15.1 Write an essay-reasoning, revealing the meaning of the statement of the famous Russian linguist Ilya Romanovich Galperin: “To expressive means language often includes the use of colloquial vocabulary"
Colloquial vocabulary really makes the story more lively and realistic. In addition, it helps to give three-dimensional characterization to the characters.
For example, in an excerpt from a story by K. G. Paustovsky, the grandfather uses a lot of colloquial and colloquial words. For example, in sentence 7: “Show mercy.” Or in sentence 55: “Go out and look.”
Sometimes the use of colloquial and vernacular words helps convey emotional state hero because they are very expressive. Let's say sentence 46 talks about how the grandfather “cryed with fear” and asked the hare not to run “so fast.” This allows us to imagine the hero's fear.
Use of colloquial words in the work artistic style gives it expressiveness.
15.2 Write an argumentative essay. Explain how you understand the meaning of the last sentence of the text: “Then I understood everything.”
I understand these words this way. The narrator, seeing the torn ear of a hare, realized that this was exactly the animal that his grandfather almost shot before the fire. Sentences 25-27 describe this episode memorial to the hero day.
Then there was a fire. And the grandfather would have faced inevitable death (the hurricane was driving the fire at a speed of thirty kilometers per hour), if he had not run after the hare, who brought him out of the fire. The grandfather picked up the hare and persuaded the doctor to cure the animal. The hero felt warm gratitude to the hare, but in addition he also felt guilty that he almost killed the animal .
The narrator realized that the grandfather repented of his intention to shoot the animal. After all, if the shot had been successful, my grandfather would also have died in the fire.
15.3 How do you understand the meaning of the word GOOD? Formulate and comment on the definition you have given. Write an essay-argument on the topic: “What is good?”, taking the definition you gave as the thesis.
Good is everything that is good in our life. This is mutual assistance, sympathy, love and attention to one’s neighbor, to our little brothers - you can’t list everything.
Good always returns to a person as good. For example, in Paustovsky’s story, the hare saved his grandfather’s life, and the grandfather, in gratitude, saved him, because a burned hare in the forest would inevitably die.
As an argument, I would like to cite an episode from the novel “ Captain's daughter" The sheepskin coat, given by Petrusha Grinev to the peasant who helped him get to his home during a snowstorm, later saved the young man’s life. The little man turned out to be Pugachev, who led the peasant uprising and executed the officers. Emelyan recognized his good fellow traveler and let him go, and later helped him more than once, seeing a kind and pure soul in Peter.
When a person does good, he makes the whole world better and cleaner.
Stylistic issues in lately They are increasingly beginning to attract the attention of linguists, whose interests are not limited to the problems of historical and grammatical analysis of the facts of language. However, there is still no more or less clear idea of what constitutes the subject of this science. Obviously, this is why some of our linguists deny the existence of stylistics altogether. The denial of stylistics as a science is usually based on the fact that the concepts with which stylistics operates are allegedly not isolated from other branches of the science of language: the expressive means of language are not the subject of stylistics, but the subject of grammar and lexicology; the language and style of the writer is the business of literary scholars, for whom language is the “primary element” of literature; As for speech styles, as Yu.S. writes about this in his discussion article. Sorokin, such people don’t exist at all.
Is there a need to prove the objective existence of different language styles? It seems to me that there is no such need.<…>It seems clear that in languages that have a long history of development of written literature, certain, more or less closed systems, differing from each other in the features of the use of linguistic means. It is precisely this systematic nature of the use of linguistic means (under systemic in nature the use of linguistic means is understood as their interdependence and their relationships within a given style of speech) lead to the fact that in various fields language use, the choice of syntactic constructions, word usage, the nature of the use of figurative means of language, etc. are normalized.
The difficulty in determining the differences between speech styles lies in the fact that to date none of them have been studied from the point of view of the systematic means of linguistic expression. In the linguistic literature one can only find an analysis of individual isolated features of a particular style.<…>
Determining the uniqueness of a speech style based on one or even several features linguistic expression appears to be unlawful. This approach inevitably leads to “fixation” of speech styles individual elements language. But it is obvious that certain lexical means, individual structural features of sentences, figurative means of language, etc. do not belong to any particular style of speech. No special syntax scientific speech. Complex sentences with a clearly defined differentiation of means of conjunctive subordination are characteristic not only of the style of scientific speech, but also of the style of official documents and the style of fiction (cf., for example, English essays of the 18th and 19th centuries). Special terminology cannot be considered an exclusive property of the style of scientific speech. It is used in a variety of ways in newspaper, business, and artistic prose. What style of speech do archaisms belong to? IN English they are found in historical novels as a means of stylization; in early romantic poetry - with a special aesthetic function associated with the worldview of the romantic poets; in the style of official documents, archaisms are a necessary means of correlating the linguistic form of a document with the linguistic features of codes and legal regulations; in oral poetry they represent a traditional element folk art and poetic phraseology.
