home » Spring shoes » Literary and linguistic norm, its codification and dissemination. Codification of literary norms

Literary and linguistic norm, its codification and dissemination. Codification of literary norms

The concepts of normalization and codification are closely related to issues of norms and their variation. Often the terms “normalization” and “codification” are used interchangeably 1 . However, in studies recent years these terms and concepts are differentiated.

V. A. Itskovich suggests that normalization should be considered not a simple description of a norm, or its codification in the strict sense of the word, but only “active intervention in the language process, for example, the introduction of certain terms and the rejection of others as undesirable for some reason” 2. However, with this approach to normalization and codification, the distinction between these two phenomena is somewhat lost. We find a clearer solution to this issue in L.I. Skvortsov: “Contrasting in degree of activity (or “awareness”) to each other, the concepts of “codification” and “normalization” turn out to be in relation to subordination: the latter is part of the former. In practice, “normalization”... is usually called “standardization” (in the broad sense of the word: establishment of GOST, streamlining of the terminology system, official renaming, etc.)” 3.

According to L.K. Graudina, the term “normalization” refers to a set of problems that involve coverage of the following aspects: “1) studying the problem of defining and establishing a norm literary language; 2) research for normative purposes of language practice in its relation to theory; 3) bringing into the system, further improving and streamlining the rules of use in cases of divergence between theory and practice, when there is a need to strengthen the norms of the literary language” 4. L. K. Graudin considers the term “codification” to be narrower and more specialized than the term “normalization” and uses it in cases where we're talking about on registration of rules in normative works.

The new textbook for universities “Culture of Russian Speech” (edited by L.K. Graudina and E.N. Shiryaev) states the following: “Codified norms of a literary language are norms that all speakers of a literary language must follow. Any grammar of the modern Russian literary language, any of its dictionaries is nothing more than its codification” 5.

The most optimal definition of normalization is the process of formation, approval of a norm, its description, and ordering by linguists. Normalization is a historically long-term selection of single, most commonly used units from linguistic variants. Normalizing activity finds its expression in the codification of a literary norm - its official recognition and description in the form of rules (prescriptions) in authoritative linguistic publications (dictionaries, reference books, grammars). Consequently, codification is a developed set of rules that brings standardized options into the system and “legitimizes” them.

Thus, this or that phenomenon, before becoming the norm in the CLE, undergoes a process of normalization, and in the case of a favorable outcome (widespread, public approval etc.) is fixed, codified in rules, recorded in dictionaries with recommendatory marks.

The formation of a CLE norm is a multidimensional phenomenon, often contradictory. K. S. Gorbachevich notes in this regard: “... the objective, dynamic and contradictory nature of the norms of the Russian literary language dictates the need for a conscious and careful approach to assessing the controversial facts of modern speech... Unfortunately, not all popular science books and mass textbooks on speech culture reveal a scientifically based and sufficiently delicate solution to complex problems of literary norms.

There are facts of subjective amateur assessment, and cases of bias towards new formations, and even manifestations of administration in matters of language. Indeed, language is one of those phenomena of social life about which many consider it possible to have their own special opinion. Moreover, these personal opinions about right and wrong in language are often expressed in the most peremptory and temperamental form. However, independence and categorical judgments do not always mean their truth” 6.

Closely related to the phenomenon of normalization is the so-called anti-normalization - the denial of scientific normalization and codification of language. The views of convinced anti-normalizers are based on the worship of spontaneity in the development of language. The writer A. Yugov, for example, put forward the idea that “the Russian language rules itself,” he does not need norms, normative dictionaries. In the book “Thoughts on the Russian Word” he wrote: “Normative lexicography is a relic.” And further: “I consider the following historical circumstance indisputable: the so-called literary norms of the Russian language, and those currently in effect (or rather, evil ones), they were established “from above,” in Imperial Russia. These are class norms." 7

It should be remembered that anti-normalization can undermine the existing relatively stable system of norms of the Russian literary language, the system functional styles.

Not only anti-normalization, but also another (more well-known) phenomenon is closely connected with the development of norms of the Russian literary language, their formation - purism (from the Latin purus - pure), i.e. rejection of any innovations and changes in the language or their outright prohibition. The purist attitude towards language is based on the view of the norm as something unchangeable. In a broad sense, purism is an overly strict, irreconcilable attitude towards any borrowings, innovations, and in general towards all subjectively understood cases of distortion, coarsening and damage to language. Purists don't want to understand historical development language, normalization policy: they idealize in language the past, long established and tested.

G. O. Vinokur emphasized that purism only wants great-grandchildren to speak the same way as in the old and best years great-grandfathers used to say. V. P. Grigoriev, in the article “Language Culture and Language Policy,” expressed the idea that purists are reconciled with the new in a language only if this new has no competitor in the old, already existing and corresponding to their archaic tastes and habits, or if it levels out, unifies the language system in accordance with their utopian idea of the linguistic ideal. In the book “Alive as Life,” K. I. Chukovsky gives many examples of when prominent Russian writers, scientists, public figures reacted negatively to the appearance in speech of certain words and expressions, which then became commonly used and normative. For example, to Prince Vyazemsky the words mediocrity and talented seemed base and street-wise. Many neologisms of the first third of the 19th century. were declared “non-Russian” and rejected on this basis: “There is no verb “inspired” in the Russian language,” declared “Northern Bee,” objecting to the phrase “Rus did not inspire him”... To the philologist A. G. Gornfeld, a postcard, which arose at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, seemed “a typical and disgusting creation of the Odessa dialect.” Examples of such a rejection of the new by purists are numerous.

