Norms and standards of linguistic behavior and speech culture accepted by native speakers at a certain stage of development. I.. eras are largely connected with historical, turning points in the life of the people..

"Linguistic taste of the era." The word “taste,” which seems not to be related to linguistics, is nevertheless amazingly accessible and accurately explains what the author actually wants to say.

Such a feeling of freedom of scientific creativity and a change in research topics gives rise to a whole “fan” of non-traditional works in the field of modern Russian language.

The norm, as an integral part of a civilized society, exists in different areas of an individual’s life and is important for many types of human activity. Exist different standards, as requirements that must be satisfied by various products of human activity. Norms are regulators of relationships between people. They are established by society, and each individual of a given society develops an idea of ​​what is normal for human communication and what is abnormal and, therefore, goes beyond the established norm.

The norm is also established in language; it is constantly present in a person’s statements. And this is quite natural, since language is an integral part, a product, not only of a civilized society, but of any human society in general. Norm is one of the central linguistic concepts. The norm in language is one of those problems of linguistics that have constantly been and are in the focus of attention for several generations of researchers. And depending on the level of development of linguistics, the theoretical views of researchers and the needs of society, it is solved very differently.

The normative approach to language has dominated in absolutely all linguistic traditions, from antiquity to our time. In absolutely all linguistic traditions, either from the very beginning or over time, the concept of a strict norm appears, from which it is impossible to deviate. In the European tradition, it appears already in late antiquity. The norm became even stricter in the Middle Ages. In the early stages of the development of individual traditions (antiquity, Ancient China), when there were no big differences between the spoken and written styles and there was no special sacred (sacred) language, the problems of the norm, although they were vital, were solved purely empirically, without separating any strict body of normative texts.

None of the linguistic traditions was characterized by the idea of ​​​​historical change in language and its norms. In turn, everything new in the language, which is constantly included in speech practice, brings with it a fleeting inconvenience and therefore, naturally, causes defensive feedback (anger).

In any norm, including the literary style, doubts, doublets, and variant actions occur. In addition, there is always a certain uncertainty in recognizing specific linguistic facts as normative or non-normative; there are always “areas of doubt.”

The norms of writing language are fixed in dictionaries, reference books, and grammar books.

Language norms

• * Orthoepic
• * Lexical
• * Morphological
• * Syntactic
• * Stylistic
• * Spelling
• * Punctuation

“Literary language feels the powerful influence of colloquial (including slang) vocabulary, which often breaks into the language under the slogan of emancipation and “democratization.” (D. E. Rosenthal)

The representation of the norm gradually begins to change into some special linguistic representation, reflecting the project of linguistic implementation and in various ways compared with the views of the schema (L. Elmslev), or the organization of language (E. Coseriu), in which the idea of ​​​​its internal organization is reflected. Highlighting the social side of the definition of a norm, which is formed from the selection of linguistic components - cash, formed again and extracted from a passive reserve, S. I. Ozhegov focuses on the fact that norms are maintained by social speech practice (fiction, theatrical speech, radio broadcasting).

At a certain stage of their formation, literary works and radio broadcasts could in fact serve as a standard for normative use. Currently, the situation has changed. Not every literary work and not every radio and television broadcast can serve as a standard for the normative use of language. The area of ​​strict adherence to syllable norms has narrowed significantly. The literary norm, as a result of not only tradition, but also codification, presupposes a set of rather strict regulations and prohibitions that promote the unity and stability of the literary style. The integrity and universality of the norm is found in the fact that agents of different social strata and companies that make up a given society must adhere to the classical methods of linguistic formulation, as well as those laws and regulations that are found in grammars and dictionaries and are represented as a result of codification. Deviation from linguistic tradition, from dictionary and grammatical laws and advice is considered a violation of the norm and is usually assessed negatively by speakers of a given literary syllable. But the degree of obligatory language norms is not the same. A distinction is made between imperative language norms, the pathologies of which are regarded as a sign of not mastering the culture of speech, as gross oversights, and, on the other hand, non-strictly mandatory language norms that allow certain deviations.

A culture of speech– the area of ​​spiritual culture associated with the use of language; qualities of speech that ensure the effective achievement of the goal of communication while observing language rules, ethical standards, situational requirements and aesthetic attitudes.

