Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Modern theoretical concept of speech culture

Speech culture is a multi-valued concept. One of the main tasks of speech culture is the protection of the literary language and its norms. It should be emphasized that such protection is a matter of national importance, since the literary language is precisely what linguistically unites the nation. Creating a literary language is not an easy matter. It cannot appear on its own. The leading role in this process at a certain historical stage of a country’s development is usually played by the most advanced, cultural part of society. The formation of the norms of the modern Russian literary language is inextricably linked with the name of A. S. Pushkin. By the time the literary language appeared, the language of the Russian nation was very heterogeneous. It consisted of dialects, vernacular and some other isolated entities. Dialects are local folk dialects, very different in terms of pronunciation (okayut in the North, yakayut in the South), vocabulary, and grammar. The vernacular is more unified, but still not sufficiently ordered by its norms. Pushkin managed, based on various manifestations of the folk language, to create in his works a language that was accepted by society as a literary one.

Literary language is, of course, far from the same thing as the language of fiction. The language of fiction is based on literary language. And, moreover, the literary language seems to grow out of the language of fiction. And yet the language of fiction is a special phenomenon. Its main distinguishing feature is that it carries a great aesthetic load. To achieve aesthetic goals, dialects and other non-literary elements can be involved in the language of fiction.

Since not every student at humanities universities can (even if they want) to become a writer, the issue of writing language skills and the language of fiction is not considered in this textbook. However, we note: without knowledge of the basics of speech culture in our time, it is difficult to imagine a genuine intellectual. As A.P. Chekhov wrote, “for an intelligent person to speak badly is as indecent as not being able to read and write.”

One of the most important functions of a literary language is to be the language of the entire nation, to rise above individual local or socially limited linguistic formations. Literary language is what, naturally, along with economic, political and other factors, creates the unity of a nation. Without a developed literary language, it is difficult to imagine a full-fledged nation. The famous modern linguist M.V. Panov names among the main features of a literary language such as the language of culture, the language of the educated part of the people, and a deliberately codified language. The latter—conscious codification of language—is the direct task of speech culture: with the advent of a literary language, “speech culture” also appears.

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 modification. The statement that a feminine noun with the ending -a in the nominative case has the ending -e (and not some other) in the prepositional case is a statement about the norm. However, such norms are natural for native speakers of the Russian language, their codification is extremely simple, any grammarian can cope with such codification, and there is nothing for a speech culture specialist to do here. The culture of speech begins where language seems to offer a choice for codification, and this choice is far from clear-cut. You can often hear a kilometer, but the norm is only a kilometer, no less often you hear an agreement, but the norm is an agreement, although now an agreement is no longer categorically prohibited, whereas thirty years ago such an emphasis was prohibited. This indicates, among other things, that the modern Russian literary language, although it can be considered as the language from Pushkin to the present day, does not remain unchanged. He constantly needs rationing. If you follow the established norms once and for all, then there is a danger that society will simply stop taking them into account and will spontaneously establish its own norms. Spontaneity in such a matter is far from good, since what seems acceptable to some will be unacceptable to others. Therefore, constant monitoring of the development and change of norms is one of the main tasks of linguistic science about the culture of speech.

This was well understood by Russian linguists of the pre-revolutionary period, as evidenced by the analysis of the norms of the Russian language in V. I. Chernyshev’s book “Purity and Correctness of Russian Speech” published in 1913, which seemed to sum up the development of pronunciation, morphological and syntactic norms since the time of Pushkin . Here are a few typical examples from this book. In the 19th century There were still possible fluctuations in the use or non-use of the fluent vowels o or e: wind - wind, whirlwind - whirlwind, ashes - ashes, fishery - fishery, intent - intent. Mother and daughter forms were also possible. At that time, impersonal sentences were used much more widely than now: For this alone, a whole and, moreover, large article would be required (V. Belinsky); It was half past seven... (F. Dostoevsky); They dreamed wonderfully of golden spring, spring and summer (F. Tyutchev).

General literary norms required special care after 1917, which, of course, is not accidental. The broad masses of the people who did not have a good command of the literary language were included in active public life. Naturally, there was a threat of the literary norm being undermined. This was well understood by philologists who did a lot of work to promote the culture of speech, such as the famous linguists V.V. Vinogradov, G.O. Vinokur, B.A. Larin, L.V. Shcherba, L.P. Yakubinsky and many others .

As already mentioned, the post-war years became a new stage in the development of the culture of speech as a scientific discipline. The largest figure of this period was S.I. Ozhegov, who gained wide fame as the author of the most popular one-volume “Dictionary of the Russian Language,” which became a reference book for more than one generation of people. After the death of S.I. Ozhegov in 1964, active work on updating the dictionary was carried out by Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences N.Yu. Shvedova; in 1992, the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language” was published, the authors of which are S. I. Ozhegov and N. Yu. Shvedova. K. II Chukovsky turned out to be right, writing in the article “In Memory of S.I. Ozhegov”: “His feat will never be forgotten by us, and I believe that the wonderful dictionary created will serve a great service to many generations of Soviet dictionaries.”

The normative aspect of speech culture is one of the most important, but not the only one. Czech linguist K. Hausenblas writes: “There is nothing paradoxical in the fact that one is able to speak on the same topic in a non-literary language and look more cultured than another speaker in a literary language.” And this is absolutely true. One can cite a large number of texts with a wide variety of content, impeccable from the point of view of compliance with general literary norms, but not too intelligible. Here, for example, is the following text from the “Operating Manual for a Television Receiver”: “To improve the quality of reproduction of small details when receiving a black-and-white image, automatic switching off of resistor filters in the brightness channel has been introduced into the TV circuit. Reducing the influence of interference is achieved by using a circuit for automatically adjusting the horizontal frequency and phase.” For most non-specialists, this text is simply incomprehensible or understandable only in general terms, since we do not know what resistor filters are in the luminance channel, horizontal scan phases. And a specialist, for example, a TV repairman, knows about the structure of the device, of course, not from the manual for it. This means that such a text is ineffective because it does not have its addressee. Consequently, it is not enough to achieve normativeness of the text; it is also necessary to make this text good.

The language has a large arsenal of tools. The most important requirement for a good text is this: from all the linguistic means for creating a specific text, those that fulfill the assigned communication tasks, or communicative tasks, with maximum completeness and efficiency must be selected. The study of a text from the point of view of the correspondence of its linguistic structure to the tasks of communication in the theory of speech culture is called the communicative aspect of the culture of language proficiency.