However, despite the rejection of any innovations and changes in the language, purism at the same time plays the role of a regulator, protecting the language from the abuse of borrowings, excessive enthusiasm for innovations and promoting stability, traditional norms, and ensuring the historical continuity of the language.

Notes:

1. Akhmanova O. S. Dictionary linguistic terms. P. 271.

2. Itskovich V.A. Norm and its codification // Current problems of speech culture. M., 1970. S. 13 - 14.

3. Skvortsov L.I. Theoretical basis speech culture. P. 34.

4. Graudina L.K. Issues of normalization of the Russian language: Grammar and variants. M., 1980. P. 3.

5. Culture of Russian speech / Ed. OK. Graudina and E.N. Shiryaeva. M., 1998. P. 13.

6. Gorbachevich K.S. Norms of modern Russian literary language. M., 1981. P. 32.

7. Yugov A. Duma on the Russian word. M, 1972. S. 114 - 115.

T.P. Pleschenko, N.V. Fedotova, R.G. Taps. Stylistics and culture of speech - Mn., 2001.

A culture of speech- a multi-valued concept. In the first meaning, “speech culture is a special area of linguistic knowledge, a scientific discipline containing certain sections, subsections and rules related to this area of linguistics” (Culture of Russian speech. Textbook for universities. Edited by Prof. L.K. Graudina and Prof. E.N. Shiryaev. - M.: Publishing group NORMA - INFRA · M, 1998. - P. 24-25).

As a scientific discipline The culture of Russian speech has developed in Russian studies since the 20s of the 20th century. Until this time, the main cycle of humanitarian and normative linguistic knowledge of the educational profile in Russia was associated primarily with rhetoric - one of the seven “free arts” (“arts”). Since ancient times, it has occupied a special place in European culture.

One of the main tasks of speech culture- this is the protection of the literary language and its norms. Without knowledge of the basics of speech culture in our time, it is difficult to imagine a true intellectual. As A.P. Chekhov wrote, “for an intelligent person to speak badly is as indecent as not being able to read and write.”

In the second meaning This refers to the characteristics of a person’s totality of knowledge, skills and speech abilities. In this case, “speech culture represents such a choice and such an organization of linguistic means that, in a certain communication situation, while observing modern language norms and communication ethics, allow for the greatest effect in achieving the set communicative tasks” (Culture of Russian speech. Textbook for universities. Edited by Prof. L.K. Graudina and Prof. E.N. Shiryaev. - M.: Publishing group NORMA - INFRA · M, 1998. - P. 16). The definition emphasizes three aspects of speech culture: 1) normative, 2) ethical, 3) communicative.

Normative aspect of speech culture- one of the most important. In the works of linguists, much attention is paid to issues of the norms of the literary language. Thus, the central problems put forward by S.I. Ozhegov, were grouped around the following main sections: the theory of normalization, the theory of norm, the theory of orthology (or, as they most often said then, the correctness of speech and its practical codification). Famous modern linguist M.V. Among the main features of a literary language, Panov names such as the language of culture, the language of the educated part of the people, and a deliberately codified language. Codification is the fixation in various kinds of dictionaries and grammar of those norms and rules that must be observed when creating texts of codified functional varieties. (Culture of Russian speech. Textbook for universities. Edited by Prof. L.K. Graudina and Prof. E.N. Shiryaev. - M.: Publishing group NORMA - INFRA · M, 1998. - P. 47).

Codified norms of literary language- these are the norms that all speakers of a literary language must follow. Any grammar of the modern Russian literary language, any dictionary is nothing more than its codification.

The ethical aspect of speech culture is no less important. Every society has its own ethical standards of behavior. For example, if you sit down at the table with your family members in the morning, it would be quite ethical to ask: Pass me the bread. But if you are sitting at a large festive table with people you don’t know or are not very close to, then in relation to them it would be appropriate to express the same request like this: Can you (or: would it not be difficult for you) pass me the bread? The first example differs from the second by non-normativity. And from the point of view of communication, it is more clearly expressed in the first case, however, in the conditions festive table the second form is still appropriate. The difference between the first and second examples is precisely in following ethical standards (speech etiquette).

Also in the language there is a certain set of statements, fixed by the tradition of using the language, which “prescribe” a certain form of response to the addressee. To do this, every speaker of the language needs to know the meaning of “non-literal expressions”, the meaning of which is not derived from the meanings of its constituent word forms. For example, in response to the request “Could you pass the bread?” or “Will you pass the bread?” the addressee should answer “Yes, please,” but not “I can (can’t)” or “I will (will not) pass.” According to these rules, the flower girl Eliza Doolittle from B. Shaw's play "Pygmalion" to the remark "Beautiful weather, isn't it?" had to respond with a phrase that was not only linguistically impeccably constructed, but also aesthetically and socioculturally “typical.”