Speech culture consists of three aspects

1) Regulatory aspect. The central concept of CI is the concept norms . This is a set of stable, traditional implementations of language, selected and consolidated as a result of social speech practice. The norm involves not only the selection of one or several (less often) of the coexisting options, but their description, as well as their consolidation in the relevant publications, i.e. codifications.

2) Communication aspect. CR is intuitive and takes into account not only linguistic, but also extralinguistic elements. Historically, this has been the area of ​​interest of rhetoric. Successful communication is said to occur when the exchange of intellectual and emotional information allows one to maintain interpersonal and social relationships in the chosen direction. Communication consists of communicative acts in which communicants (sender and addressee) participate. Communicative acts are of two types: 1) straight(directly convey the goal); 2) indirect(veiled).

Situations in which indirect speech tactics are used:

2) desire to reduce responsibility for speaking

3) the desire to have a more effective impact on the addressee

4) the desire to retouch reality (to find something good in the bad)

5) when setting reprehensible communication goals (to make someone doubt someone)

Communicative qualities of speech:

1. right- compliance of speech with language norms (the smartest student - morphological pleonasm)

2. logic- compliance of speech with the law of consistent thinking. Speech will be illogical if the combined words contradict each other (thanks to the earthquake, the city was destroyed); words that are not related in meaning are combined (he has property in France, a young wife and two higher education); unnecessary words are used (write your autobiography); or necessary words are missing or omitted (he almost scores in every match); auxiliary and introductory words were used incorrectly.

3. accuracy- correspondence of speech to a selected fragment of reality or concept system. Conditions for accurate speech: knowledge of the subject of speech; the ability to choose linguistic means adequate to the subject of speech; the use of linguistic means in accordance with their meaning (we experience litorrhea from the past)

4. purity- absence in speech of unmotivated elements of extraliterary varieties of language.

5. expressiveness of speech- such features of speech that maintain the attention and interest of the listener.

6. relevance- correspondence of speech to the communication situation, topic and nature of interpersonal relationships.

7. richness = variety- absence of identical chains of repeated linguistic signs in speech.

8. effectiveness- achieving the communicative goal set during communication. This is a generalizing communicative quality, which implies the implementation of all other qualities depending on the communication situation.

9. tongue taste - an idea of ​​ideal text models and ideal speech production in general, formed in the process of social and speech activity.

10. linguistic (speech) fashion - a manner of expression accepted in a particular community and relevant for a short time.

3) Ethical aspect of the Kyrgyz Republic- is associated with communication and proposes the construction of a text in accordance with the norms of moral behavior accepted by a given society.

Russian language. Tickets - winter 2015.

Ticket 1. Modern Russian language. Stratification of the Russian national language. Literary language as highest form national language. Language situation and language policy.

Modern Russian language- the national language of the Russian people, a form of Russian national culture. It represents a historically established linguistic community and unites the entire set of linguistic means of the Russian people, including all Russian dialects and dialects, as well as various jargons.

There has been a dual understanding of the term “modern Russian language” and its interpretation corresponding to this understanding. First of all, modern Russian is a language that is reflected in texts created by speakers of Russian literary

language from the era of Pushkin (from about the 30s of the 19th century) to the present day, and existing in modern oral speech communication at the level of native speakers of a literary language, i.e. in oral public speech, in the language of radio, cinema, television speech and in colloquial literary speech. This understanding of the “modern Russian language,” despite the emerging clarifications of its chronological boundaries, remains valid. It was in the language of Pushkin, in the 20–30s. XIX century, that backbone of the literary language was formed, that national norm of literary expression, which serves as the basis for the further development of literary vocabulary, grammar, phonetic structure, orthoepy, and a system of functional varieties

literary language up to the present time.

* In a narrow sense - the Russian language of the post-revolutionary (1917) time.