What is now called the communicative aspect of speech culture was already known in antiquity, which gave the world the doctrine of rhetoric.

Another aspect of speech culture is ethical. Every society has its own ethical standards of behavior. They also apply to many aspects of communication. Let us explain this with the following example. If you sit down at the table with your family members in the morning just to have breakfast, then it would be quite ethical to ask: Pass me the bread (1). 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? (2). How is (1) different from (2)? It is clear that it is not normativity. From the point of view of communication effectiveness, (1) expresses the thought directly and, therefore, more clearly than (2), in which the thought is expressed indirectly, but in a festive table situation the second form is still appropriate. The difference between (1) and (2) is precisely in following ethical standards. Ethical standards, or otherwise - speech etiquette, relate primarily to addressing “you” and “you”, choosing a full or abbreviated name (Vanya or Ivan Petrovich), choosing addresses such as citizen, master, etc., choosing ways to how they greet and say goodbye (hello, hello, fireworks, goodbye, all the best, all, see you, bye, etc.). Ethical standards in many cases are national: for example, the sphere of communication using “you” in English and German is narrower than in Russian; these same languages, in a greater number of cases than Russian, allow abbreviated names. A foreigner, finding himself in a Russian environment, often, unwittingly, looks tactless, bringing his own linguistic etiquette into this environment. Therefore, a prerequisite for good command of the Russian language is knowledge of Russian language etiquette.

The ethical aspect of speech culture does not always appear explicitly. R. O. Jacobson, a world-famous linguist, identifies six main functions of communication: designation of extra-linguistic reality (It was a beautiful mansion), attitude to reality (What a beautiful mansion!), magical function (Let there be light!), poetic, metalinguistic ( judgments about the language itself: They don’t say that; another word is needed here) and factual, or contact-establishing. If, when performing the first five functions mentioned here, the ethical aspect manifests itself, say, usually, then when performing the contact-establishing function, it manifests itself in a special way. The contact-establishing function is the very fact of communication, the topic is not of great importance; it doesn’t matter whether this topic is covered well or poorly. The ethical aspect of communication comes to the fore. For example, it is uncomfortable for you to walk silently with your acquaintance, with whom you, however, do not have too much in common, and you start a conversation about the weather, although you and your interlocutor are indifferent to it at that moment. The purpose of such a conversation is one - to establish contact.

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

So, 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, make it possible to ensure the greatest effect in achieving the set communicative tasks.

Communicative aspect of speech culture. Throughout the history of the development of the doctrine of speech culture, much more attention, especially in Soviet times, was paid to the normative aspect of the culture of language proficiency. This is largely explained by the social situation that developed in the country after 1917. As mentioned above, huge masses of people were involved in social activities. It is clear that this social life also required active speech activity using a literary language, the norms of which not everyone knew. That is why the normative aspect of speech culture was the main concern of linguists and the entire society. The further history of the country - the era of Stalinism - also did not contribute to the development of a culture of speech in the communicative aspect. The basis of the communicative aspect of speech culture is the choice of linguistic means necessary for a given purpose of communication - a creative process. Meanwhile, creativity and the dictatorship of a “strong personality” are incompatible things. In everything, including speech activity, it was prescribed to follow ready-made recipes. Even in glorifying the beloved leader it was impossible to “go beyond”: the father of nations, the luminary of science...

Linguists have always been well aware of the importance for the culture of speech of what is here called the communicative aspect. Back in the 20s, the famous Soviet philologist G. O. Vinokur, the author of numerous, including popular, works on the culture of speech, emphasized: “For every goal there are means, this should be the slogan of a linguistically cultural society.” S.I. Ozhegov also wrote about this much later: “High culture of speech is the ability to correctly, accurately and expressively convey one’s thoughts by means of language. Correct speech is one in which the norms of modern literary language are observed... But the culture of speech is not only about 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., the most suitable for a given case) and, therefore, stylistically justified.”

It cannot be said that the study of the communicative aspect did not go beyond these general statements. Quite widely in modern Russian studies, research on stylistics is carried out, especially on lexical stylistics, which is directly reflected in dictionaries in the form of stylistic notes, such as books. etc. These marks clearly indicate in which texts these words are appropriate. There are also direct attempts to build a theory of speech culture, including the communicative aspect. In the works of B. N. Golovin, including in his textbook for universities “Fundamentals of the Culture of Speech,” it is argued that for the culture of speech in general only one aspect is significant - the communicative aspect, in terms of which normativity should also be considered. Speech culture is defined as a set of communicative qualities of good speech. These qualities are identified on the basis of the relationship of speech with individual, as B. N. Golovin puts it, non-speech structures. Non-speech structures include: language as a certain basis that produces speech; thinking; consciousness; reality; a person is the addressee of speech; conditions of communication. This complex of non-speech structures requires the following good qualities from speech, that is, corresponding to these structures: correctness of speech (in other words, normativity), its purity (absence of dialectisms, jargon, etc., which also refers to the introduction of a normative aspect), accuracy , consistency, expressiveness, imagery, accessibility, effectiveness and relevance. There is no doubt that all these qualities are really important for assessing many specific texts in the communicative aspect. And the task of determining a text on a scale of “bad - good” in the communicative aspect could be considered solved if for this it would be enough to apply the mentioned nine signs to any text.

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 posed” in it, makes its own demands on the language. Therefore, it is impossible to talk in communicative terms about the culture of language proficiency in general. We should be talking about the culture of proficiency in different functional varieties of language. What is good in one functional variety of language is completely unacceptable in another. M.V. Panob writes: “complaints have appeared in the press more than once that lexicographers abuse words: they label them “colloquial,” “colloquial,” etc. These complaints are unfair. Such marks do not discriminate against words. Let's look in the dictionary to see which words are marked “colloquial”: toss and turn (with affairs), grumbler, back home, at will, to shove, while asleep, really, in vain, at times (sometimes), to your heart’s content, cry, remember, shake, dry, drag, soda , death (a lot), big-eyed, look, um, foulbrood, talker, darling, mountain (a lot), crash, penny, grow heavy, no gu-gu, in droves, come on (he let's shout), a long time ago - Wonderful words. Litter decomposed does not defame them. Litter warns: do not call a person with whom you are in a strictly official relationship a darling, do not offer to push him somewhere, do not tell him that he is lanky and sometimes grumpy... In official papers, do not use the words look, to your heart's content, to your heart's content , a penny... Surely this is reasonable advice?” .