The role of ethical standards in communication can be clarified using another striking example. Foul language is also communication in which ethical standards are grossly violated.

Important for the culture of speech is what is called the communicative aspect of speech. S.I. Ozhegov wrote “... But the culture of speech lies not only in following the norms of the language. It also lies in the ability to find not only the exact means for expressing one’s thoughts, but also the most intelligible (i.e., the most expressive and the most appropriate (i.e., suitable for a given case) and, therefore, stylistically justified" (Ozhegov S.I. About the norms of word usage. Preface to the book: Correctness of Russian speech: Dictionary - reference book. - M., 1965 // Ozhegov S.I. Lexicology. Lexicography. Culture of speech. - M., 1974.- S .287 - 288).

Language performs different communicative tasks and serves different areas of communication: the language of science is one thing, and everyday colloquial speech is quite another. Each sphere of communication, in accordance with the communicative tasks that are set before it, makes its own demands on the language.

However, when using any of the existing styles, it is necessary to avoid sharp and unmotivated deviations from the literary.
As a rule, good speech is produced by speakers of an elite type of speech culture. In the sphere of the literary language there are two established (elite and average literary) and two emerging types (literary-colloquial and familiar-colloquial, usually intersecting with jargon, which is already outside the sphere of the literary language).

Let's look at them in more detail.

Elite type. Speakers of the elite type are people who master all the norms of the literary language and comply with ethical and communication standards. This means compliance not only with codified norms, but also with functional and stylistic differentiation of the literary language, norms associated with the use of oral or written speech. A bearer of an elite type of speech culture is characterized by the easy use of a functional style and genre of speech appropriate to the situation and goals of communication, the “failure to transfer” what is typical of oral speech to written speech, and what is typical of written speech to oral speech. To some extent, compliance with communication norms requires knowledge and practical implementation of rhetorical rules of communication.

The elite type of speech culture is the embodiment of general culture in its most complete form: at least passive possession of the achievements of world and national culture (knowledge of artifacts of material culture, familiarity with literary masterpieces, masterpieces of art, at least an idea of the geniuses of science, etc.). It is the general cultural component that provides the wealth of both passive and active vocabulary. The ability to think ensures the logical presentation of thoughts. Speech culture elitist type is also based on a wide coverage in the consciousness of the speaker (writer) of various precedent texts that have enduring general cultural significance. It is precisely such texts that the bearer of an elite type of speech culture focuses on in his speech. Lack of self-confidence in his knowledge develops in him the habit of constantly expanding his knowledge, relying on authoritative texts, dictionaries and reference books to check it, and not on what he heard on the radio or television, read in the newspaper, etc.

Average literary type. The carriers of this type of speech culture are the majority of the educated population of Russia: the majority of people with higher education and a significant number of people with secondary education. This type embodies the general human culture in its simplified and far from complete version. Wherein characteristic feature The average literary type is fundamental satisfaction with one’s intellectual baggage, the absence of the need to expand one’s knowledge and skills, much less test them.

The self-confidence of a bearer of an average literary type of speech culture leads to systemic errors in spelling, punctuation, pronunciation, word usage, etc. without a shadow of embarrassment or even with an aggressive defense of precisely this attitude to the rules (So what!?), and often challenging the correctness of the one who noticed mistake (No, I’m right: it should be written right, because this is the acquisition of the right to some property - from a letter to the host of the Saratov radio program “Language Service”, Prof. G. Polishchuk). References to radio and television are very frequent (I heard the quarter on television). Television and other media, as well as popular literature, often of the “junk” type, serve as an unconditional precedent text for speakers of this type; speakers of the average literary type are not aware of the speech defects of such texts.

The average literary type is an elitist type that has not been fully mastered, therefore there is adherence to the norms of the literary language, even a desire for greater “literariness,” but in the absence necessary knowledge this leads to distorted ideas about correctness, abuse of book and foreign words (about snow figures under New Year: the figures melted specifically - Vesti, 12/27/99). Specifically, like, in short (as a pause filler) - very frequent words in the speech of a speaker of this type. Frequency and foreign words with incorrect pronunciation and use (lack of movement, that is, hypoxia - Ros. gas.; The biolactation method has established that all fields interact with each other - Ros. gas.; the words hypoxia (need: hypodynamia), biolactation (need: dowsing) are used incorrectly .

The general cultural level also provides the degree of richness/poverty of vocabulary (unaware of the difference between viruses and bacteria, television journalists and newspapermen calmly talk and write about the cholera virus, streptococcal virus, etc.). The absence in the minds of speakers of the average literary type of speech culture of a large vocabulary does not allow them to use the wide synonymous possibilities of the Russian language in their speech, which turns their speech into a cliché: either like the old Newspeak, or with the dominance of reduced vocabulary, which is what the desire to make a speech boils down to more expressive. Hence the huge amount of ugly surrogates of expressive vocabulary in the media: okromya, navrode, nadys, skorosti, etc.