Some researchers talk about 3 periods in the development of the Russian language after the October Revolution: 1st - 20s, 2nd - 30-40s, 3rd - from the early 50s to the present. In this case, the narrowest interpretation of the concept of modern Russian is possible - it is a language from the post-war (Great Patriotic War) years to the present, that is, the language of three coexisting and interacting generations - grandfathers, fathers and children

Stratification of the national Russian language:

1) literary language

2) extraliterary varieties (strata):

Territorial dialect

Semi-dialect*

Urban vernacular

Social dialect (jargon, argot)

Literary Russian language- a standardized form of the national language, excluding dialects, jargons, and vernaculars. It is the language of all manifestations of culture expressed in written form. This is the highest form of manifestation of the national language, the language of the press, literature, and government documents. This is a historically established system of elemental languages, speech means that have undergone long-term cultural processing in the texts of authoritative masters of words, in the oral communication of educated native speakers.

Functional purpose of literary language: ensuring speech communication in the main areas of activity of the entire historically established group of people speaking given language; ensuring cultural and spiritual continuity of generations, people, nations.

Main features of the literary language: normativity, codification (consolidation of forms and rules in grammars, dictionaries, reference books), multifunctionality, stylistic differentiation, relative stability, common use and universal obligatory nature, traditionality and written fixation in texts.

Modern Russian literary language multifunctional, i.e. it performs the functions of the everyday language of literate people, the language of science, journalism, government controlled, cultural language, literature, education, media, etc.

The uniqueness of the Russian literary language lies in its replenishment and renewal through colloquial speech.

Literary language has two forms: oral and written, which are characterized by the peculiarities of lexical composition and grammatical structure. Written literary language is distinguished by greater complexity of syntax and has different functional styles: scientific, official business, journalistic, artistic.

The development of a literary language is directly related to the development of the culture of the people, especially its fiction.

Characteristic of a literary language normalization– subordination of language to certain norms and rules. Its result is the normalization of language. The normalization of a literary language lies in the fact that the composition of the dictionary in it is regulated, the meaning and use of words, pronunciation, spelling and the formation of grammatical forms of words follow a generally accepted pattern. The basic norms of the literary language were formed during the time of Pushkin. A. S. Pushkin arranged artistic media Russian literary language, significantly enriched it. He managed, based on various manifestations of the folk language, to create in his works a language that was perceived by society as literary.

Speech situation. Language is a powerful means of regulating people’s activities in various spheres, therefore, studying the speech behavior of a modern person, understanding how a person masters the richness of language, how affectively he uses it, is a very important and urgent task.

Every educated person must learn to evaluate speech behavior - his own and that of his interlocutors, and relate his speech actions to a specific communication situation.

Today, the speech of our contemporaries is attracting increasing attention from journalists, scientists of various specialties (linguists, philosophers, psychologists, sociologists), writers, teachers, and it is becoming the subject of heated discussions among ordinary Russian speakers. Feeling speech problems, they try to answer the question of what is causing the state of speech culture that worries many. The eternal Russian questions “what to do?” and “who is to blame?” are quite natural in relation to the Russian language and Russian speech.

In the in-depth study “Russian language of the end of the 20th century (1985-1995)” an attempt was made to highlight the most significant features of the Russian language of the end of the century. It notes: “The events of the second half of the 80s - early 90s are similar to a revolution in their impact on society and language. The state of the Russian language of our time is determined by a number of factors.

1. The composition of participants in mass and collective communication is sharply expanding: new segments of the population are joining the role of speakers, the role of writing in newspapers and magazines. Since the late 80s, thousands of people with different levels of speech culture have had the opportunity to speak publicly.

2. In the media, censorship and auto-censorship, which previously largely determined the nature of speech behavior, are sharply weakened.

3. Personality in speech increases. Faceless and addressless speech is replaced by personal speech and acquires a specific addressee. The biological nature of communication, both oral and written, is increasing.

4. The sphere of spontaneous communication, not only personal, but also oral public, is expanding. People no longer give or read pre-written speeches. They say.

5. Important parameters of the flow of oral forms of mass communication are changing: the possibility of the speaker directly addressing the listeners and feedback listeners with speakers.

6. Situations and genres of communication are changing both in the field of public and personal communication. The rigid boundaries of official public communication are loosening. Many new genres of oral public speech are being born in the field of mass communication. The dry radio and TV announcer has been replaced by a presenter who thinks, jokes, and expresses his opinion.

7. Psychological rejection of the bureaucratic language of the past (the so-called Newspeak) is sharply increasing.

8. There is a desire to develop new means of expression, new forms of imagery, new types of addresses to strangers.

9. Along with the birth of the names of new phenomena, there is a revival of the names of those phenomena that return from the past, prohibited or rejected in the era of totalitarianism" (Russian language of the end of the 20th century. M., 1996).

Freedom and emancipation of speech behavior entail a loosening of language norms, an increase in language variability (instead of one acceptable form of a language unit, different options are acceptable).

Ticket 2. Speech culture in a normative aspect. Norm: definition, properties, typology, reasons for change. Codification. Linguistic taste and speech fashion.

The culture of speech presupposes, first of all, the correctness of speech, that is, compliance with the norms of the literary language, which are perceived by its speakers (speakers and writers) as an “ideal”, a model. Language norm is the central concept of linguistic culture, and the normative aspect of speech culture is considered one of the most important.

The choice of linguistic means necessary for the goal is the basis of the communicative aspect of speech culture. The ethical aspect of speech culture prescribes knowledge and application of the rules of linguistic behavior in specific situations. Ethical standards of communication are understood as speech etiquette (speech formulas of greeting, request, question, gratitude, congratulations, etc.; addressing “you” and “you”; choosing a full or abbreviated name, address formula, etc.)

The use of speech etiquette is greatly influenced by: the age of the participants in the speech act, their social status, the nature of the relationship between them (official, informal, friendly, intimate), the time and place of speech interaction, etc. The ethical component of Rhea culture imposes a ban on foul language in the process of communication and condemns speaking “in a raised voice.”

An important characteristic of a person is the level of her speech culture. There are distinguished the elite type of speech culture, the middle-literary type, the literary-colloquial and familiar-colloquial, as well as the slang and vernacular types of speech culture. The elite type of speech culture of an individual assumes that the bearer of this type of speech culture fulfills all ethical and communication norms, complies with the norms of literary speech, and masters all functional styles of the native language associated with the use of both oral and writing. A person of an elite speech culture is characterized by the easy use of a functional style and genre of speech appropriate to the situation and goals of communication, and the “non-transfer” of what is typical for oral speech into oral speech. He knows and follows the rhetorical rules of communication, he has the habit of constantly checking himself, replenishing his speech knowledge using authoritative texts and dictionaries, and not by imitating what he heard on the radio or television, or read in newspapers. The average literary type of speech culture embodies the general culture of man in its forgiven and far from full version. Bearers of average literary speech culture usually master two or three functional styles, usually the style of everyday communication (colloquial speech) and their own professional style, these styles are often mixed in their speech. In the sphere of language use, for a speaker of this type of speech culture, self-confidence, expressed in upholding the point of view “the main thing is WHAT to say, not HOW to say”, a “forgivable” attitude towards one’s own speech errors, overestimation of one’s speech knowledge, which is manifested in the frequent inappropriate use of terms and foreign words, on the one hand, and reduced and abusive vocabulary, on the other, in violation of language norms, and they are not aware of the inferiority of their own speech. Precedent texts for carriers of this type of speech culture are the media and mass literature. The lack of a large vocabulary in the minds of speakers of the average literary type of speech culture does not allow them to use the wide synonymous possibilities of the Russian language in their speech, which turns their speech into a rather cliched speech, or into a speech with a dominance of book vocabulary, which amounts to the desire to make speech more expressive. Literary-colloquial and familiar-colloquial types of speech culture 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, and in address Seryozha, Seryoga are preferred. In both types there is a huge amount of jargon used in speech, but in f.-r. The proportion of rude words and colloquial elements is increasing. At the same time, in both types it occurs a large number of foreign language vocabulary and book words, which often become simple fillers of pauses, so that “specifically”, “in short”, “type”, “in kind” and “damn”, etc. are found nearby. There is no need to talk about any observance of ethical and communicative norms in these types of speech culture. Slang and colloquial types of speech culture are characterized by non-normativity, orientation towards one’s communication group, communication, vulgarisms, and the use of obscenities.

Language fashion. A manner of expression accepted in a particular community and relevant for a short time

Language taste. The idea of ​​ideal text models and ideal speech production in general, formed in the process of social and speech activity

Ticket 3. Communicative qualities of speech as a result of the implementation of the normative, communicative and ethical aspects of speech culture.

Communication norms are dictated by expediency. In general, these are norms for choosing a form (oral or written, dialogue or monologue), a method of speech activity and means of communication (methods of evidence, language techniques, etc.). Communicative norms, in contrast to ethical and linguistic norms, are more variable: they are advisory in nature and must correspond to the communicative situation. Let's say parents must punish a child for bad behavior. In one family they will take some measures (reading lectures, depriving the child of the right to watch TV, walk, play computer games etc.) together. In another family, only the father will punish his son, and in the third, all family members will boycott the child. As we see, to implement one communication strategy as the main line of behavior (in our example, this is punishing the offender), different tactics can be used.

The key to the success of any interaction is the consistency of ethical and communication standards and their compliance by all participants in communication. This is confirmed by numerous Russian proverbs and sayings, which contain ethical requirements for speech behavior, for example: An enemy assents, and a friend argues; Slander is like coal: if it doesn’t burn, it gets dirty; A kind word to a man is like rain in a drought; A lie stands on one leg, truth on two; It was simply said, but it was not without reason that many, many others listened.

The concept of norm is usually associated with the idea of ​​correct, literary literate speech, and literary speech itself is one of the aspects of a person’s general culture.

The norm, as a socio-historical and deeply national phenomenon, characterizes, first of all, the literary language - recognized as an exemplary form of the national language. Therefore, the terms “linguistic norm” and “literary norm” are often combined, especially when applied to the modern Russian language, although historically they are not the same thing.

The linguistic norm is formed in the actual practice of verbal communication, worked out and consolidated in public use as usage (Latin usus - use, use, custom); The literary norm is undoubtedly based on usage, but it is also specially protected, codified, i.e. legitimized by special regulations, dictionaries, sets of rules, textbooks. [Lapteva 1983: p. 187]

Graudina L.K. Shiryaev E.N. distinguish in their book “Culture of Russian Speech” several types of language norms: orthoepic (pronunciation), orthographic (writing), word-formation (the use of derivative words established in the literary language, for example, nose-nose-“nosenok”), lexical (rules for the use of words in speech, for example, “biography of life”), morphological (grammatical forms of words, for example, delicious salami), syntactic (use of participial and participial phrases, prepositions, etc., for example, “come home from school”), punctuation, intonation [Graudina , Shiryaev 1999: p. 25-46].

A literary norm is the rules of pronunciation, word usage, and use of grammatical and stylistic linguistic means accepted in social and linguistic practice. The norm is historically mobile, but at the same time stable and traditional, it has such qualities as familiarity and universal obligatory nature. Peshkovsky A.M. said this convincingly and simply: “The norm recognizes what was, and partly what is, but is by no means what will happen" [Peshkovsky 1959: pp. 54-55].

The main reason for the change in norms is the evolution of the language itself, the presence of variation, which ensures the choice of the most appropriate variants of linguistic expression. The concept of exemplaryness and standardization of a normative language means increasingly includes the meaning of expediency and convenience.

The norm has a certain set of characteristics that must be present in it in its entirety. K. S. Gorbachevich writes in detail about the signs of a norm in the book “Word Variation and Linguistic Norms.” He identifies three main features: 1) stability of the norm, conservatism; 2) the prevalence of the linguistic phenomenon; 3) authority of the source. Each of the features individually may be present in one or another linguistic phenomenon, but this is not enough. In order for a linguistic device to be recognized as normative, a combination of features is necessary. Thus, for example, errors can be extremely common, and they can remain persistent over a long period of time. [Gorbachevich 2009: p. 94]

The quality (sign) of the stability of a norm manifests itself differently at different language levels. Moreover, this sign of the norm is directly related to the systemic nature of the language as a whole, therefore, at each language level the relationship “norm and system” manifests itself to varying degrees. As for the authority of literary artists, special difficulties arise in assessments, since the language of fiction, the artistry of which is often achieved precisely as a result of the free use of language.

Thus, a norm, having the listed characteristics, implements the following criteria for its evaluation: stability, prevalence, authority of the source.

In the modern Russian language, the norms of written and oral speech are moving closer together, and their active interaction is observed.

The present time is characterized by a reduction to a unified speech practice. There are serious social reasons for this - the spread of education and the increased role of the media. It is against this general background that the process of normalization takes place.