The same can be said about other syntactic and lexical means of language. To determine their exclusive belonging to one or another style of speech means to dissolve the concept of style in the concept of language. This means coming to the conclusion that there is no language outside of style.<…>
Two phenomena are mixed: the functioning of language and the style of language as a socially conscious, normalized system of means of expression, determined by certain goals of communication.
The diverse forms of language functioning do not always create a specific system: they are often determined by the conditions of communication. Therefore, it seems appropriate to distinguish between the features of means of expression associated with the conditions of communication, and the features of means of expression that are the result of the conscious selection of these means for specific purposes. Thus, the division of speech into oral and written is mainly associated with the conditions in which communication is realized.<…>
Considering the differences between oral and writing, on the one hand, and the difference between speech styles, on the other, it is advisable to call these phenomena differently in order to avoid terminological confusion. We can conditionally call forms of speech associated with certain specific conditions of communication, types of speech, and forms of speech that represent “expediently organized systems of means of expression” - styles of speech. Both oral and written types speeches can, in the process of their development and improvement, develop their own styles, consolidated by social practice. But the styles of written speech appear most clearly. In the oral type of speech, perhaps, only the form of oral poetry is distinguished by the system of its means of expression and therefore can be called a style. The forms everyday communication, as mentioned above, do not have such a system and therefore should not be considered as speech styles.
It should be noted, however, that oral speech has not yet been subjected to almost any scientific analysis; even its characteristic features - lexical and syntactic - were often considered as violations or deviations from linguistic norms 1 . However, “... the difficulty of finding something does not yet prove the absence of what is being sought” 2. It is therefore possible that upon closer analysis various forms oral communication will reveal its own styles here, characterized by a certain systematicity of means of linguistic expression.
Awareness of the system of means of expression for certain purposes of communication seems to us to be the most significant point in identifying speech styles of the national language. The style of a language is precisely “... a purposefully organized system of means of expression...” 3. Therefore, it is natural that when characterizing the style of a language, one cannot limit oneself to a simple list of linguistic means. It is necessary to determine in what relationship these means are with each other, how they relate to the living norms of the general literary language as a whole.<…>
In the literary language, the poetic style stands out especially (in in a broad sense this word) with its varieties: artistic prose and poetry.<…>
The peculiarity and originality of this style of speech<…>consists not so much in the selection of certain means of language, but in the use of these means for the purpose of “artistic, generalized reproduction and illumination” of the life and activities of society.<…>At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish between, on the one hand, the concept of poetic style in general and, on the other hand, the concept of the individual artistic style of a writer as a particular manifestation of the laws of poetic style.
Individual artistic style is contrasted with functional styles of language in different directions. Representing, like functional styles, a certain system of means of expression, it cannot, by the very content of the concept, be a system normalized by a social collective.
The system of individual artistic style is characterized by its individual originality of selection, organization and creative processing of linguistic means.
From the point of view of the manifestation of individuality in the use of linguistic means, the speech styles of a literary language allow a significant amplitude of fluctuations. Such styles of speech, such as, for example, the style of official documents, stand on the verge of almost impersonal creativity. Individual manner of expression is almost completely absent here. Indeed, is it possible to discern any individual feature in orders, business letters, charters, etc.? The manifestation of the individual in such styles of speech is usually considered a violation of the established norms of a given literary style speech. The same can be said about a type of newspaper style - newspaper reports, which also show a kind of indifference to the personality of the writer. The situation is somewhat different with another type of newspaper style - newspaper articles, although here the manifestation of the individual is largely limited by the general laws of newspaper style.