The average literary nature of the speech culture of our journalists, whose speech is precedent (and even standard) for carriers of the average literary type of speech culture, creates a vicious circle and contributes to the reproduction and ever wider dissemination of the average literary type of speech culture.

Not only various incorrect pronunciation, word formation, form formation (Given by the highest mayoral command to the mansion and Tsereteli - Izv. 7.09.99), word usage, etc. are reproduced and widely spread, but also violations of traditional national communicative and ethical norms. It was journalists who recently introduced and widely disseminated the naming of an adult without a patronymic, which was alien to the Russian tradition of communication (Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin), the use of you-communication and addresses by household names not only in unofficial, but also in official settings.

Literary-colloquial, as well as familiar-colloquial types began to emerge as independent only in the 90s of the 20th century. If a speaker of the average literary type of speech culture, in contrast to speakers of an elite type, is characterized by knowledge of not all functional varieties of literary language (as a rule, this is colloquial speech and one of the functional styles required professionally: for scientists - scientific, for journalists - journalistic and etc.), then speakers of “conversational” types are characterized by proficiency only in the conversational system of communication, which they use in any setting, including official ones. With their style and stylistic monotony of always reduced speech, “colloquial” types come closer to the vernacular type of speech culture.

“Conversational” types differ only in the degree of speech impairment. In the literary-colloquial type, you-communication and household names like Seryozha predominate; in the familiar-colloquial type, you-communication becomes the only possible one, and in address, Seryozha, Seryoga are preferred. In both types there is a huge amount of jargon used in speech, but in the familiar-colloquial type the share increases rude words and vernacular elements. At the same time, in both types there is a large amount of foreign language vocabulary and book words, which often become simple pause fillers, so that next to each other they also appear specifically, in short, like, in kind and damn, damn, etc.

There is no need to talk about any compliance with ethical and communicative norms in these types of speech culture. In addition, the inability to distinguish between written and oral forms of speech and the complete inability to construct a monologue text are very typical (hence the endless questions to the direct interlocutor in the studio (Do you understand me? Do you understand?) while completely ignoring the possibilities of understanding by the true addressee of the speech - the TV viewer.

Of course, television journalists are carriers of non-conversational types of speech culture, but the guests they invite on air often are, and thus television spreads these types of speech culture, making them seem acceptable in the eyes (ears) of the population.

In some cases, colloquial types of speech culture unite journalists and “guests”, in any case, equally using a colloquial (incomplete) style of pronunciation with extreme reduction, the use of household names, “phatic chatter” with jargon and foreign language vocabulary mixed in [Fedosyuk 2000]. Such “indiscrimination” between journalists and “guests” is especially typical for night broadcasts of music radio stations, and is not uncommon on radio “Echo of Moscow”, Saratov’s “Hit at Work Noon” and in some entertainment television programs.

Conversational patter with strong reduction is also found in the speech of journalists, which otherwise corresponds to the average literary type of speech culture, which, of course, prevents the addressee from adequately and fully perceiving what is being communicated (Izv. 08/22/2000, article by A. Slapovsky).

As for compliance with orthological norms, in “conversational” types it can even be complete. The disadvantage of these types lies in the extension of the laws of relaxed, personally addressed informal communication to speech in any situation. Of course, the speech of speakers of these types can only be good in a casual conversation with relatives or friends (it may, of course, not be due to rudeness; good even in such conditions).

The speech of speakers of the average literary type of speech culture may well be good not only in friendly communication, but also in professional activities, but outside of these situations their speech may be helpless. Truly good speech in any situation is found only among carriers of an elite type of speech culture, although they may also have some errors.

The above makes us turn to another parameter of good speech - admissibility and inadmissibility of certain deviations from the norms. Let's start with orthological norms. It has long been known that it is impossible to treat spelling errors in verified and unchecked spellings with the same rigor, that much in our spelling should be changed (discussions of changes have been going on for many years), that there are discrepancies in codifications in dictionaries and visual practice (use capital letters, writing some adverbs and compound adjectives), there are errors in rare words and in frequently occurring ones. It is obvious that spelling errors are unequal in terms of the degree of their admissibility. The word doshchanik, the adverbs navos, spitefully, completely, etc., require a reference to the dictionary for correct spelling, while the separate spelling of prepositions, the checked spelling of the word water, etc. are completely subject to spelling rules, and the word dog is so frequent that should have been remembered in the correct spelling. Obviously, subject to reform and requiring verification in dictionaries, the error is less serious. I encountered written speech without a single error in only one representative of an elite type of speech culture; in the speech of others, errors were possible, but isolated and not gross (we are not talking about those cases where combined or separate writing can have different meaning and therefore be contested).

In the speech of speakers of the average literary type of speech culture, spelling errors, not only of the minor type due to the lack of the habit of looking in the dictionary, are quite frequent, including those found in printed publications: “<...>that is, no one organization<...>, but organizations closed into a single system" (KP, 07/1/2000), Monument to Chernyshevsky (Saratov-SP, 09/09/2000). There are also gross spelling errors in handwritten texts (for example, in student and even postgraduate papers).

