a given social environment.
Norm in speech- this is a set of means and rules most suitable for communication, selected from among the existing ones: “The norm in a language is the historically accepted choice of one of the variants of a linguistic sign as a preferred and recommended one in a given language community” (Kupina N.A., Matveeva T.V. 1991: 8).
The norm of speech is the basis for the preservation literary language- that unites the nation.
Provide unity, integrity, common understanding of the national language;
They preserve the linguistic tradition, as a result of which the transfer of information from one generation to another is possible;
Restrain language changes;
Outline trends in the further development of the language;
They regulate the speech behavior of people, their communicatively expedient use of language means;
Aimed at achieving the effectiveness of the communicative act.
The basis of the norms of Russian speech is the oral speech of literary educated people, works of classical Russian literature, a comparative analysis of similar linguistic phenomena in the works of writers of the 19th and 20th centuries. and contemporary writers, grammatical studies, questionnaire data.
The norm is obligatory for all speakers of a given literary language, brought together into a single systematized whole in dictionaries, reference books, grammars (codified), supported by literature, society and the state, distributed by the media, theater, school.
The norm is relatively stable: over time, under the influence of various reasons, language norms change, which indicates the constant development of the language. The process of replacing the old norm with a new one can last for decades, during such periods two norms can coexist: the “older”, based on tradition, and the “younger”, based on the laws of the language or the modern speech trend. For example, the pronunciation of bulo [shn] aya, molo [shn] ik corresponds to the “senior” norm, and bulo [ch] aya, molo [ch] ik corresponds to the “younger”.
There are rules:
A) obligatory(imperative), which provide for the choice of only one option as the only correct, the only acceptable in literary speech; violation of such norms is a mistake, for example, calls correctly (calls incorrectly), puts on a coat correctly (puts on a coat incorrectly);
b) variant(dispositive), suggesting the existence of several linguistic forms, ways of expressing the same concept within the literary language, that is, allowing for a more free choice of options, for example: cottage cheese and cottage cheese, drips and caplets.
Speech that conforms to literary norms is correct.
Correctness of speech- the main communicative quality that ensures mutual understanding of speakers of the same language. Linguistic dictionaries and reference books help every speaker and writer in this: spelling, orthoepic, word-building, explanatory, phraseological, grammatical, dictionaries of foreign words, dictionaries of difficulties of the Russian language, dictionaries of synonyms, antonyms, paronyms, etc.
There are the following groups of norms:
- orthoepic (pronunciation) norms, including accentological (stressing rules),
- vocabulary rules,
- morphological norms (rules for the formation and use of various forms of words),
- syntactic norms (rules for combining words into phrases and sentences),
- lexical norms (rules of word usage),
- phraseological norms (rules for the use of stable combinations,
- spelling rules (rules for writing words),
- punctuation norms (rules for punctuation marks),
- graphic standards.
Questions that control knowledge of theoretical material on this topic:
- What is a language norm? What are its signs and conditions of existence?
- What are the features of mandatory (mandatory) and optional (dispositive) norms?
- What is correct speech?
- What groups of norms in the language do you know?