If we approach some of the listed qualities of good speech from these positions, it turns out, strange as it may seem at first glance, that in some of its varieties the qualities opposite to those named in the list should be considered good or at least not bad. So, if scientific speech really requires accuracy, including accuracy in the designation of specific realities, then in colloquial speech such, for example, inaccurate designations as “what to write with” (pencil, pen) are quite normative. B. N. Yeltsin in his book “Confession on a Given Topic” cites the following note he received: “Tell me, our party leaders know that the country does not have basic things: what to eat, what to wear, what to wash with? Do they live by different laws?”

What functional varieties of language exist and what requirements from the point of view of speech culture should be made to them? The doctrine of functional varieties of language has its own history. For a long time, different areas of communication were understood as styles of language and styles of speech. Language styles were considered, for example, the language of science, the language of fiction, and colloquial speech. Speech styles were recognized as particular implementations of styles, such as an educational lecture and a scientific report, which were based on a scientific style. Recently, linguists have come to the conclusion that the linguistic differences between some spheres of communication are so significant that it is hardly advisable to use one general concept of “style” in relation to them; therefore, the concept of “functional variety of language” is introduced. The typology of functional varieties of language, recently proposed by Academician D. B. Shmelev, has received wide recognition. This typology is:

D. N. Shmelev calls styles only functional styles, which (all together) in their linguistic organization have significant differences both from the language of fiction and from colloquial speech.

As already mentioned, the main distinguishing feature of the language of fiction is its special purpose compared to all other varieties. The entire organization of linguistic means in fiction is subordinated not simply to the transfer of content, but to the transfer of artistic means. The main function of the language of fiction is aesthetic (or poetic). For this purpose, in the language of fiction, not only functional varieties of the literary language can be used, but also non-literary forms of the national language: dialects, vernacular, jargon, etc. An interesting example of using elements of the official business style for artistic purposes by V. Shukshin in the story “Crank” D. N. Shmelev cites in one of his works:

“At the airport, Chudik wrote a telegram to his wife:

“I landed. A lilac branch fell on your chest, dear Pear, don’t forget me. Vasyatka.”

The telegraph operator, a stern, dry woman, having read the telegram, suggested:

Make it different. You are an adult, not in kindergarten.

Why? - asked the Weird. “I always write to her like this in letters.” This is my wife!.. You probably thought...

You can write whatever you want in letters, but a telegram is a type of communication. This is clear text.

The weirdo rewrote:

“We landed. Everything is fine. Vasyatka.”

The telegraph operator herself corrected two words: “We landed” and “Vasyatka.” It became: “We’ve arrived. Vasily.”

A number of other examples of this kind can be cited: the skillful use of vernacular language in the stories of M. Zoshchenko is well known; V. Astafiev willingly uses dialect words; there are many words of camp jargon in works on the corresponding topic by A. Solzhenitsyn, etc.

The special position of the language of fiction in the system of functional varieties of language also lies in the fact that it has a huge influence on the literary language as a whole! It is no coincidence that the name of the standardized national language includes the definition “literary”. It is writers who form the norms of literary language in their works. A. Solzhenitsyn proposed “Russian Dictionary of Language Expansion”. “The best way to enrich a language,” the author writes in the preface to this dictionary, “is the restoration of previously accumulated and then lost wealth.” The dictionary contains, for example, the following words: avosnichat - to indulge in randomness, carefree; big bucket - spacious, large; joke - joke, fool around; floundered - got tired; bedeit - to cause trouble; sightless - unsightly, unprepossessing; besporye - timelessness, bad time, etc. It is difficult to say now what the fate of these and other words will be in the literary language, but the very fact of the creation of such a dictionary deserves attention. When you think about the language of fiction, then, apparently, it is more appropriate to talk not about the culture of speech, but about the talent, the skill of the writer in using all the riches and. capabilities of the national language. Further development of the topic of the language of fiction would take us far away from the problems of speech culture, so let us turn to other functional varieties of language.

But before talking specifically about each of them, it is necessary to emphasize one significant circumstance. An important requirement of a culture of language proficiency is the requirement to distinguish between its functional varieties, to use any of them freely, with a clear understanding of which variety of language should be chosen in accordance with the tasks of communication. One of the fundamental differences between such a non-literary form of language as vernacular and a literary language is that speakers of the first of them do not distinguish or poorly distinguish between varieties of language. Finding himself, for example, in an official business environment, a speaker of vernacular will tend to speak differently from the way he is used to speaking at home, but he does not know exactly how to speak in this situation.

The culture of proficiency in different functional varieties of a language is, first of all, such a choice and such an organization of linguistic means that distinguish a given variety from others and determine its face.

Among the functional varieties there is a special place, as follows from the one given on p. 19 of the diagram is occupied by colloquial speech (hereinafter referred to as PP). Not so long ago, RR was considered among a number of functional styles.

The fact is that colloquial speech, in comparison with other functional varieties, has very significant features. If the language of fiction and functional styles of language are built on the basis of language rules recorded in dictionaries and grammars, then the features of colloquial speech are not recorded anywhere. Nowhere does it say, for example, that in certain conditions of communication one can encounter the use of the nominative case of a noun in statements like: Can you tell me how to get to Tretyakov?

A characteristic feature of the official business style is the stamp. It is impossible to imagine a free form in an application for a business trip or vacation; there are established models of diplomas, passports, etc. But, of course, the culture of mastering an official business style is not limited only to knowledge of stamps. Its different genres require different speech skills. The researcher of this style, P. V. Veselov, considers, for example, the culture of conducting a business conversation on the phone. It is noted, in particular, that for the conversation to be effective, it is necessary to immediately introduce yourself (you should say: “Ivanov is on the phone”, “Petrov is listening”, and not “I’m on the phone”, “Listen”), when conducting a conversation there should be no stylistic excesses . “Official dialogue by telephone,” writes P.V. Veselov, “is not a detailed exchange of opinions, but an exchange of information of operational significance in order to achieve certain actions.” And he continues: “Just as written business speech is unified, oral speech can also be unified. For what? - To talk less and do more.”