In March 1994, on radio and TV, a decision was made, supported by the Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences, to consistently return to the previous names: “No language can dictate to the Russian language its own rules of pronunciation and writing of proper names, since this humiliates and distorts it” (Prov. , 18.3.94). “People, even far from the problems of linguistics, were perplexed, knowing that in any language a borrowed word is always subject to new grammatical and sound laws and is almost never preserved in its original form. After all, the English have Russia as Russia, the French have Rusia, the Germans have Rusland, the Moldovans have Russia, the Ingush have Rossi. Native speakers of the Russian language have the same right to traditionally pronounce and write Ashgabat, Alma-Ata, Chuvashia. This issue has nothing to do with the problems of sovereignty and respect for national dignity” (MP, 15.3.94).

However, one cannot ignore the triumphant fashion and the mood of the people. One cannot help but take into account today’s taste for change, for abandoning the familiar, or at least for variability: even such innovations that contradict the Russian language system are more likely to be accepted than rejected. In any case, it would be funny to conflict with Estonians over a letter, like the Czechs and Slovaks, whose differences over the hyphen in the name of the country became one of the reasons for divorce. One should also take into account the huge Russian diaspora, which is forced to obey the laws of the country of residence; this means that a mass of variable toponyms will inevitably appear in the Russian language. Sometimes you have to put up with the most naive political and national thinking: there are things higher than the inviolable purity of the literary and linguistic canon.

0.4. The given examples allow us to express some theoretical considerations regarding taste as a category of speech culture (see: V. G. Kostomarov. Issues of speech culture in the training of Russian teachers. In the book: “Theory and practice of teaching the Russian language and literature. The role of the teacher in the process training". M., Russian language, 1979).

Taste in general is the ability to evaluate, understanding what is right and beautiful; these are preferences and inclinations that determine a person’s culture in thought and work, in behavior, including speech. Taste can be understood as a system of ideological, psychological, aesthetic and other attitudes of a person or social group in relation to language and speech in this language. These attitudes determine a person’s particular value attitude toward language, the ability to intuitively evaluate the correctness, appropriateness, and aesthetics of speech expression.

Taste is a complex amalgam of social requirements and assessments, as well as the individuality of the native speaker, his artistic inclinations, upbringing, and education (which is why the phrase “There is no arguing about taste”). However, this individuality is also formed in the course of assimilation of social knowledge, norms, rules, and traditions. Therefore, taste always has a concrete social and concrete historical basis; therefore, manifesting itself individually, taste reflects in its development the dynamics of social consciousness and unites members of a given society at a given stage of its history (it is not for nothing that they talk about the tastes of a society and an era).

The most important condition of taste is social in nature, acquired by every native speaker, the so-called feeling, or flair of language, which is the result of speech and general social experience, the assimilation of knowledge of the language and knowledge about the language, the mostly unconscious assessment of its tendencies and paths of progress.

In the words of L. V. Shcherba, “this feeling in a normal member of society is socially justified, being a function of the language system” (L. V. Shcherba. On the threefold aspect of linguistic phenomena and on experiment in linguistics. In the book: “Language system and speech activity", L., 1974, p. 32). The very sense of language is a kind of system of unconscious assessments, reflecting the systematic nature of language in speech and social linguistic ideals.

The sense of language forms the basis for a global assessment, acceptance or rejection of certain development trends, certain layers of vocabulary, for assessing the appropriateness of certain stylistic and generally functional-style varieties of language under current conditions and for given purposes. In this sense, it is very dependent on the systemic and normative features of the language, on its “spirit” and “willfulness”, its origin, history and ideals of progress, acceptable and desirable sources of enrichment, the originality of its structure and composition. So, say, inflection, the formal expression of connections in a sentence makes the Russian linguistic sense much more intolerant of the accumulation of identical forms than English or French, which is why, for example, consecutive constructions with of or de are more permissible than Russian genitive cases (outside the limited special spheres; see the works of O. D. Mitrofanova on “scientific language”).

Due to the specifics of Russian grammar, Russian speech turns out to be flexible and diverse in terms of intonation and word order, which in turn makes the possibilities for expressive actual division of statements more diverse. It is weakly characterized by homonymy, which is why, by the way, Russians love to look for it and stumble over it, although, of course, ambiguity is usually easily extinguished by the text.

The very composition of the Russian language, as well as its structure, influences the taste. Thus, each new look at the historical relationship between Old Slavic books and the original East Slavic folk speech element significantly modifies our stylistic ideas. Slavicisms, on the one hand, are organically part of the literary language, on the other, for many decades they have been perceived as ponderous and pompous, often funny archaisms. With the change in target settings in the use of language and the emergence of new functions brought to life by a changed attitude towards Orthodox Church, to religion in general, the attitude towards Old (Church) Slavisms also changes dramatically.

Every now and then, folk poetics, dialect contrasts of north and south, medieval “weaving of words”, business speech dating back to Moscow orders and urban koine - vernacular, influxes of German, then French, and today American foreignness - the most diverse phenomena of different stages of the history of the Russian language.

The debate between “Shishkovists” and “Karamzinists”, “Slavophiles” and “Westerners” is alive and in many ways educates today’s taste, not to mention the synthetic activity of the founder of the modern literary language A. S. Pushkin and other classics of the 19th century. The sense of language reflects cultural and national memory, dissolving layers of different heritages, different poetic and speech concepts. An important role in the formation of Russian linguistic flair and taste was and is played by the relationship between book and non-book speech, which often took on the character of competition between the literary and “folk” languages.

During the Soviet period, high rates of development and abruptly changing tastes accumulated a significant stock of heterogeneous changes and deformations, which today, with the beginning of the post-Soviet era, are being tested and reassessed. Accordingly, we should now expect (and the factual material of subsequent chapters confirms this) a search for “fresh” linguistic material, a redistribution of stylistic layers, and a new synthesis of means of expression.

Thus, taste is, in essence, a changing ideal of the use of language according to the character of the era. “General norms of linguistic taste,” coinciding or not coinciding with the writer’s language, fall, in the words of G. O. Vinokur, “on the bridge leading from language, as something impersonal, general, supra-individual, to the very personality of the writer” (G O. Vinokur, On the Study of the Language of Literary Works, Selected Works on the Russian Language, Moscow, 1959, p. 278).

Taste often loses its historical validity and follows opportunistic, random aspirations. It then becomes in bad taste. He then loses even the naturally mediated connection with the mental-substantive aspect of communication and with the natural aesthetic limiting framework. In other words, taste appears as the extremes of fashion. Speech in this case leaves the range between “an unattainable ideal” and “not yet a mistake”, loses the evaluative and tasteful qualities of “good speech” (see: B. N. Golovin. Fundamentals of the theory of speech culture. Gorky, 1977; N. A Plenkin, Criteria for Good Speech, Russian Language at School, 1978, 6). Let us note, looking ahead, that for our time such a quality of “good speech” as freshness is especially relevant, that is, the desire to update familiar means and methods of expression.

With all the natural desire to objectify the concept of taste as a cultural and speech category, one cannot, of course, deny it subjective individuality. Without developing this thought now, we will only cite the curious reflections of a prominent modern poet and writer: “You cannot hang a screw on a flower as an addition. You cannot attach paper clips to a string of pearls on a woman’s neck in the form of pendants. You cannot add the word wedding to the word palace. It is also impossible to explain why this cannot be done. It comes down to linguistic hearing, taste, sense of language, and ultimately to the level of culture” (V. Soloukhin. Autumn Leaves).

The qualities of “good speech” are relative, sometimes even internally contradictory - and not only due to their general subjective taste character and close dependence on the specific meaning expressed in a particular case, on the conditions and goals of a given communicative act, but primarily because strict determination of any speech by existing norms in the literary language. However, in today's situation, these normative means of expression and the established methods of their use with standard content, in statements similar in content, goals and conditions, often turn out to be inconsistent with the new taste and are being decisively revised.

End of introductory fragment.

Text provided by LitRes LLC.

You can safely pay for the book with a Visa, MasterCard, Maestro bank card, from a mobile phone account, from a payment terminal, in an MTS or Svyaznoy store, via PayPal, WebMoney, Yandex.Money, QIWI Wallet, bonus cards or another method convenient for you.

Here is an introductory fragment of the book.
Only part of the text is open for free reading (restriction of the copyright holder). If you liked the book, full text can be obtained from our partner's website.