In a scientific style, the manifestation of the individual becomes completely acceptable. But it is significant that in relation to this style one can speak of the manifestation of the individual only as something permissible, and not as an organic quality of the style. And yet, the style of scientific speech is much further removed from that “impersonal creativity” that characterizes some other speech styles (see above).<…>
The manifestation of the individual in a poetic style (in the broad sense of the word) is perhaps the main requirement of this style. The question arises: does this requirement not destroy the unity of the poetic style precisely as a style in the understanding that is set forth in this article? It seems to us that this style with its varieties (poetic speech, literary prose, drama, etc.) stands out as an independent style of literary language. The unifying factor here is that “fiction is built on the basis of the national language through its figurative and aesthetic transformation” 1 . Consequently, what appears sporadically and irregularly in other styles of speech is a figurative interpretation of facts and phenomena surrounding life– in poetic style it becomes its main and defining feature.
Speaking about the speech styles of the national language, we have to use terms such as “ stylistic means language", "expressive means of language". A precise definition of these concepts seems essential, since the very distinction between speech styles is based on the selection and interaction of expressive and stylistic means of language.
From the standpoint of normative grammar, expressive (or stylistic) means of language are understood very broadly: any deviation from traditional patterns of written speech, devoid of emotional characteristics, is included in the category of expressive means of language; As expressive means, various elliptical turns, inversions, repetitions, isolated turns, etc. are considered. Expressive means often include the use of colloquial vocabulary.
First of all, it must be borne in mind that there is no sharp line between emotional speech in the broad sense of the word, it is impossible to carry out unemotional speech, or, as it is often called, logical speech. Logical speech may have an emotional connotation, emotional speech may be strictly logically constructed.<…>
What is the difference between a stylistic device (or, what is the same, stylistic device) from the expressive means present in the literary language? A stylistic device is a generalization, typification, condensation of facts objectively existing in a language, means for expressing thoughts. This is not a simple reproduction of these facts, but their creative processing. This creative use of the real possibilities of linguistic expression can sometimes take bizarre forms, bordering on the paradoxicality of use and the grotesque. Any expressive means of language can be used as a stylistic device if it is typified and generalized for certain purposes of artistic influence. The theory of artistic speech, if one of the sections of language stylistics can be called that, has already selected a number of such techniques that are most often found in the language of fiction, and has identified certain patterns in the nature of their use.<…>The subject and tasks of stylistics can be defined as follows: stylistics is the science of the ways and means of using expressive means of language and stylistic devices in various styles of literary language; about the types of speech and speech styles of a given literary language; about the correlation between the means of expression and the expressed content.
Conversational vocabulary is expressive stylistic coloring, it contains a large proportion of evaluative and emotional additional meanings. Compared to neutral vocabulary, this vocabulary appears to be stylistically reduced. Scientists have calculated that the share of colloquial vocabulary in the Russian language accounts for twice as many words as the share of book vocabulary. Let us recall that there are three times fewer stylistically colored words (high or low style) in the Russian language than neutral ones. Vocabulary oral speech has a characteristic colloquial flavor and is not used in special styles of written speech - scientific, journalistic (with the exception of expressiveness), official business. IN artistic speech colloquial vocabulary is a means of creating an image, speech characteristics:
And then Vasily Terkin
As if I remembered: -
Listen, brother.
There is no shame in losing your family -
It wasn't your fault.
Losing your head is a shame,
Well, that's what war is for.
Lose the tobacco pouch,
If there is no one to sew, -
I don’t argue, it’s also bitter,
It's hard, but you can live,
Survive the misfortune
Hold tobacco in your fist,
But Russia, the old mother,
We cannot lose in any way (A. Tvardovsky).
The main area of use of colloquial vocabulary is everyday everyday and professional communication in an informal setting.
Two layers of oral speech have a reduced coloring - colloquial vocabulary of the literary language and vernacular (it is located outside the literary language as vocabulary of limited use).
TO colloquial vocabulary can also be attributed slang vocabulary(professional or social group) and partially argotisms. Most words have an evaluative connotation, expressing the speaker’s attitude to the subject: reveler, neat, cram; to the sign: toothy, nosed; to action: push (stick in), puzzle, cheat (deceive), escape (leave). The main thing is not to confuse oral vocabulary colloquial speech with interstyle vocabulary that is closest in properties to colloquial. To neutral, not to colloquial words include do, house, go, good, ten, mine, you, etc. You can check the neutrality or colloquialism of words simple trick- insert a word into official text any genre of written speech - document, law, newspaper information. If a word turns out to be “foreign” in the text, it refers to colloquial vocabulary: too much, locker room, sleep, stupid, etc. For colloquial vocabulary great influence provides word formation, first of all, special ways of abbreviating phrases: reader, soda, electric train, etc., as well as special suffixes: tramp, goner, dude, hard worker; clamor, whining; cramming, windy; quietly, slowly, little by little. Colloquial vocabulary does not go beyond the conversational style.