A special genre of official business style is legal documents: the constitution, codes of laws, etc. The main thing for these documents is clear, complete wording that leaves no room for ambiguity; nothing should remain in the subtext; an implicit meaning is not typical for an official business style. Some heaviness of many legal texts is inevitable. When writing them, a kind of principle operates: it would be nice to say it simpler, but you can’t say it simpler, for example: “The protection of civil rights is carried out in the prescribed manner by a court, arbitration or arbitration tribunal by: recognizing these rights,” restoring the situation that existed before the violation of the right, and suppressing actions that violate the right; awards to perform duties in kind; termination or change of legal relationship; recovery from the person who violated the law for losses caused, and in cases provided for by law or contract - penalties (fine, penalty), as well as in other ways provided by law.”

Such legal texts are not intended to be quickly absorbed by non-specialists: they require repeated reading.

An effective set of linguistic tools for constructing scientific texts that are good in terms of speech culture is subject to such requirements as logical presentation, precise designation of concepts and realities. A scientific text is unthinkable without terminology, since it is precisely this that ensures the accuracy of notation. The consistent development of scientific thought (logic of thought) does not allow, on the one hand, the use, as in the official business style, of an implicitly expressed meaning, and on the other hand, it requires that a new sentence constantly absorb the meaning of the previous ones. This can be done by simply repeating the preceding clause in the form of a subordinate clause. This method is extremely uneconomical. Therefore, other methods are more often used: collapsing the previous sentence into a verbal noun, replacing it with a pronoun, etc. This combination determines the special syntactic properties of the word. Such methods are not alien to other functional varieties of language; they are especially active in the language of scientific texts, for example: “In this chapter, the theory of generalized functions is applied to the construction of fundamental solutions and to the solution of the Cauchy problem for the wave equation and for the heat equation. In this case, the Cauchy problem is considered in a generalized formulation, which makes it possible to include initial conditions in instantaneously acting sources (such as a simple and double layer on the surface t = 0). In this way, the Cauchy problem is reduced to the problem of finding a (generalized) solution to a given equation (with a constant right-hand side) that vanishes at t< 0. Последняя задача решается стандартным методом -- методом суммирования возмущений, порождаемых каждой точкой источника, так что решение ее представляется в виде свертки фундаментального решения с правой частью”. В результате этргонаучные тексты оказываются информативно насыщенными в гораздо большей степени, чем например, разговорные или публицистические. В тексты многих научных специальностей (математика, физика, химия, логика и др.) органически входят формулы. Поэтому научные тексты объективно трудны для восприятия. К ним нельзя предъявлять требование вседоступности. Следует, однако, заметить, что объективные трудности восприятия научных текстов не имеют ничего общего с субъективной трудностью восприятия некоторых научных текстов. Существует ложное убеждение, что наука в принципе должна быть непонятна для непосвященных. И поэтому некоторые ученые, особенно начинающие, стараются во что бы то ни стало написать “позаковыристей”, например, так: “...На месте генетического знания выступает знание реальное, или ближайший смысл из числа неоязыковленных смыслов пространственной таксономии в речи коммуникативной абстракции”. Хотя вряд ли такие “неоязыковленные” суждения могут продвинуть науку вперед... На наш взгляд, основное требование к культуре владения научным стилем можно сформулировать в виде такой сентенции: выражайся настолько сложно, насколько сложен объект исследования, и не более того.

One more important circumstance should be noted. There are significant differences between written and oral forms of scientific style. For example, the deep information richness of written scientific texts is quite justified, since the written text, if it is not immediately understood, can be read again. An oral scientific text, for example a lecture, naturally does not allow such repeated perception. Therefore, an experienced lecturer presents information as if in portions, often returning to what has already been said, again activating it in the minds of those listening. As a result, the semantics and syntactic structure of an oral scientific text turns out to be very unique; O. A. Lapteva, who specially studied oral scientific texts, considers their main feature to be discreteness (discontinuity). Here is a small example she gives (in a somewhat simplified version): “We need to formulate our theoretical conclusions in this way. So that they are clear, so to speak, from the very beginning, when formulated, they include the possibility of verifying them with facts. And not only these scientists, but specialists in the field of empirics. That is, it is possible. To organize, so to speak, a division of labor between theorists and people working in the field of empirics, in the field of statistics, who, based on correctly formulated theoretical positions, when correctly formulated theoretical provisions, when correctly formulated requirements for testing this or that theoretical position, could say: “Yes, this position is confirmed by facts. This position is not supported by facts.” It is clear that it is impossible to write like this, but it is quite possible to speak; the text meets the requirements for a culture of proficiency in oral scientific style.

It is easy to see that official business and scientific styles have quite a lot in common. This is, first of all, the precision of notation (terms), the rejection of meaning in implicit expression. These styles are classified as strict. They differ markedly from loose colloquial speech. The journalistic style occupies a special intermediate position between strict and non-strict functional varieties of language. The famous linguist V. G. Kostomarov, analyzing one of the main genres of journalism, the language of newspapers, showed that it combines two opposing tendencies: a tendency towards standardization, characteristic of strict styles, and a tendency towards expressiveness, characteristic of colloquial speech and the language of fiction. G. Kostomarov writes: “Scientific and business styles strive for maximum information content... Some everyday and poetic texts approach maximum emotionality... Newspaper presentation does not tolerate either extreme: in the first case there would be no emotionally affecting effect (boring , uninteresting), in the second - the necessary factuality (based on feelings alone).” Here is an example of the combination of these trends: articles on serious topics may be preceded by an expressive “frivolous” headline. In general, the modern press is a kind of competition of headlines (who can name it brighter and more unusual): “What the voice of the people will remain silent about”; “In an ecological concentration camp”; “Second echelon of nomenclature”; “Bermuda Triangle in Lavrushinsky Lane”; “Questions of history” are in question”; “The forest is being cut down - the cars are standing still”; and even a basic weather forecast is headlined in one of the newspapers: “Nature has no bad weather.”

So, an attempt was made to define in general terms the main linguistic features of functional varieties of language and give recommendations on the culture of proficiency in them. It should be emphasized that in this case we can talk specifically about recommendations, and not about those rather stringent requirements that the normative aspect of speech culture imposes. Creating a text of a certain functional orientation is a creative process, with the exception of some canonical genres of official business style. Creativity presupposes the manifestation of linguistic individuality. Each functional variety of language has such a rich arsenal of linguistic means and ways of organizing them that it is always possible to construct the corresponding texts in a variety of ways, but in all cases effectively. The higher the culture of proficiency in functional varieties of language, the more linguistic individuality is manifested. It is unlikely that textbooks on speech culture can teach linguistic individuality - this, as they say, is from God, but it is probably possible to teach not to create texts that are ineffective in communicative terms.