The situation is similar with punctuation norms. A bearer of an elite type of speech culture does not make gross punctuation errors (fails to write complex sentences without commas, uses commas to separate isolations and introductory words), but may not distinguish between different relations in a non-conjunction by placing a dash or colon complex sentence. A speaker of the average literary type can do without punctuation marks at all, not use the red line, etc. It should be taken into account that in the modern punctuation system there are quite a lot of opportunities for the optional setting of signs used for expressive purposes. A bearer of an elite type of speech culture does not always use them consciously, but always meaningfully (see the works of E. V. Dzyakovich), while a bearer of an average literary type does not suspect the possibility of using optional signs and / or does not use them at all, or uses them accidentally along with with the absence of necessary signs and the presence of unnecessary ones (they can still be isolated, finally in a temporary meaning, etc.).

The situation is similar with orthoepic norms. In the speech of a speaker of the elite type, one can find not only adherence to a strict norm, but also individual cases of the use of such stress or pronunciation, which in dictionaries is marked additional. and not even a rec., but such pronunciation does not constitute a system (individual words). This happens especially often in cases where a customary norm diverges from a codified one. So, until 1985, the accent fo/lga was indicated in dictionaries, but in my entire life I have never heard such an accent from anyone. All elite-type speakers I know pronounced foil/. Now it is this accent that has been codified. Apparently, it will be necessary to codify the emphasis on provision, since in the speech of the overwhelming majority of people who otherwise comply with codified norms and fully correspond to the elite type of speech culture, a similar pronunciation is observed (this, of course, does not mean that all speakers of the elite type pronounce it this way). Deviations from codified norms are quite common in cases where codification does not have clear grounds: why can you say dean and d[e]kan, decade and d[e]kada, but only decorator, museum, tenor, cream, morpheme and only background [e]ma, fon[e]tika, t[e]mbr, t[e]mp. We have recorded errors in such and similar words and in the speech of representatives of the elite type of speech culture: someone who does not allow either t[e]ma or acad[e]m in his speech can nevertheless say mu[e]y and kr[e]m, and the one who says t[e]nor can also pronounce phoneme, phonetics.

In the speech of speakers of the average literary type of speech culture, such errors are both more frequent and cruder (not only t[e]ma, akad[e]miya and akad[e]mik are widespread, but even t[e]rnii and Karenina).

In the speech of speakers of the average literary type, not only orthoepic ones are violated (beautiful/e, ringing/nit, What; preservation of A after soft consonants in the first pre-stressed syllable: spot, obligatory, driver/fer, means/), but also the norms of form formation (daden). Many of these violations for the average literary type have become a common norm (come, go, Nikitovich), often penetrating even into the speech of individual speakers of the elite type of speech culture, but they do not cease to be errors. It is curious that in the speech of speakers of “conversational” types there may be even fewer such errors than in the average literary type.

Errors in the declension of complex numerals are especially frequent in the average literary type: their formation can indeed cause difficulties (why one hundred, two hundred, three hundred, five hundred, before the year two thousand, but up to two thousand one, two, three, etc.), they are almost not are found in written speech (indicated there by numbers) - as a result, on the radio and from the TV screen we constantly hear the erroneous formation of the form, even in the speech of journalists who are or are close to the elite type (E. A. Kiselev, N. K. Svanidze). But are such mistakes acceptable?

Unfortunately, codification often supports erroneous forms and erroneous pronunciation as acceptable (before/talk, although when/talk is not recommended, deacon/), as equal to: mechanic/, tractor/, and some scholars even consider many such irregularities simply as socially (professionally) limited in their use (convicted and excited, search/ - in the speech of lawyers, drug addicts, alcohol - in the speech of doctors, cake/ - in the speech of confectioners, etc. [Krysin 2000 ] Such professionalization does take place, but nevertheless, among both lawyers and doctors there are carriers of an elite type of speech culture who comply with general literary rather than professional norms, and it is these representatives of the corresponding profession that have the broadest and deepest general culture.

Facts of violation of lexical and stylistic norms are even more difficult to determine the boundaries of what is permissible, since the criteria for the appropriateness of using a particular word that has a pronounced expressiveness are unsteady. The emergence of a dictionary of common jargon [Ermakova et al. 1999] is one proof of this. In such cases, the decision on the advisability of including a particular word or phrase in speech should be determined taking into account the functional, stylistic and genre affiliation of the text.

Bibliography:

1. Sirotinina O. B. Good speech: shifts in the idea of the standard // Active language processes of the late 20th century. – M., 2000.
2. Kochetkova T.V. Linguistic personality of a bearer of elite speech culture: Author's abstract. dis. ...Dr. Philol. Sci. Saratov, 1999.
3. Shiryaev E. N. Culture of speech as a linguistic discipline // Russian language and modernity: Problems and prospects for the development of Russian studies. – M., 1991. Part 1.
4. Shiryaev E. N. Culture of Russian speech and the effectiveness of communication. – M., 1996.
5. Shiryaev E. N. Modern theoretical concept of speech culture // Culture of Russian speech: Textbook for universities. – M., 2000.
6. Goldin V. E. Sirotinina O. B. Intranational speech cultures and their interaction // Questions of stylistics. – Saratov, 1993. – Issue. 25.
7. Goldin V. E. Sirotinina O. B. Speech culture // Russian language: Encyclopedia. – M., 1997.
8. Fedosyuk M. Yu. Repertoire of speech genres of radio presenters of musical programs // Cultural-speech situation in modern Russia. – Ekaterinburg, 2000.
9. Ermakova O. P., Zemskaya E. A., Rozina R. I. Words with which we have all met. Dictionary Russian general jargon. – M., 1999.