Neologisms reflecting a change in meaning have already famous word, are also more often used in oral speech. It can be assumed that they come from the argot - the vocabulary of a group of people who want to make their language “secret”, incomprehensible to others. Obviously, the reason for the emergence of new meanings of words is the desire to “secret” the meaning under a different name: gain - “profit”, tattoo - “deception, practical joke”, run into - “go into conflict, quarrel with someone”, spin - “help” make a career (disinterestedly), joke - "joke", load - "give out too much information", etc.
Colloquial vocabulary includes many professional words that are used in informal communication: brick - “sign prohibiting passage”, stake out - “agree”, turnover - “constant, incessant small matters”, etc.
Modern Russian literary language/ Ed. P. A. Lekanta - M., 2009
Means speech expressiveness - this is one of the most important factors, thanks to which the Russian language is famous for its richness and beauty, which has been sung more than once in poetry and immortal works of Russian literary classics. To this day, Russian is one of the most difficult languages to learn. This is facilitated by huge amount The means of expression that are present in our language make it rich and multifaceted. Today there is no clear classification of means of expression, but two conventional types can still be distinguished: stylistic figures and tropes.
Stylistic figures- these are speech patterns that the author uses in order to achieve maximum expressiveness, which means it is better to convey to the reader or listener necessary information or meaning, as well as give the text an emotional and artistic coloring. Stylistic figures include such means of expression as antithesis, parallelism, anaphora, gradation, inversion, epiphora and others.
Trails- these are figures of speech or words that are used by the author in an indirect, allegorical meaning. These funds artistic expression - an integral part of any work of art. The tropes include metaphors, hyperboles, litotes, synecdoche, metonymies, etc.
The most common means of expression.
As we have already said, there is very large number means of lexical expressiveness in the Russian language, therefore in this article we will consider those of them that can most often be found not only in literary works, but also in everyday life each of us.
- Hyperbola(Greek hyperbole - exaggeration) is a type of trope based on exaggeration. Through the use of hyperbole, the meaning is enhanced and the desired impression is made on the listener, interlocutor or reader. For example: sea of tears; ocean of love.
- Metaphor(Greek metaphora - transference) - one of essential means speech expressiveness. This trope is characterized by the transfer of characteristics of one object, creature or phenomenon to another. This trope is similar to a comparison, but the words “as if”, “as if”, “as” are omitted, but everyone understands that they are implied: tarnished reputation; glowing eyes ; seething emotions.
- Epithet(Greek epitheton - application) is a definition that gives the most ordinary things, objects and phenomena have an artistic coloring. Examples of epithets: golden summer; flowing hair; wavy fog.
IMPORTANT. Not every adjective is an epithet. If an adjective indicates clear characteristics of a noun and does not carry any artistic meaning, then it is not an epithet: green grass; wet asphalt; bright sun.
- Antithesis(Greek antithesis - opposition, contradiction) - another means of expressiveness that is used to enhance drama and is characterized by a sharp contrast of phenomena or concepts. Very often the antithesis can be found in poetry: “You are rich, I am very poor; you are a prose writer, I am a poet...” (A.S. Pushkin).
- Comparison - stylistic figure, the name of which speaks for itself: when comparing, one object is compared with another. There are several ways in which comparison can be presented:
- noun (“…storm haze the sky covers...").
A figure of speech that contains the conjunctions “as if”, “as if”, “as”, “like” (The skin of her hands was rough, like the sole of a boot).
- subordinate clause (Night fell on the city and in a matter of seconds everything became quiet, as if there was no such liveliness in the squares and streets just an hour ago).
- Phraseologisms- a means of lexical expressiveness of speech, which, unlike others, cannot be used by the author individually, since it is, first of all, set phrase or a turnover characteristic only of the Russian language ( neither fish nor meat; play the fool; how the cat cried).
- Personification- this is a trope that is characterized by the endowment of human properties inanimate objects and phenomena (I the forest came to life - the trees spoke, the wind began to sing in the tops of fir trees).
In addition to the above, there are the following means of expression, which we will consider in the next article:
- Allegory
- Anaphora
- Gradation
- Inversion
- Alliteration
- Assonance
- Lexical repetition
- Irony
- Metonymy
- Oxymoron
- Multi-Union
- Litotes
- Sarcasm
- Ellipsis
- Epiphora and others