Modern theoretical concept of speech culture

Speech culture is a multi-valued concept. One of the main tasks of speech culture is the protection of the literary language and its norms. It should be emphasized that such protection is a matter of national importance, since the literary language is precisely what linguistically unites the nation. Creating a literary language is not an easy matter. It cannot appear on its own. The leading role in this process at a certain historical stage of a country’s development is usually played by the most advanced, cultural part of society. The formation of the norms of the modern Russian literary language is inextricably linked with the name of A. S. Pushkin. By the time the literary language appeared, the language of the Russian nation was very heterogeneous. It consisted of dialects, vernacular and some other isolated entities. Dialects are local folk dialects, very different in terms of pronunciation (okayut in the North, yakayut in the South), vocabulary, and grammar. The vernacular is more unified, but still not sufficiently ordered by its norms. Pushkin was able, based on various manifestations of the folk language, to create in his works a language that was accepted by society as a literary language.

Since not every student at humanities universities can (even if they want) to become a writer, the issue of writing language skills and the language of fiction is not considered in this textbook. However, we note: 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.”

One of the most important functions of a literary language is to be the language of the entire nation, to rise above individual local or socially limited linguistic formations. Literary language is what, naturally, along with economic, political and other factors, creates the unity of a nation. Without a developed literary language, it is difficult to imagine a full-fledged nation. The famous modern linguist M.V. Panov names among the main features of a literary language such as the language of culture, the language of the educated part of the people, and a deliberately codified language. The latter - conscious codification of language - is the direct task of speech culture: with the advent of a literary language, a “culture of speech” appears.

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 modification. The statement that a feminine noun with the ending -a in the nominative case has the ending -e (and not some other) in the prepositional case is a statement about the norm. However, such norms are natural for native speakers of the Russian language, their codification is extremely simple, any grammarian can cope with such codification, and there is nothing for a speech culture specialist to do here. The culture of speech begins where language seems to offer a choice for codification, and this choice is far from clear-cut. You can often hear a kilometer, but the norm is only a kilometer, no less often you can hear an agreement, but the norm is an agreement, although now an agreement is no longer categorically prohibited, whereas thirty years ago such an emphasis was prohibited. This indicates, among other things, that the modern Russian literary language, although it can be considered as the language from Pushkin to the present day, does not remain unchanged. He constantly needs rationing. If you follow the established norms once and for all, then there is a danger that society will simply stop taking them into account and will spontaneously establish its own norms. Spontaneity in such a matter is far from good, since what seems acceptable to some will be unacceptable to others. Therefore, constant monitoring of the development and change of norms is one of the main tasks of linguistic science about the culture of speech.

This was well understood by Russian linguists of the pre-revolutionary period, as evidenced by the analysis of the norms of the Russian language in V. I. Chernyshev’s book “Purity and Correctness of Russian Speech”, published in 1913, as if summing up the development of pronunciation, morphological and syntactic norms since the time of Pushkin . Here are a few typical examples from this book. In the 19th century There were still possible fluctuations in the use or non-use of the fluent vowels o or e: wind - wind, whirlwind - whirlwind, ashes - ashes, fishery - fishery, intent - intent. Mother and daughter forms were also possible. At that time, impersonal sentences were used much more widely than now: For this alone, a whole and, moreover, large article would be required (V. Belinsky); It was half past seven... (F. Dostoevsky); They dreamed wonderfully of golden spring, spring and summer (F. Tyutchev).

As already mentioned, the post-war years became a new stage in the development of the culture of speech as a scientific discipline. The largest figure of this period was S.I. Ozhegov, who gained wide fame as the author of the most popular one-volume Dictionary of the Russian Language, which became a reference book for more than one generation of people. After the death of S.I. Ozhegov in 1964, active work on updating the dictionary was carried out by Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences N.Yu. Shvedova; in 1992, the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language” was published, the authors of which are named S. I. Ozhegov and N. Yu. Shvedova. K. II Chukovsky turned out to be right, writing in the article “In Memory of S. I. Ozhegov”: “His feat will never be forgotten by us, and I believe that the wonderful dictionary created will serve a great service to many generations of Soviet dictionaries.”

The normative aspect of speech culture is one of the most important, but not the only one. Czech linguist K. Hausenblas writes: “There is nothing paradoxical in the fact that one is able to speak on the same topic in a non-literary language and look more cultured than another speaker in a literary language.” And this is absolutely true. One can cite a large number of texts with a wide variety of content, impeccable from the point of view of compliance with general literary norms, but not too intelligible. Here, for example, is the following text from the “Operating Manual for a Television Receiver”: “To improve the quality of reproduction of small details when receiving a black-and-white image, automatic shutdown of resistor filters in the brightness channel has been introduced into the TV circuit. Reducing the influence of interference is achieved by using a circuit for automatically adjusting the horizontal frequency and phase.” For most non-specialists, this text is simply incomprehensible or understandable only in general terms, since we do not know what resistor filters are in the luminance channel, horizontal scan phases. And a specialist, for example, a TV repairman, knows about the structure of the device, of course, not from the manual for it. This means that such a text is ineffective because it does not have its addressee. Consequently, it is not enough to achieve normativeness of the text; it is also necessary to make this text good.

What is now called the communicative aspect of speech culture was already known in antiquity, which gave the world the doctrine of rhetoric.

Another aspect of speech culture is ethical. Every society has its own ethical standards of behavior. They also apply to many aspects of communication. Let us explain this with the following example. If you sit down at the table with your family members in the morning just to have breakfast, then 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? How is it different from? It is clear that it is not normativity. From the point of view of the effectiveness of communication (1) directly and, therefore, expresses the thought more clearly than in which the thought is expressed indirectly, but in the situation of a festive table the second form is still appropriate. The difference between and is precisely in following ethical standards. Ethical norms, or otherwise - speech etiquette, relate primarily to addressing “you” and “you”, choosing a full or abbreviated name (Vanya or Ivan Petrovich), choosing addresses such as citizen, gentleman, etc., choosing ways to greet and say goodbye (hello, hello, fireworks, goodbye, all the best, all, see you, bye, etc.). Ethical standards in many cases are national: for example, the sphere of communication using “you” in English and German is narrower than in Russian; these same languages, in a greater number of cases than Russian, allow abbreviated names. A foreigner, finding himself in a Russian environment, often, unwittingly, looks tactless, bringing his own linguistic etiquette into this environment. Therefore, a prerequisite for good command of the Russian language is knowledge of Russian language etiquette.