Lecture 4.

1. The concept of language norm

The norm is the main feature of language. The speech activity of people is regulated by language norms, which develop historically and are largely determined by cultural tradition.

· The norm of language (language in general)- this is the generally accepted and fixed use of linguistic means in a given language community

Both domestic and foreign linguists undoubtedly recognize the fact that the norm is the main feature of a literary language. At the same time, there is still no unambiguous definition of a language norm.

Most often, this term is used in combination with “literary norm” and is applied to those varieties of language that are used in the media, in science and education, in diplomacy, lawmaking and legislation, in business and legal proceedings and other areas of “socially important” predominantly public communication. But we can talk about the norm in relation to a territorial dialect - i.e., for example, to the speech of the indigenous inhabitants of a Vologda village or Donskaya village, to professional or social jargon - i.e., to the way carpenters or “thieves in law” speak .

The last statement may seem very dubious to the reader, and therefore requires clarification.

Linguists use the term norm in two senses - broad and narrow.

In a broad sense, the norm refers to such means and ways of speech that have been spontaneously formed over many centuries and which usually distinguish one type of language from others. That’s why we can talk about a norm in relation to a territorial dialect: for example, normal for northern Russian dialects is okanye, and for southern Russian dialects - akanye. Any social or professional jargon is also “normal” in its own way: for example, what is used in trade argot will be rejected as alien by those who speak the jargon of carpenters; established ways of using linguistic means exist in army jargon and in the jargon of musicians-“labukhs”, and speakers of each of these jargons can easily distinguish someone else’s from their own, familiar and therefore normal for them, etc.

In a narrow sense, a norm is the result of the codification of language. Of course, codification is based on the tradition of the existence of language in a given society, on some unwritten but generally accepted ways of using linguistic means. But it is important that codification is the purposeful ordering of everything related to language and its application. The results of codifying activity - and this is mainly done by linguists - are reflected in normative dictionaries and grammars. The norm as a result of codification is inextricably linked with the concept of literary language, which is otherwise called normalized or codified. The territorial dialect, urban vernacular, social and professional jargons are not subject to codification: after all, no one consciously and purposefully makes sure that Vologda residents consistently okal, and residents of the Kursk village Akali, so that sellers, God forbid, do not use the terminology of carpenters, and soldiers - words and expressions of Labouche jargon, and therefore the concept of norm in the narrow sense of this term just discussed is not applicable to such varieties of language - dialects, jargons.

Before talking about speech norms, it is necessary to introduce the concept of correct speech. Correct speech- this is the compliance of its linguistic structure with current language norms. This is not the only, but the main communicative quality of speech. Correct speech ensures mutual understanding between speakers of a language, and also forms the unity of speech. In turn, the correctness of speech is determined by compliance with the norms of the literary language; accordingly, incorrectness is associated with a deviation from these norms.

Summarizing these formulations, we can determine

language norm as historically and aesthetically determined means of language, dictionarily codified and socially accepted, providing for the speech needs of the people.

2. Variable norms

The norm of a literary language is a socio-historical category. Each era has its own linguistic style. The norm, like everything in language, is slow but continuous develops, changes - influenced colloquial speech, dialects, borrowings, etc. Changes in language entail the emergence options some norms.

Options, or variable norms, - these are formal modifications of the same unit, found at different levels of language (phonetic, lexical, morphological, syntactic): barge, left the house or left the house.

In the Russian language, until recently, the form of some words fluctuated between soft and firm pronunciations and spellings, especially in words ry, ry. Thus, Pushkin wrote: creaks, creaks, in Turgenev and Tolstoy we find: brychka, Belinsky wrote: Alexandrinsky Theater. IN this moment this old norm is gone and only the new one remains, according to which we pronounce the words like this: creaking, chaise, Alexandrinsky Theater.

In each period of the life of a language, there are chronological variants of the norm: obsolete(and even outdated) recommended And new(usually classified as acceptable in dictionaries). If there are several options, the recommended one is the one that can be used in all speech styles.

A person who considers himself cultured must observe recommended norms (in this case, one should focus on dictionaries published after 1985).

Chronological variants of norms create variability in the norms of a literary language. However, it is no secret that at all stages of the development of a literary language, when using it in different communicative conditions, variants of linguistic means are allowed: you can say cottage cheese - and cottage cheese, spotlights - and spotlights, you are right - and you are right, etc.

But, in addition, there is also variability in norms associated with the functional-stylistic differentiation of the literary language and the presence of professional norms. Thus, with the general literary norm of using material nouns in the singular form (white clay, hot sand) V scientific style it is possible to use the form plural(white clay, quicksand sands). Professionally limited norms of stress are known (sports - easily A smoldering, Morsk. - computer A With and so on.).