The ethical aspect of speech culture does not always appear explicitly. R. O. Yakobson, a world-famous linguist, identifies six main functions of communication: designation of extra-linguistic reality (It was a beautiful mansion), attitude to reality (What a beautiful mansion!), magical function (Let there be light!), poetic, metalinguistic ( judgments about the language itself: They don’t say that; another word is needed here) and factual, or contact-establishing. If, when performing the first five functions mentioned here, the ethical aspect manifests itself, say, usually, then when performing the contact-establishing function, it manifests itself in a special way. The contact-establishing function is the very fact of communication, the topic is not of great importance; it doesn’t matter whether this topic is covered well or poorly. The ethical aspect of communication comes to the fore. For example, it is uncomfortable for you to walk silently with your acquaintance, with whom you, however, do not have too much in common, and you start a conversation about the weather, although you and your interlocutor are indifferent to it at that moment. The purpose of such a conversation is one - to establish contact.

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

Speech culture contains three components: normative, communicative and ethical.

Speech culture presupposes, first of all, correctness of speech, i.e. compliance with the norms of the literary language, which are perceived by speakers or writers as a model. Language norm- this is the central concept of speech culture, and the normative aspect of speech culture is considered one of the most important.

However, the culture of speech cannot be reduced to a list of prohibitions and definitions of “right and wrong.” The concept of “speech culture” is associated with the patterns and characteristics of the functioning of language, as well as with speech activity in all its diversity.

Speech culture develops the skills of selecting and using linguistic means in the process of verbal communication, helps to form a conscious attitude towards their use in speech practice in accordance with communicative tasks. The choice of linguistic means necessary for this purpose is the basis of the communicative aspect of speech culture.

“Every goal has its own means, this should be the slogan of a linguistically cultural society,” wrote G.O. Vinokur, a famous philologist, a major specialist in the culture of speech.

The ethical aspect of speech culture prescribes knowledge and application of the rules of linguistic behavior in specific situations. Under ethical standards of communication is understood speech etiquette(speech formulas of greetings, requests, questions, thanks, etc., addressing “you” and “you”, etc.). The ethical component of the culture of speech imposes a strict ban on foul language in the process of communication and condemns speaking in “raised tones.” Every society has its own ethical standards of behavior. They also apply to many aspects of communication. Let us explain this with the following example. If you sit down at the table with your family members in the morning just to have breakfast, then it would be quite ethical to ask: Pass me the bread (1). 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? (2). How is (1) different from (2)? It is clear that it is not normativity. From the point of view of communication effectiveness, (1) expresses the thought directly and, therefore, more clearly than (2), in which the thought is expressed indirectly, but in a festive table situation the second form is still appropriate. The difference between (1) and (2) is precisely in following ethical standards.

So , 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, make it possible to ensure the greatest effect in achieving the set communicative tasks.

Speech culture is a multi-valued concept. One of the basic tasks of speech culture is the protection of the literary language and its norms. It should be emphasized that such protection is a matter of national importance, since the literary language is precisely what unites the nation linguistically. Creating a literary language is not an easy matter. It cannot appear on its own. The leading role in this process at a certain historical stage of a country’s development is usually played by the most advanced, cultural part of society. The formation of the norms of the modern Russian literary language is inextricably linked with the name of A. S. Pushkin. By the time the literary language appeared, the language of the Russian nation was very heterogeneous. It consisted of dialects, vernacular and some other isolated entities. Dialects are local folk dialects, very different in terms of pronunciation (okayut in the North, yakayut in the South), vocabulary, and grammar. The vernacular is more unified, but still not sufficiently ordered according to its norms. Pushkin was able, based on various manifestations of the folk language, to create in his works a language that was accepted by society as a literary language.

Since not every student at humanities universities can (even if they want) to become a writer, the issue of writing language skills and the language of fiction is not considered in this textbook. At the same time, we note: 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.”

One of the most important functions of a literary language is to be the language of the entire nation, to rise above individual local or socially limited linguistic formations. Literary language is something through which, naturally, along with economic, political and other factors, the unity of the nation is created. Without a developed literary language, it is difficult to imagine a full-fledged nation. The famous modern linguist M.V. Panov names among the basic features of a literary language such as the language of culture, the language of the educated part of the people, and a deliberately codified language. The latter - conscious codification of language - is the direct task of speech culture: with the advent of a literary language, a “culture of speech” appears.

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 modification. The statement that a feminine noun with the ending -а in the nominative case in the prepositional case has the ending -r (and not some other) is a statement about the norm. At the same time, such norms are natural for native speakers of the Russian language, their codification is extremely simple, any grammarian can cope with such codification, and there is nothing for a speech culture specialist to do here. The culture of speech begins where language seems to offer a choice for codification, and this choice is far from clear-cut. You can often hear a kilometer, but the norm is only a kilometer, no less often you hear an agreement, but the norm is an agreement, although now an agreement is no longer categorically prohibited, whereas thirty years ago such an emphasis was prohibited. This indicates, among other things, that the modern Russian literary language, although it can be considered as the language from Pushkin to the present day, does not remain unchanged. He constantly needs rationing. If you follow the established norms once and for all, then there is a danger that society will simply stop taking them into account and will spontaneously establish its own norms. Spontaneity in such a matter is far from good, since what seems acceptable to some will be unacceptable to others. For this reason, constant monitoring of the development and change of norms is one of the basic tasks of the linguistic science of speech culture.

This was well understood by Russian linguists of the pre-revolutionary period, as evidenced by the analysis of the norms of the Russian language in the book published in 1913. V. I. Chernyshev’s book “Purity and Correctness of Russian Speech,” which seems to sum up the development of pronunciation, morphological and syntactic norms since the time of Pushkin. Here are a few typical examples from this book. In the 19th century There were still possible fluctuations in the use or non-use of the fluent vowels o or e: wind - wind, whirlwind - whirlwind, ashes - ashes, fishery - fishery, intent - intent. Mother and daughter forms were also possible. At that time, impersonal sentences were used much more widely than now: For this alone, a whole and, moreover, large article would be required (V. Belinsky); It was half past seven... (F. Dostoevsky); They dreamed wonderfully of golden spring, spring and summer (F. Tyutchev).

As already mentioned, the post-war years became a new stage in the development of the culture of speech as a scientific discipline. The largest figure of this period was S.I. Ozhegov, who gained wide fame as the author of the most popular one-volume Dictionary of the Russian Language, which became a reference book for more than one generation of people. After the death of S.I. Ozhegov in 1964. Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences N. Yu. Shvedova is actively working to update the dictionary; in 1992 ᴦ. The Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language was published, the authors of which are S. I. Ozhegov and N. Yu. Shvedova. K. II Chukovsky turned out to be right, writing in the article “In Memory of S. I. Ozhegov”: “His feat will never be forgotten by us, and I believe that the wonderful dictionary created will serve a great service to many generations of Soviet dictionaries.”

The normative aspect of speech culture is one of the most important, but not the only one. Czech linguist K. Hausenblas writes: “There is nothing paradoxical in the fact that one is able to speak on the same topic in a non-literary language and look more cultured than another speaker in a literary language.” And this is absolutely true. One can cite a large number of texts with a wide variety of content, impeccable from the point of view of compliance with general literary norms, but not too intelligible. Here, for example, is the following text from the “Operating Manual for a Television Receiver”: “To improve the quality of reproduction of small details when receiving a black-and-white image, automatic shutdown of resistor filters in the brightness channel has been introduced into the television circuit. Reducing the influence of interference is achieved by using a circuit for automatically adjusting the horizontal frequency and phase.” For most non-specialists, this text is simply incomprehensible or understandable only in general terms, since we do not know what resistor filters are in the luminance channel or horizontal scan phases. And a specialist, for example, a TV repairman, knows about the structure of the device, of course, not from its manual. This means that such a text is ineffective because it does not have its addressee. Consequently, it is not enough to achieve the normativity of the text, you also need to make the text good.

The language has a large arsenal of tools. The most important requirement for a good text is this: from all the linguistic means for creating a certain text, those that fulfill the assigned communication tasks, or communicative tasks, with maximum completeness and efficiency must be selected. The study of a text from the point of view of the correspondence of its linguistic structure to the tasks of communication in the theory of speech culture is called the communicative aspect of the culture of language proficiency.

What is now called the communicative aspect of speech culture was already known in antiquity, which gave the world the doctrine of rhetoric.

Another aspect of speech culture is ethical. Every society has its own ethical standards of behavior. This also applies to many aspects of communication. Let us explain this with the following example. If you sit down at the table with your family members in the morning just to have breakfast, then 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? How is (1) different from (2)? It is clear that it is not normativity. From the point of view of the effectiveness of communication, (1) expresses the thought directly and, therefore, more clearly than (2), in which the thought is expressed indirectly, but in a festive table situation the second form is still appropriate. The difference between (1) and (2) is precisely in following ethical standards. Ethical norms, or otherwise - speech etiquette, relate primarily to addressing “you” and “you”, choosing a full or abbreviated name (Vanya or Ivan Petrovich), choosing addresses such as citizen, gentleman, etc., choosing ways to greet and say goodbye (hello, hello, fireworks, goodbye, all the best, all, see you, bye, etc.). Ethical standards in many cases are national: for example, the sphere of communication using “you” in English and German is narrower than in Russian; these same languages, in a greater number of cases than Russian, allow abbreviated names. A foreigner, finding himself in a Russian environment, often, unwittingly, looks tactless, bringing his own linguistic etiquette into this environment. Therefore, a prerequisite for good command of the Russian language is knowledge of Russian language etiquette.

The ethical aspect of speech culture does not always appear explicitly. R. O. Yakobson, a world-famous linguist, identifies six basic functions of communication: designation of extra-linguistic reality (It was a beautiful mansion), attitude to reality (What a beautiful mansion!), magical function (Let there be light!), poetic, metalinguistic ( judgments about the language itself: They don’t say that; another word is needed here) and factual, or contact-establishing. If, when performing the first five functions mentioned here, the ethical aspect manifests itself, say, usually, then when performing the contact-establishing function it manifests itself in a special way. The contact-establishing function is the very fact of communication, the topic is not of great importance; it doesn’t matter whether this topic is covered well or poorly. The ethical aspect of communication comes to the fore. For example, it is uncomfortable for you to walk silently with your acquaintance, with whom you, however, do not have too much in common, and you start a conversation about the weather, although you and your interlocutor are indifferent to it at the moment. The purpose of such a conversation is one - to establish contact.

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

Communicative aspect of speech culture. Throughout the history of the development of the doctrine of speech culture, much more attention, especially in Soviet times, was paid to the normative aspect of the culture of language proficiency. This is largely explained by the social situation that developed in the country after 1917. As mentioned above, huge masses of people were involved in social activities. It is clear that this social life also required active speech activity using a literary language, the norms of which not everyone knew. It is in this regard that the normative aspect of speech culture has been the main concern of linguists and the entire society. The further history of the country - the era of Stalinism - also did not contribute to the development of a culture of speech in the communicative aspect. The basis of the communicative aspect of speech culture is the choice of linguistic means necessary for a given purpose of communication - a creative process. Meanwhile, creativity and the dictatorship of a “strong personality” are incompatible things. In everything, including speech activity, it was prescribed to follow ready-made recipes. Even in glorifying the beloved leader it was impossible to “go beyond”: the father of nations, the luminary of science...

Linguists have always been well aware of the importance for the culture of speech of what is called the communicative aspect. Back in the 20s, the famous Soviet philologist G. O. Vinokur, the author of numerous, including popular, works on the culture of speech, emphasized: “For every goal there are means, this should be the slogan of a linguistically cultural society.” S. I. Ozhegov also wrote about this much later: “High culture of speech is the ability to correctly, accurately and expressively convey one’s thoughts through the means of language. Correct speech is usually called the one in which the norms of modern literary language are observed... But the culture of speech is not only about 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., the most suitable for a given case) and, therefore, stylistically justified.”

It cannot be said that the study of the communicative aspect has not gone beyond these general statements. Quite widely in modern Russian studies, research on stylistics is carried out, especially on lexical stylistics, which is directly reflected in dictionaries in the form of stylistic notes, such as books. etc. These marks clearly indicate in which texts these words are appropriate. There are also direct attempts to build a theory of speech culture, including the communicative aspect. In the works of B. N. Golovin, including in his textbook for universities “Fundamentals of the Culture of Speech,” it is argued that for the culture of speech in general, only one aspect is significant - the communicative aspect, in terms of which normativity should also be considered. Speech culture is defined as a set of communicative qualities of good speech. These qualities are identified on the basis of the relationship of speech with individual, as B. N. Golovin puts it, non-speech structures. Non-speech structures include: language as a certain basis that produces speech; thinking; consciousness; reality; the person is the addressee of the speech; conditions of communication. This complex of non-speech structures requires the following good qualities from speech, that is, corresponding to these structures: correctness of speech (in other words, normativity), its purity (absence of dialectisms, jargon, etc., which also refers to the introduction of a normative aspect), accuracy , consistency, expressiveness, imagery, accessibility, effectiveness and relevance. There is no doubt that all these qualities are really important for assessing many specific texts in the communicative aspect. And the task of determining a text on a scale of “bad - good” in the communicative aspect could be considered solved if for this it would be enough to apply the mentioned nine signs to any text.

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, makes its own demands on the language. For this reason, it is impossible to talk in communicative terms about the culture of language proficiency in general. We should be talking about the culture of proficiency in different functional varieties of language. What is good in one functional variety of language is completely unacceptable in another. M.V. Panob writes: “complaints have appeared in the press more than once that lexicographers abuse words: they label them as “colloquial,” “colloquial,” etc. These complaints are unfair. Such marks do not discriminate against words. Let's look in the dictionary to see which words have the label "colloquial": toss and turn (with affairs), grumble, back home, rush, shove, sleepily, really, in vain, at times (sometimes), to your heart's content, cry, remember, shake, dry, drag, soda , death (a lot), big-eyed, look, um, foulbrood, talker, darling, mountain (a lot), crash, penny, grow heavy, no gu-gu, in droves, come on (he let's shout), long time ago - Beautiful words. Litter once. does not defame them. Litter warns: do not call a person with whom you are in a strictly official relationship a darling, do not offer to shove him somewhere, do not tell him that he is lanky and sometimes grumpy... In official papers, do not use the words look, to your heart's content, back home, penny ... Sound advice, isn't it?

Bibliography:

1. Azarova, E.V. Russian language: Textbook. allowance / E.V. Azarova, M.N. Nikonova. – Omsk: Omsk State Technical University Publishing House, 2005. – 80 p.

2. Golub, I.B. Russian language and speech culture: Textbook. allowance / I.B. Blue – M.: Logos, 2002. – 432 p.

3. Culture of Russian speech: Textbook for universities / ed. prof. OK. Graudina and prof. E.N. Shiryaeva. – M.: NORMA-INFRA, 2005. – 549 p.

4. Nikonova, M.N. Russian language and culture of speech: A textbook for non-philological students / M.N. Nikonova. – Omsk: Omsk State Technical University Publishing House, 2003. – 80 p.

5. Russian language and speech culture: Textbook. / edited by prof. V.I. Maksimova. – M.: Gardariki, 2008. – 408 p.

6. Russian language and speech culture: Textbook for technical universities / ed. V.I. Maksimova, A.V. Golubeva. – M.: Higher Education, 2008. – 356 p.

Lecture 1. Subject, objectives and content of the course “Russian language and culture of speech”

The discipline “Russian language and culture of speech” as a branch of linguistics deals with qualitative analysis of statements and considers the following questions: how does a person use speech for communication purposes, what kind of speech does he have - correct or incorrect, how to improve speech?

1. Modern theoretical concept of speech culture

Speech culture is a multi-valued concept.

When characterizing the totality of knowledge, skills and speech abilities of a person, the culture of his speech is defined as follows: this is such a choice and such an organization of linguistic means that, in a certain communication situation, while observing modern language norms and communication ethics, make it possible to ensure the greatest effect in achieving the set communicative tasks. The definition emphasizes three aspects of speech culture: 1) normative; 2) ethical; 3) communicative.

The subject of study of the linguistic discipline “Culture of Speech” can be defined as follows: this is the linguistic structure of speech in its communicative impact. From the above, it becomes clear that this discipline is based on a number of linguistic sciences, as well as logic, psychology, pedagogy, and sociology. Speech culture is often identified with stylistics. However, this is not true. Stylistics is the study of linguistic and speech styles as functional. The boundaries of speech culture are wider than the boundaries of stylistics.

Speech culture as a scientific discipline has a theoretical and applied nature. Its theoretical part is based on phonetics, grammar, stylistics of the Russian language, and on the history of the Russian literary language. The practical part is related to rhetoric as the science of eloquence. The goal of the updated rhetoric is to determine the best options (optimal algorithms) for communication. For example, the roles of participants in dialogue, mechanisms of speech generation, language preferences of speakers, etc. are studied. Thus, rhetoric is the science of persuasive communication, which teaches how to communicate, express one’s thoughts logically and expressively, use words, how to use speech in everyday life and social activities, how to speak in front of an audience. The theory of eloquence has always paid primary attention to oral, “live” contact. Traditionally, rhetoric was also considered an art, compared with poetry, acting on the basis of the importance of creativity, improvisation in speech, and the aesthetic pleasure that public “thinking out loud” brings. Such views are characteristic, for example, of Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, A.F. Koni. Rhetoric is one of the most important areas in the study of speech culture (in its practical application).

Speech culture is defined as a set of communicative qualities of good speech. These qualities are identified on the basis of the relationship of speech with individual, as B. N. Golovin puts it, non-speech structures. Non-speech structures include: language as a certain basis that produces speech; thinking; consciousness; reality; the person is the addressee of the speech; conditions of communication. This complex of non-speech structures requires the following good qualities from speech, that is, corresponding to these structures: correctness of speech (in other words, normativity), its purity (absence of dialectisms, jargon, etc., which also refers to the introduction of a normative aspect), accuracy , consistency, expressiveness, imagery, accessibility, effectiveness and relevance.

Speech culture is a modern theoretical concept of speech culture. I. Modern theoretical concept of speech culture

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Similar documents

Modern theoretical concept of speech culture

1. Modern theoretical concept of speech culture