3. Codification of literary norms

Norms change or remain depending on many circumstances, in particular on the degree of influence of the book on society and on the degree of influence of various language styles on speech activity of people. Changes in norms are also influenced by strong and sometimes fading dialects, changes in the composition of the population of cultural, administrative and political centers, the level of literacy, mastery of the literary language and its styles, and the codification of the literary norm itself.

Codification of literary norm- its official recognition and description in dictionaries, reference books, and grammars that have authority in the opinion of society.

Codification makes it possible to ensure greater stability of the norm and prevent its spontaneous changes. For example, colloquial speech imposes stress on speakers of a literary language call, call, call. However, the stress in the verb paradigm call other, codified: calling, calling, calling, calling etc. When a norm is violated, the unity of the language is damaged, which is why codification of the norm is so important.

And yet, a comparison of the language of Pushkin and Dostoevsky, and even later writers, with the Russian language of the late twentieth - early twenty-first centuries reveals differences that indicate the historical variability of the literary norm.

In Pushkin's times they said: houses, buildings, now - houses, buildings. Pushkin’s “Rise up, prophet...” must, of course, be understood in the sense of “rise up,” and not at all in the sense of “raise an uprising.” A. I. Herzen considered the phrase “to make an impact” quite normal, G. I. Uspensky in “Letters from the Road” mentions a pack of keys, D. I. Pisarev convinced the reader that it is necessary to develop a broad understanding of things, Leo Tolstoy admitted one of his correspondents that he remembers her very well (we would now say: influence, a bunch of keys, breadth of understanding, remembers well).

In F. M. Dostoevsky’s story “The Mistress” we read: “Then the ticklish Yaroslav Ilyich ... directed a questioning glance at Murin.” The modern reader guesses, of course, that the point here is not that Dostoevsky’s hero was afraid of tickling: ticklish is used in a sense close to the meaning of the words delicate, scrupulous, and is applied to a person, i.e., in a way that no other speaker of modern Russian will not use literary language (usually: a sensitive question, a sensitive matter). Chekhov spoke into the telephone (he reports this in one of his letters), and we spoke on the telephone. A. N. Tolstoy, almost our contemporary, in one of his stories describes the actions of a hero who “began to follow the flight of kites over the forest.” Now they would say: I began to follow the flight of kites.

The normative status of not only individual words, forms and constructions, but also certain interconnected speech patterns can change. This happened, for example, with the so-called Old Moscow pronunciation norm, which by the second half of the twentieth century was almost completely replaced by a new pronunciation, closer to the written form of the word: instead battleWith , laughedsa , shi gi,wow ra, very x, fourry g, tihey th, strogee yay, yeahky wow, measlesshn evy, plumshn oe (oil), greeshn eva (porridge) the overwhelming majority of speakers of the Russian literary language began to speak I'm afraid, laughed, steps, heat, top, Thursday, quiet, strict, assent, brown, butter, buckwheat (porridge) etc.

The historical change in the norms of a literary language is an objective phenomenon that does not depend on the will and desire of individual people. It often happens that this or that norm is simply not learned by a person; he either did not encounter it in his speech, or, if he did, he did not pay attention, did not study it properly and did not translate it into his speech skill. Sometimes a person forgets how to write or speak correctly and uses an easier option, which is usually not the norm. Sometimes a person doesn’t even think about how he speaks: true or false. Maybe that’s why we often hear in transport: “Passengers, let’s pay for the fare!” The conductor does not think about the fact that "pay" need to "passage" and here “pay” - “for travel”. As a result, errors occur in the speech of speakers, which are often perceived and repeated by others.

In this regard, in speech it is necessary to distinguish between the norm and its distortion. There is a fundamental difference between objective fluctuations in the norm and their reflection in speech and subjective distortions of the norm.

4. Classification of language norms

The norms of the literary language regulate functional variation, the choice of options for different levels linguistic structure. In this regard, several structural and linguistic types of norms are distinguished:

(1) Standards orthoepic(pronunciation) - regulate the choice of phoneme options. It should be pronounced: a [t] elye, it is impossible: a [t "] elye; it should be: lo [p], it is impossible: lo [b], etc.

(2) Standards accentological(stress placement) - regulate the choice of placement options and movement of each stressed syllable. The mobility and diversity of Russian stress make it difficult to master, especially for people learning Russian as a foreign language. Should be pronounced: ringing And t, ringing And you can't: call O nit, sound O niche; Can: beautiful And in her, it is forbidden: handsome e e; follows: beets, it is forbidden: beets A and so on.

(3) Norms derivational- regulate the choice of morphemes, their placement and combination in the composition of a new word. You should: observer, it is forbidden: observer; follows: loader, it is forbidden: loader; necessary: river, forest, it is forbidden: river, forest, etc.

(4) Standards morphological- regulate the choice of variants of the morphological form of a word and variants of its combination with other words.

Necessary: engineers, it is forbidden: engineer; Can: too much to do, no room, it is forbidden: many things to do, no places; Can: strong coffee, it is forbidden: strong coffee, etc.

(5) Norms syntactic - regulate the choice of sentence construction options.

(Can: As I approached the station and looked out the window, my hat flew off my head. It is forbidden: Approaching the station and looking out the window, the hat flew off my head).

(6) Standards lexical- regulate the choice of words and their meanings, characteristic and appropriate for a given speech act. This choice is primarily explained by the expediency of using a particular word in any of its meanings

(7) Stylistic norms regulate the compliance of the chosen word or syntactic structure with the conditions of communication and the prevailing style of presentation.

The main concept of our course is the concept of the SRFL norm.

The last term needs clarification: a literary language is not a language fiction, this is the language of cultured, educated people; protected by dictionaries, reference books, norms from distortions and deformations, rich in functional varieties; T.

E. it has special resources for business, scientific, public, everyday and other spheres of communication; Russian language is not only the language of the Russian nation, but also the language of international communication between the peoples of Russia and some neighboring countries, the language of the UN, one of the world languages; the modern Russian language developed mainly in the 40s of the 19th century as a result literary activity A. S. Pushkin. The language of the last 168 years is called modern. We are considering its variety from the 2nd half of the twentieth century. SRL is a strict hierarchical system, and each of its elements has its own system of norms studied by normative linguistic sciences. compliance

The term norm is used in 2 different meanings: 1) a norm is a generally accepted usage that has become established in a language; The norm is the use recommended by a grammar, reference book, or dictionary (the so-called codified norm). A codified norm is stronger than an uncodified one, especially if the codification is known to wide sections of the population. It opens up opportunities to ensure greater stability of the norm, to prevent semi-spontaneous and seemingly uncontrollable changes.

In modern linguistic works, the norm hypothesis proposed by the Romanian scientist E. Coseriu has gained recognition: “A norm is a set of the most stable, traditional implementations of elements

language structure, selected and consolidated by public language practice.”

The norm presupposes a certain evaluative attitude of speakers and writers towards the functioning of language in speech: this is possible, but this is not possible; they say this, but they don’t say that; so right and so wrong. This attitude is formed under the influence of fiction (its authoritative figures for society), science (it begins to describe, “codify” norms), and school.

The norm becomes a regulator of people’s speech behavior, however, it is a necessary but insufficient regulator, because compliance with the norm’s instructions alone is not enough for oral or written language turned out to be quite good, that is, she had the necessary finishing and culture for communication. This can be explained by the fact that the norm regulates the purely structural, symbolic, linguistic side of speech, without affecting the most important relations of speech to reality, society, consciousness, and behavior of people in communication. Speech may be completely correct, i.e., not violating language norms, but inaccessible to easy understanding. It may be logically inaccurate and contradictory, but it is correct. It may be correct, but in certain cases it is completely inappropriate. That is why all the great writers and critics understood that speaking and writing correctly does not mean speaking and writing well.

Linguistic norms are only at first glance static and unshakable. Of course, they imply relative stability and constancy, but this does not mean that norms do not change. They reflect the dynamics of the language, its slow but steady development. People of one generation hardly notice this, but from the perspective of several generations it is possible to trace the dynamics of language norms.

The Russian linguist of the 19th century, J. Grot, spoke about this in relation to vocabulary: “At first, the word is accepted by very few; others are shy of him, looking at him distrustfully, as if he were a stranger... Little by little they get used to him, and the novelty of him is forgotten: the next generation already finds him in use and completely assimilates him..."

Thus, norms are dynamic. But this dynamics is dialectically combined with relative constancy and consistency: only those new things are learned and only those changes that are really necessary for the development of the language are strengthened (for example, foreign borrowings that have surged into Russian speech these days, not all of them will take root in the language).

It would seem that the norm presupposes an unambiguous decision: this is right, and this is wrong. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases this is true. But any rule is only supported by exceptions. The norms of SRLA can be variable (for example, solemn and solemn, bile and bile, sparkling and sparkling). The variability of norms is an indicator of their dynamics, “an objective and inevitable consequence of linguistic evolution.”

In the course of linguistic development, one of the variants becomes obsolete and becomes a thing of the past (for example, zala = hall = hall; turner = turner in the 19th century; beet = beetroot, sanatorium = sanatorium; piano - now m. r. and piano - f. r. . in the 19th century; tulle - obsolete. Zh. r. and tulle - now m.

The change in norms, which is a consequence of language development, is explained by linguistic (intralinguistic) and social (extralinguistic) factors. Among the intralinguistic factors one should name unification, simplification of grammatical forms; displacement of doublets; convergence (the coincidence of two sounds into one during the historical development) and divergence (the splitting of one speech sound into two during the historical development, for example, table and table). In a course on speech culture, it is more important to consider extralinguistic factors language changes, and therefore the dynamics of norms:

1) the nature of the development of social life (in our time - words from the field of business);

2) language policy - the conscious influence of society on linguistic development (Paul 1 and his fight against Gallicisms; for example, instead of the sergeant, he introduced military rank non-commissioned officer; citizen instead of tradesman);

3) degree of public freedom;

4) an objectively developing sense of proportion in the use of linguistic units (vulgarism, jargon).

You can also find the information you are interested in in the scientific search engine Otvety.Online. Use the search form: