About dictionaries “containing the norms of modern Russian literary language when used as the state language of the Russian Federation"

On dictionaries “containing the norms of the modern Russian literary language when used as the state language of the Russian Federation”

It is difficult to “profane” a law that is striking in its illiteracy
(but, however, having such an important advantage as inability to apply)

From a colleague’s comments to
first version of the text

The triumph of legal nihilism

“Rossiyskaya Gazeta” - a legislative mouthpiece - published a law on the state language on June 7, 2005, according to which this language “is subject to mandatory use ‹…› in the activities of all-Russian ‹…› periodicals printed publications“, 11/29/2005 informs about the procedure for approving the norms of the Russian language “when used as the state language”, 08/21/2009 introduces readers to the officially approved “list of grammars, dictionaries and reference books...” containing these norms. Law-abiding journalists had 20 days to stock up on dictionaries, since as of September 1, 2009 these standards must be observed. Two months pass, and the same newspaper writes about the entrance doors of the Moscow metro: don't blink when you get hit in the forehead(Russian newspaper; 10/22/2009). You can write like this in private letters and novels, but not in newspapers.

One colleague told me that there is a relaxation for journalists, since deviations from the norm are justified by “artistic intent”; this is only partly true. Kommersant once wrote in a slightly different context hits him in the head with the door(07/19/2002), and Izvestia equally freely described the discovery of anthropologists: So one Neanderthal cracked another Neanderthal on the dome and cracked his skull(15.09.2000). Rossiyskaya Gazeta avoids such lexical liberties, but it is possible to write this way even after the adoption of the law “On the State Language of the Russian Federation”: the lexical norm for the state language has not been established. And after its codification, journalists will be allowed a lot. In advertising you will have to strictly adhere to the norm, but in the media you can use any words “if the use of vocabulary that does not comply with the norms of the Russian language as the state language of the Russian Federation is an integral part of the artistic concept” (Article 9 of the Law). However, the legislator did not make such a reservation for phraseology.

Rossiyskaya Gazeta could have written that the metro door will give a fuck about the kumpol, and use the expression and you won't blink an eye it is impossible, it contradicts the dictionary that codifies the phraseological norm. It didn’t cost the correspondent anything to correct the text to the normative one, for example like this: They are so shaken by the wind that you can hardly see them you won't have time to blink when you get hit in the forehead 1 . Of course, newspapermen know that violating the law on the state language “entails responsibility, established by law Russian Federation,” but take advantage of the fact that this responsibility has not yet been established.

Responsibility has not been established, but there is someone responsible for strict compliance with the norms codified in four dictionaries: in the order “On approval of the list of grammars, dictionaries and reference books...” there was not only paragraph 1 (“Approve the attached list...”), but also paragraph 2: “Control over the implementation of this order is entrusted to Deputy Minister I. I. Kalina.”

The task before I. I. Kalina is complex. In my opinion, it is impossible.

After the law “On the State Language of the Russian Federation” came into force, I suggested that the requirement for strict compliance with the norm in the most unexpected areas such as advertising appeared due to “the need to combat the dominance of jargon, anglicisms and obscene language.” But profanity only means deviation from the norm, and introducing a ban on ““the use of words and expressions that do not correspond to the norms of the modern Russian literary language,” ‹…› is possible only without understanding the complexity of the codification of spelling and vocabulary”2. Those responsible for giving dictionaries official normative status could not fail to understand these complexities.

The law did not stipulate what exactly in the language should be officially standardized and how. It is unlikely that the legislator expected that the orthoepic and phraseological norms would be codified in such a way that their strict compliance in the areas outlined by law would inevitably entail not only the closure of all media, but also would not allow both houses of parliament, as well as all ministries and departments, to function.

Before approving a codified norm in the field of stress and phraseology, it was necessary to re-read the law “On the State Language of the Russian Federation” and understand whether it could function without restrictions. Part 1 of Article 6 of the law states: “Adoption of ‹…› normative legal acts of the Russian Federation ‹…› aimed at limiting the use of the Russian language as the state language of the Russian Federation, as well as other actions and violations that impede the exercise of the right of citizens to use the state language of the Russian Federation, entail liability established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.” The approval of any previously published orthoepic dictionary (in particular, a dictionary of accents), any explanatory one, especially a phraseological one, obviously limits the possibilities of using Russian as a state language in areas specified by law.

The authors of dictionaries created them for various purposes, and with the advent of the law “On the State Language of the Russian Federation”, it is unlikely that any of them dared to assume that his (their) dictionary contains precisely the norm that is mandatory for the media, advertising, or even the highest echelon of power.

The codifiers in this case are not the authors of the dictionaries, but those who contributed to their approval as “containing the norms of the modern Russian literary language when used as the state language of the Russian Federation.” Someone specifically is responsible for obstructing the exercise of “the right of citizens to use the state language of the Russian Federation,” I don’t know who exactly. The Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation A. Fursenko knows: he approved the “Regulations on the procedure for conducting the examination of grammars, dictionaries and reference books containing the norms of the modern Russian literary language when used as the state language of the Russian Federation,” and then, based on the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Commission in the Russian language (based on the results of the examination), and a list of dictionaries, some of which restrict the rights of citizens to use Russian as the state language.

Which publications contain “the norms of the modern Russian literary language when used as the state language of the Russian Federation”?

With a formal (essentially strictly legal) approach, correlating the publications mentioned in the Appendix to the Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia No. 195 of June 8, 2009, with existing book products is difficult: the Appendix lists four publications of the AST-PRESS publishing house in 2008, between However, this publishing house often neglects the requirements of GOST R 7.0.4-2006 for the rules for formatting output data book edition, clause 4.7 of which requires for a book publication to indicate the year of publication, while “the output data is given at the bottom of the title page or on a replacement element of the publication.” On the back of the title of modern book publications it is recommended to place, in the language of GOSTs, a “layout of an annotated card” compiled by the publisher; it includes the so-called “bibliographic record”, the main part of which is the bibliographic description.

In AST-PRESS publications, this optional element of the title is usually present, and if the year is not indicated on the title, it is not included in the publishing biography. That is, the absence of a year on the title is not a typo, it is a conscious policy of the publisher. There must be some reasons for this, but it is not the linguist’s job to understand them. My job is to familiarize myself with the publications included in the “List of grammars, dictionaries and reference books containing the norms of the modern Russian literary language when used as the state language of the Russian Federation.” However, each of the publications mentioned there is not so easy to find. Here is the last one on the list (I quote from Rossiyskaya Gazeta dated August 21, 2009):

Large phraseological dictionary of the Russian language. Meaning. Use. Cultural commentary. Telia V.N. - M.: "AST-PRESS", 2008. - 782 p.

I am interested in phraseology, I have seen “this” dictionary before, but buy at various reasons didn't. But the regulatory nature of the publication requires a different attitude towards it, so I decided to purchase it. I find a dictionary described by the publishers as follows:

Large phraseological dictionary of the Russian language. Meaning. Use. Cultural commentary / Rep. ed. V. N. Telia. - 2nd ed. erased - M.: AST-PRESS BOOK. - 784 p. - (Fundamental dictionaries).

Next to it is a © sign with the date 2006 (for other books by this publisher, the copyright sign may not be accompanied by an indication of the year).

It? Isn't it? I look at what in the language of GOSTs is called release data: “Signed for publication on 06/11/08.” It turns out that this is what you need. But further - “Add. circulation 3000 copies.” Not everything is clear here anymore. What if, say, in 2007, “2nd ed. erased." dictionary edited by V. N. Telia, the circulation sold out, an additional edition was signed for printing, and meanwhile, in 2008, the same publishing house released a dictionary with a similar name, where V. N. Telia is no longer the editor, but the sole author (after all, does this follow from the biography in the appendix to the order of the Ministry of Education and Science)?

The problem of identifying the publication is by no means far-fetched. These books are beginning to be used in expert practice. It is hardly permissible to refer to previous editions of the same dictionaries, even if their stereotypical repetitions were published in 2008. What is the status of the subsequent ones? Books of the same title are published with dates of signing for printing in 2010. Formally, these can be new editions and additional editions of already published publications. But from the point of view of legislation, publications that are described as published in 2008 are normative. Strictly speaking, I have not seen them, I suspect that if the Order of the Ministry of Education and Science is taken literally, they simply do not exist.

In our country, it is customary to ignore the letter of the law and engage in its interpretation, inventing what “was meant.” I was forced to do the same; To identify publications, I used the dates of their signing for publication.

Of the four publications listed in the Appendix to the Order, only A. A. Zaliznyak’s “Grammar Dictionary of the Russian Language,” which enjoys indisputable authority in the professional environment, has indisputable scientific and practical value. This publication is a complete description of Russian morphology and accentuation. The classification of three other publications as “containing the norms of the modern Russian literary language when used as the state language of the Russian Federation” raises serious doubts, in particular, when compared with existing similar publications. Below are their a brief description of; detailed arguments and some other particulars are included in the relevant paragraphs of the Appendix, to which hyperlinks are provided from the main text3.

1. Bukchina B.Z., Sazonova I.K., Cheltsova L.K. Spelling dictionary of the Russian language. - M: AST-PRESS, 20084 (below - OSRYA)

In developed literary languages spelling dictionaries and sets of rules are a description of the existing spelling norm; The relationship between vocabulary and rules may be different. In the domestic tradition last decades the dictionary is secondary in relation to the set of rules and defines itself as their embodiment on a large vocabulary array. Following the publication in 1956 of the “Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation”, the first large spelling dictionary5 appeared, which stated: “This “Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language” has been compiled in full accordance with the “Rules”, the spelling part of which is given in appendix to the dictionary" [p. 4].

There is a similar statement in the OSRYA under consideration, where on the back of the title we read: “The writing recommendations correspond to the current spelling rules.” This should be understood only in a generalized form: in detail, OSRYA often contradicts the current rules (see. Annex 1). Its inclusion in the list of normative publications legitimizes the deviations from the traditional norm presented in it, thus, the formal approval of actually existing generally accepted rules will be possible only after they are adjusted to an already recognized normative dictionary.

In my opinion, for the stable functioning of the spelling norm, the regular publication of two types of dictionaries is sufficient: a large one, covering as much vocabulary as possible, and a school one, with an educational focus. This was the case for several decades, however, with the significant drawback that in private matters, codification could change in one direction or the other without sufficient reason, and the school dictionary lagged behind the innovations of the “adults”, sometimes so significantly that everything The student studied with the “wrong” dictionary. And of those who graduated from school a long time ago, only proofreaders learned about innovations, so spelling mistakes among literate people were inevitable; fortunately, the changes were few and concerned the periphery of the lexicon (see. Appendix 3).

In the 1990s, with the beginning of free book publishing, dictionaries of various sizes began to appear on the market, recommending competing norms and containing obvious typos. In this context, the publication of the first edition of ROS (1999, 160 thousand words) became important milestone in the unification of spelling. Those who were accustomed to using a spelling dictionary did not hesitate to recognize the authority of the publication, where the annotation on the back of the title stated that the dictionary “is a normative, generally binding reference manual,” and the Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences was listed among the copyright holders.

Appearance on next year The first edition of the 100,000th edition of OSRYA was a complete surprise: the release of anonymous counterfeits of the standard dictionary was not surprising, but the authors of OSRYA are well known in the professional community. Why do you need a medium dictionary when you have a large one? The only explanation is that the authors want to present in detail an alternative to ROS, codifying the spelling differently. And so it turned out: innovations in the field of hyphenation of adjectives were numerous (cf.: Western=European 6 , South=American, but at the same time North American). The experiment on those writing in Russian did not increase respect for its authors.

ROS, meanwhile, came out in its second edition, increasing the volume, and OSRYA was also updated, but not in volume, but in its view of the norm: in the latest edition, the differences from ROS are small, in particular, Western European, South American etc. are written “in the old way”.

Why was this dictionary needed? As it turned out, to be approved as normative. This event, in essence, is a downgrade of the ROS status. Outside the spheres of use of the state language of the Russian Federation, ROS can be considered as a codification of a spelling norm. But it is completely unclear what the spelling of the 80,000 words found in the 2nd edition should be. ROS and those absent from the OSRYA, when these words are necessary for the functioning of the Russian language as the state language.

The “natural” desire to focus on POS in this case is hampered by a simple consideration: since a different vocabulary is approved as normative, it means POS is “somehow bad.”

The spelling of many words that are not in OSRYA does not cause serious problems ( globalist And anti-globalist, gender, homophobia etc.), in some unclear cases one can find “ test word"(for example, there is no antisa th entism, but there is sa th etology). However, for thousands of words, spelling really gets complicated. This applies, in particular, to capital letters (in writing I follow ROS) - State Antimonopoly Committee of the Russian Federation(in OSRYA there is no adjective antitrust), consonant doubling- agglomeration(cf. English) agglomeration), nanotechnology(cf. available in OSRYA on nn oplankton- the smallest plankton organisms) fused vs. hyphenated spelling- blockbuster, backslash, backing=vocals, deja vu, prime=time, price=list, variations e/e in recent borrowings and derivatives from them - brand, brand=manager, branded, rap, rapper, unstressed vowels in borrowings - Borset(from Italian) borsetto, in domestic spelling practice obviously prevails man purse), abbreviations written in letter-by-letter reading and derivatives from them - habe, reading the entry “cotton”, cotton, beampeshka from BMP, infantry fighting vehicle, low-tech from chipboard, chipboard (names of letters - Ha, de etc. are also not given in OSRYA) and other categories of vocabulary. Fluctuations in the spelling of such words are illustrated in Appendix 4 .

The presence of certain particular discrepancies between OSRYA and ROS, strictly speaking, should result in bringing the electronic version of ROS on the Gramota.Ru portal into compliance with the standard spelling of OSRYA, but this has not happened in six months. Does this mean that the norm of the Russian language “in general” may diverge from the norm of it “as a state language” even where the latter is officially approved?

After the official approval of OSRYa, the force of inertia will support the established custom, oriented towards ROS, however, a clear official indication that ROS is “something bad” should lead to the erosion of the established standard in spelling for thousands of words.

2. Reznichenko I. L. Dictionary of accents of the Russian language.- M.: AST-PRESS, 2008 (below - SURYA)

If there are differences between the accent paradigms of the two dictionaries, then it is difficult to imagine a professional who would recommend adhering to the SURY norm. If there are no differences, then it is not clear why it was necessary to approve SURY as normative. A possible explanation is the complexity of the metalanguage " Grammar dictionary"for the layman.

Stylistics of SURYA (as stated in the annotation, “ original ways remembering stress and preventing common mistakes - “knots for memory””) is more consistent with a textbook than with a normative reference book.

Regarding word accentuation pole says: “You will not make a mistake in stress if, when inflecting the word pole, you will mentally focus on the word branch: branch th - pole th, branch mi - pole mi, etc.” Similarly, it is proposed to emphasize sickle How sheaf, cul How bag, rhubarb How jelly, Aries How Taurus, Antichrist How enemy, draw How write, char How fry, decollete How made up etc. Some analogies are not very successful, for example, front should be inclined according to the model the battle; a natural native speaker will, of course, guess that if someone died in battle, it should not be said that about n died at the front, but a person with a non-native Russian language can easily make mistakes. In addition, this mnemonic can fail: it is difficult to keep hundreds of such pairs in memory, jelly can be confused with compote and forget how to bow rhubarb.

The poetic illustrative material also has a pedagogical focus. These are unique exercises: “submitting to the rhythm of the verse, the reader is “forced” to make the stresses that are necessary” [p. 15]. But the selection of poetic passages itself is far from ideal (see. Appendix 5).

However, I cannot speak professionally about the pedagogical benefits of the dictionary; I am interested in this publication as a normative one. The approval of SURY in this capacity creates the illusion that beyond the 10 thousand words described in it, the place of emphasis is either obvious or not regulated. Meanwhile, there are more voluminous and more authoritative reference books on orthoepy that remain unapproved, in particular, those that radio and television workers have relied on for decades.

The norm in the spoken version of the language is not limited to stress. Domestic “Dictionaries of Accents” have historically been created for media announcers. Despite the traditionally accepted name, they are much broader in content and provide information about non-standard reading vowels and consonants; many words ended up in them precisely for this reason, and not because of fluctuations in accentuation.

The SURYA dictionary selected mainly those units where fluctuations in stress are theoretically possible, so it unevenly reflects Russian vocabulary. Information on orthoepy, not related to stress, is presented extremely sparingly, but since occasionally indications like “ tenor [Not te]” occur, it is natural to assume that where they do not exist, there are no spelling difficulties; this is often misleading. The interpretation of pronunciation variability given in the dictionary is often controversial. In a number of cases, there are no indications of significant differences in stress; this is a very serious drawback for a dictionary that claims to be normative. The relationship between SURYA and existing spelling dictionaries and some consequences of recognizing it as normative is considered in Appendix 6 .

In fact, there was a downgrading of the status of traditional spelling dictionaries, the scope of their action has become uncertain, which will undoubtedly lead to a decline in the culture of oral public speech and create additional serious problems in pedagogical practice(cm. Appendix 7).

Is it even possible for an orthoepic norm to be strictly observed in the areas outlined by law? I'm afraid not. Unless the corresponding dictionary will interpret the norm very broadly, allowing not only it's ringing And h[e] extraordinary, but also lane[e] prospects, future 7, and maybe lies. This kind of publication will result in the final undermining of Russian orthoepy.

3. Telia V.N.(responsible editor) Large phraseological dictionary of the Russian language. Meaning. Use. Cultural commentary. - M.: AST-PRESS, 2008 (below - BFS)

A phraseological dictionary is always a type of explanatory one. The vocabulary of any language is difficult to standardize. All existing Russian explanatory dictionaries contain quite numerous errors both in interpretations and in determining the status of specific lexical units(cm. Appendix 8); quite a significant part of the vocabulary used in official documents, did not receive lexicographical fixation at all (not only in explanatory, but also in any dictionaries). Declaring any of the existing explanatory dictionaries normative in the understanding of the law on the use of the Russian language as the state language of the Russian Federation will essentially be a profanation of this law, or a significant part of Russian legislation, starting with the Constitution, will have to be rewritten as a normative dictionary. Creating a normative explanatory dictionary (especially in the sense as it is understood in the law) is a separate and time-consuming task.

It is quite obvious that phraseology can be codified much worse than ordinary vocabulary. In addition, it is well known that the degree of knowledge of Russian phraseology is significantly lower than that of vocabulary. In this context, giving any phraseological dictionary a normative status before a normative general explanatory dictionary appeared (including, of course, phraseology) looks somewhat anecdotal. If it were possible to ignore this circumstance, attention should first of all be paid to the most complete phraseological dictionaries of A. I. Fedorov, A. I. Molotkov and the two-volume book edited by. A. N. Tikhonov, containing 35 thousand phraseological units (M.: Flinta, 2004).

As for the dictionary, ed. V. N. Telii, then this experimental a publication that the authors themselves call “a new type of dictionary” and do not consider it strictly linguistic. The annotation to the publication says:

Phraseologisms are described as signs of the “language” of a culture that is associated with language and interacts with it, reflecting the characteristics of the Russian mentality. ‹…› The dictionary is intended ‹…› for everyone who wants to know how culture and language interact in its phraseological units [p. 2].

The same is said more clearly in the afterword:

[A]uthors of the dictionary proceeded from the postulate that natural language and culture are different sign systems, between subject areas which there is no direct correlation [p. 776].

Thus, the cultural orientation of the publication is obvious, although its interest for professional linguists is also undeniable. Principles of compiling a dictionary (see. Appendix 9) are such that it combines stylistically heterogeneous phraseological units: archaic literary, newspaper journalistic, clerical, colloquial and almost slang, for example: Cain's seal, Lazarus to sing, mouse stallion, play first violin, brotherhood in arms, rear rat, hand out, market woman, give the oak, the roof goes on and so on.

The Preface states: " Dictionary material- combinations of words of a phraseological nature, consistently reproduced in ordinary modern speech ‹…›, which have long been called idioms. ‹…› Selection of phraseological units and idioms as material for the dictionary is based on the fact that, according to the generally accepted opinion (not only of linguists, but also of specialists in the field of culture of an ethnic group or nation), phraseological units of this particular type in the overwhelming majority retain “material” or historical realities, quantitatively or qualitatively noticeable facts, as well as events and phenomena that are socially and spiritually significant for the people - native speakers of the language, who, we note, are at the same time the bearers of culture" [p. 6].

Indeed, the vast majority of the BFS vocabulary consists of idioms, but in addition to them there are proverbs (for example, Smells <knows> cat, whose <salo> meat ate), expressions that at best claim to be collocation status ( inveterate fool) and phrases artificially elevated to the rank of phraseological units ( rough floor); Probably, their appearance is due to the culturological tasks of the dictionary. As for proverbs, they, perhaps, no less than idioms, reflect ““material” or historical realities” and their small number in the dictionary of cultural studies is rather surprising8, but I am interested in BFS as a codification of a certain part of the lexicon; inveterate fool And rough floor should not be codified (see Appendix 10).

Many commonly used expressions are not in the dictionary: White crow, give yourself away completely, double play, on the vine, in a roundabout way, for God’s sake, word for word, completely and completely, in the forehead, in the forehead, like peas from the wall- no matter how exhaustive a list of what is an obvious lacuna for a normative dictionary, it is simply impossible to compile (see. Appendix 11).

The Preface clearly states: “ First difference dictionary from [others] phraseological dictionaries- this is his author’s character” [p. 8; highlighted in bold by the dictionary editor]. The norm is impersonal. “Creating a norm” is a metaphor; a linguistic norm is not created, it is fixed9. Of course, anyone normative document has authors, but they take on the functions of fixers of the norm and fade into the background. Moreover, those who “create” a norm in an area that has not previously been subject to codification are obliged to identify the real usage of those members of the linguistic community whose language is considered literary, and not just focus on their individual usage, otherwise the codification will remain on paper (see. Appendix 12).

The authors clearly did not intend that their dictionary would be given normative status. Some phraseological units have functional-stylistic marks informal(For example, ( With)do legs) And rudely familiar(For example, do not care), but there are no explanations regarding the relationship of these marks with the literary norm in the dictionary. It is impossible to see any grounds for excluding some phraseological units presented in the dictionary from the norm of the Russian language as the state language within the framework of the dictionary itself.

In general, three of the four dictionaries that have received the status of normative ones correlate in a rather unusual way with the generally accepted concept of literary norm. OSRYA arose as an open contrast to ROS, and the annotation to the latter stated that it is a “normative, generally binding reference manual.” SURYA was clearly intended to be educational - hence the small size of the dictionary. BFS - scientific publication, and cultural at that.

Persons involved in the approval of these dictionaries as normative publicly explained that there were no proposals from other publishing houses to give their publications such status. A successful publisher, firstly, is absolutely not obliged to know about the existence of analogues, the release of which he has nothing to do with, and secondly, he must engage in “promotion” of his own products.

But the procedure for approving these publications as normative provided for their assessment by professionals, whose competence should include familiarity with the situation in domestic lexicography, with the concept of norms in linguistics and the specifics of understanding the language norm in legislation10.

A dictionary can be very good, but in no way corresponds to the norm.

Notes

1 Phraseologism is commented in detail below in Appendix 11 .

2 Belikov V.I. Language norm: new and old cracks in the Russian-speaking space // Acta Philologica. Philological notes. Vol. 1. M.: Alma Mater, 2007. Pp. 39. The text is available on the website of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University on my page (http://www.philol.msu.ru/~otipl/new/main/people/belikov.php).

3 The applications are extensive. IN in some cases they do not relate to the three vocabularies under discussion, approved as normative, but to the situation in the areas to which they are attached. Criticism should be constructive, so I present my own vision of the problems solved by the dictionary - this applies to only one dictionary, the phraseological dictionary, the only one of the three that is of interest to me as a linguist.

4 The output of this and other publications is conditional: it is something between what is approved as “containing norms...” and actually published by the publishing house, whose dictionaries were approved as “containing norms...”.

5 Spelling dictionary of the Russian language. M.: State. ed. foreign and national dictionaries, 1956.

6 In the examples on hyphenated spelling to differentiate from the hyphen, I will use the “=” symbol.

7 After M. Albright’s visit to Moscow, then Foreign Minister I. S. Ivanov said in a radio interview on January 26, 1999 that he discussed with her “the prospects for future arms reductions.”

8 I’ll make a reservation: my judgments about the culturological component of the dictionary are superficial, since culturology as understood by the authors of the BFS is not close to me. Not because I “don’t like it somehow,” but for about the same reason as polymer chemistry or the philosophy of Jacques Derrida: it is outside my area of ​​interest. For me, cultural studies is different. I taught cultural studies at the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics of Moscow State University for almost twenty years, I know quite well what a word means. cultural studies may be hiding ideologically very different scientific concepts- from Leslie White (in whose work The evolution of culture (1959) the term first appeared culturology), to an eclectic set of information presented to post-Soviet students who found themselves out of work former teachers Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, historical materialism and similar disciplines. Back in 1988, when the last of the mentioned categories of cultural scientists did not suspect the existence of such scientific discipline, S. A. Arutyunov wrote that the term cultural studies “began to be used to refer to any theoretical and cultural research” [Ethnography and related disciplines. Ethnographic subdisciplines. Schools and directions. Methods. M.: Nauka, 1988, p. 82]. As Chairman Mao taught in the early years of his reign, Let a hundred flowers bloom, Let a hundred schools compete.

9 We are talking about developed literary languages. If the written tradition is unstable, then much depends on the creators of the texts, provided, of course, that these texts become popular. In extreme cases, the codification of a language may occur along with the creation of writing; such codifications are not always viable.

10 Unfortunately, it is not yet clear how exactly to understand the statement of these dictionaries as “containing the norms of the modern Russian literary language when used as the state language of the Russian Federation,” but the spontaneous understanding of this among individuals and officials may differ markedly. With some interpretation of legislative innovations, the Russian language will have to be used exclusively in everyday life, since it will be simply impossible to prevent any citizens from violating the Federal Law, which “entails liability established by the legislation of the Russian Federation” (Part 2, Article 3).

Orthoepy. Modern spelling standards. Basic orthoepic rules of the modern Russian literary language.

In literary language, we focus on generally accepted patterns - norms. Norms are characteristic of different levels of language. There are lexical, morphological, spelling, phonetic norms. Eat pronunciation norms.

Orthoepy - (Greek orthos - “simple, correct, epos - “speech”) is a set of rules that establish pronunciation standards.

The subject of orthoepy is oral speech. Oral speech is accompanied by a number of mandatory features: stress, diction, tempo, intonation. But spelling rules only cover the area of ​​pronunciation individual sounds in certain phonetic positions or combinations of sounds, as well as features of the pronunciation of sounds in certain grammatical forms ah, in groups of words or individual words.

Compliance with spelling rules is necessary; it helps to better understand speech.

Pronunciation norms are of a different nature and have different origins.

In some cases, the phonetic system dictates only one pronunciation possibility. Any other pronunciation would be a violation of the laws of the phonetic system.

For example, inability to distinguish between hard and soft consonants

or pronunciation of only hard or only soft consonants; or the distinction between voiceless and voiced consonants in all positions without exception.

In other cases, the phonetic system allows not one, but two or more pronunciation possibilities. In such cases, one possibility is recognized as literary correct, normative, while others are assessed either as variants of the literary norm or are recognized as non-literary.

The norms of literary pronunciation are both a stable and developing phenomenon. At any given moment, they contain both that which connects today’s pronunciation with past eras of the literary language, and that which arises as new in pronunciation under the influence of the living oral practice of a native speaker, as a result of the action internal laws development of the phonetic system.

Modern Russian pronunciation evolved over the centuries, from the 15th to the 17th centuries. based on the so-called Moscow vernacular, formed on the basis of the interaction of northern Great Russian and southern Great Russian dialects.

By the 19th century Old Church Slavonic pronunciation has developed in all its main features and, as an exemplary example, has spread its influence to the pronunciation of the population of other large cultural centers. But there was never complete stability in pronunciation; there were always local differences in the pronunciation of the population of large centers.

So, the norms of literary pronunciation are a stable and dynamically developing phenomenon; they are based on the laws of functioning of the phonetic system of the language and on socially developed and traditionally accepted rules, which are subject to changes in the process of development of oral literary speech as a result of the influence of various factors on it language development. These changes initially have the character of fluctuations in norms, but if such changes do not contradict the phonetic system and become widespread, they lead to the emergence of variants of the literary norm, and then, possibly, the establishment new normal pronunciation.

There are several sources of deviation from the norms of literary pronunciation: 1) the influence of spelling, 2) the influence of dialect features, 3) the influence native language(accent) – for non-Russians.

Heterogeneity of pronunciation in various groups population determined the emergence of the doctrine of pronunciation styles. For the first time, L.V. Shcherba took up issues of pronunciation style; he identified two pronunciation styles:

1. Complete, characterized by maximum clarity and clarity of pronunciation;

2. Incomplete style - the style of ordinary casual speech. Within these styles, various variations are possible.

In general, the current spelling norms of the Russian language (and their possible variants) are registered in special dictionaries.

It should be highlighted:

a) rules for pronunciation of individual sounds (vowels and consonants);

b) rules for pronunciation of combinations of sounds;

c) rules for pronunciation of individual grammatical forms;

d) rules for pronunciation of individual borrowed words.

1. The pronunciation of vowel sounds is determined by their position in pre-stressed syllables and is based on phonetic law, called reduction. Due to reduction, unstressed vowels are preserved in duration (quantity) and lose their distinct sound (quality). All vowels are subject to reduction, but the degree of this reduction is not the same. Thus, the vowels [у], [ы], [и] in an unstressed position retain their basic sound, while [a], [o],

[e] change qualitatively. The degree of reduction [a], [o], [e] depends primarily on the place of the syllable in the word, as well as on the nature of the preceding consonant.

a) In the first pre-stressed syllable the sound [Ù] is pronounced: [vÙdý / sÙdý / nÙzhý]. After hissing words, [Ù] is pronounced: [zhÙra / shÙry].

In place of [e] after the hissing [zh], [sh], [ts] the sound [ые] is pronounced: [tsyepnóį], [zhyeltok].

After soft consonants, in place of [a], [e], the sound [ie] is pronounced:

[chiesy/snIela].

b) In the rest unstressed syllables in place of the sounds [o], [a], [e] after hard consonants, the sound [ъ] is pronounced: [кълькÙла́/ цъхъво́ѯ/

pар٨во́с] After soft consonants, in place of the sounds [а], [е] is pronounced [ь]: [п"тьч"ok/ч"мда́н].

2. Pronunciation of consonants:

a) norms of literary pronunciation require positional exchange paired deaf and voiced in the position before the deaf (voiced only) - voiced (voiced only) and at the end of the word (voiced only): [hl"ep] / trupk / proz"b];

b) assimilative softening is not necessary, there is a tendency towards its loss: [s"t"ina] and [st"ina", [z"d"es"] and [z"es"].

3. Pronunciation of some vowel combinations:

a) in pronominal formations that, in order - what is pronounced as [pcs]; in pronominal formations such as something, mail, the pronunciation [h"t] is almost preserved;

b) in a number of words of predominantly colloquial origin, [shn] is pronounced in place of chn: [kÙn "eshn / nÙroshn].

In words of book origin, the pronunciation [ch"n] has been preserved: [ml"ech"nyį / vÙstoch"nyį];

c) in the pronunciation of the combinations st, zdn, stn (hello, holiday, private trader), there is usually a reduction or loss of one of the consonants: [prazn"ik], [ch"asn"ik], [hello]

4. Pronunciation of sounds in some grammatical forms:

a) pronunciation of the form I.p. units adjectives m.r. without emphasis: [krasnyį / with "in"iį] - under the influence of spelling arose - й, - й; after back-lingual g, k, x ® й: [t"íkh"iį], [m"ahk"iį];

b) pronunciation – sya, - sya. Under the influence of spelling, it has become the norm soft pronunciation: [njch "ielas" / njch "iels"a];

c) the pronunciation of verbs na - ive after g, k, x, the pronunciation [g"], [k"], [x"] became the norm (under the influence of spelling): [vyt"ag"iv't"].

5. Pronunciation of borrowed words.

In general, the pronunciation of borrowed words is subject to the phonetic system of the Russian language.

However, in some cases there are deviations:

a) pronunciation of [o] in place of [Ù]: [boá/ otel"/poet], although [rÙman/[pÙĵal"/pÙtsent];

b) [e] is preserved in unstressed syllables: [Ùtel"ĵé / d"epr"es"iįь];

c) before [e] g, k, x, l are always softened: [g"etry /k"ex / bÙl"et].

The pronunciation of borrowed words should be checked in a dictionary.

Speech norms act differently in different styles of pronunciation: in colloquial, in the style of public (book) speech, of which the first is implemented in everyday communication, and the second - in reports, lectures, etc. The differences between them relate to the degree of reduction of vowels, simplification of consonant groups (in the colloquial style the reduction is more significant, the simplification is more intense), etc.

Questions:

1. What is the subject of the study of orthoepy?

2. Describe the basic rules for pronunciation of vowel sounds.

3. Describe the basic rules for the pronunciation of consonant sounds.

4. Indicate the main features and variants of pronunciation of individual grammatical forms acceptable by literary norms.

5. Indicate the pronunciation features of some combinations of sounds and doubled consonants.

6. Describe the main features of the pronunciation of vowels and consonants in foreign words.

7. What are the main reasons for the appearance of pronunciation variants and violations of the norms of literary pronunciation?

Literature:

1. Avanesov R.I. Russian literary pronunciation. M., 1972.

2. Avanesov R.I. Russian literary and dialectal phonetics. M., 1974.

3. Gorbachevich K. S. Norms of the modern Russian literary language. M., 1978.

Norms in the modern Russian language are an indicator of purity, correctness, and accuracy of speech

1. The concept of language norms.

2. Standard options.

3. Orthoepic, morphological, syntactic, lexical norms.

“This Russian language is difficult, dear citizens! I heard a conversation the other day. It happened at the meeting. My neighbor leaned over and politely asked:

– What, comrade, will this be a plenary meeting or what?

“Plenary,” the neighbor answered casually.

“Look,” the first one was surprised, “that’s why I’m looking, what is it?” As if it were plenary.

“Yes, be calm,” the second one answered sternly. – Today it’s very plenary and the quorum has reached such a level – just hang in there.

– ...But it’s somehow closer to me. Everything somehow comes out in them minimally on the essence of the day... Although I will say frankly that I have a rather permanent attitude towards these meetings. So, you know, the industry is going from empty to empty.

It’s difficult, comrades, to speak Russian!” – concludes the author of the story M. Zoshchenko.

Indeed, it is difficult if you do not know the rules and norms that exist in each language.

The most important quality of speech culture is its correctness. Literary correct speech constructed in accordance with language norms.

The norm of language (literary norm) is the rules of use speech means, a uniform, exemplary, generally accepted use of elements of a literary language in a certain period of its development. Characteristic features of the norm of the Russian literary language - relative stability, prevalence, common usage, universally binding, compliance with the use, custom and capabilities of the language.

The literary norm is mandatory for oral and written speech and depends on the conditions in which speech is carried out. The norm does not divide the means of language into good or bad. It indicates the appropriateness of using them in communication. Sources of language norms - works of classical literature, generally accepted modern usage language, Scientific research.

The norm reflects the desire of language in a given period to stop, solidify, stability, continuity, universality, and at the same time the desire to go beyond the original, generating new possibilities.

Language norms are a historical phenomenon, constantly changing. Changes in literary norms are associated with the development of language, social changes, the development of literature, etc. What was the norm in the last century and even 10 years ago may today be a deviation from it. If you look at dictionaries from 100 years ago, you can see how norms have changed, for example, pronunciation and stress.

So, in the 19th century. they said - trains, weather, nowadays only older generation actors pronounce the return particle xia – sj firmly - returned (b).

The sources of changes in the norms of the literary language are different: living Speaking, dialects, borrowings, professionalisms. Changes in norms are preceded by the appearance of their variants, which actually already exist in the language and are used by its speakers. Variants of norms are reflected in dictionaries of modern literary language.

For example, in the “Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language” variants of words are given - thinking, thinking, etc.

There are 3 degrees of normativity, which are reflected in various dictionaries:

norm of the 1st degree – strict, rigid, does not allow options (putting down, not laying down);

norm of the 2nd degree – neutral, allows equivalent options (decent (w));

norm of the 3rd degree - more flexible, allows conversational, outdated forms(cottage cheese, cottage cheese).

The norm of the 1st degree is called an imperative norm, the norms of the 2nd and 3rd degrees are called dispositive norms.

Currently, the process of changing language norms has become especially active and noticeable against the backdrop of events of historical and political significance, economic reforms, changes in the social sphere, science, technology.

A linguistic norm is not a dogma. Depending on the goals and objectives of communication, on the characteristics of a particular style, deviations from the norm are possible. But these deviations should reflect the existing norms in the language.

The following norms are distinguished: spelling, spelling and punctuation, lexical, morphological, syntactic.

Orthoepic norms (Greek correct speech) - norms of pronunciation and stress.(He took ishshaka (boxes) from the store - incorrect pronunciation makes it difficult to understand.) Spelling errors make it difficult to perceive the speaker’s speech. The social role of correct pronunciation is very great, since knowledge of orthoepic norms greatly facilitates the communication process. In the play by D.B. Show "Pygmalion" professor of phonetics Higgins not only taught the dirty street flower seller Eliza Doolittle, who spoke vulgarly and incorrectly, to be literate and cultural speech. She has turned into an elegant and charming woman, realized her place in society.

In Russian, the stress is free, not fixed, in different places, that is, it is on any syllable in the word - begin, began, began. The emphasis is mobile - right, right, right.

There are common mistakes to avoid:

– for example, at the end of words G should sound like To, exception is the word God(x);

– combination – chn- this is how it is pronounced, except for proper names: - Nikitishna - and individual words - yaishnitsa, kopeeshny, trifle as options;

- before the letter e consonants in borrowed words are softened - rector, engineer, theory, the sound is pronounced softly l– molecule; in some borrowed words there are consonants before e pronounced firmly - codex (code), cafe (cafe);

– stress in verb forms: verbs ending in – ate with stress in indefinite form on the last syllable: bonus - awarded, form - formed.

To avoid making mistakes in speech, you need to use special dictionaries, for example “ Spelling dictionary Russian language". It gives normative marks.

Equal options are connected by a union And; variants of norms, one of which is the main one: the mark “acceptable” - additional, marked “acceptably outdated” – add. outdated

Options outside the literary norm use prohibitive marks: “not recommended” - not rec., " wrong" - not right.,"grossly wrong" - grossly wrong.

A whole layer of vocabulary is associated with the professional sphere of use. Dictionaries also record these options - atomic, compass, alcohol - and have the mark - prof.

Lexical norms, or norms of word usage, are

– the correct choice of a word from a number of units that are close to it in meaning or form,

- the use of a word in the meanings that it has in the language,

– the appropriateness of its use in a given situation. Compliance with lexical norms is the most important condition for correct speech.

Lexical norms first of all require knowledge of the meaning of words. In addition, compliance with lexical norms is the correct and appropriate use of synonyms, polysemantic words, outdated words, neologisms, phraseological units, words of foreign origin. The same applies to clericalism and professional vocabulary.

(“The waves rolled over the pier and fell down like a swift jack.” From the novel “12 Chairs” by I. Ilf and E. Petrov.

“Oblomov was lying on the sofa, where his personality was decaying.” From the essay.)

Lexical norms require lexical compatibility, that is, words in a sentence must be selected taking into account their semantic compatibility, for example, you cannot say: increasing the level (it can increase or decrease); borrow money from someone (borrow - lend).

Lexical norms are associated with the ability to distinguish paronyms (words that sound similar, but have different meaning). For example, put on - put on. The verb to put on is used when the action is directed at its manufacturer - to put on a coat, glasses, as well as in constructions with the preposition to - on child. The verb to dress is used when the action is directed to another object, indicated by an indirect object - to dress a child, a doll. Or provide – submit (I was given the floor at the meeting. The report must be submitted in writing).

Must be avoided in speech

– pleonasms (redundancy of expression: a souvenir, my autobiography, a price list;

– tautologies (repetition of words with the same root or identical morphemes): this abstract provides data; the following shortcomings should be noted.

Compliance with lexical norms makes speech accurate. Speech accuracy requires:

ability to think clearly (logical accuracy),

knowledge of the subject of speech (subject accuracy),

knowledge of the meaning of words used in speech (conceptual accuracy).

Failure to comply with standards leads to errors and oddities. For example, one study provides a translation of the words of a Russian song: “And who knows why he blinks...”: “Nobody knew what was wrong with his eye.”

Morphological norms require the correct formation of grammatical forms of words different parts speech.

The most common errors:

1. Foreign indeclinable words denoting inanimate objects are, as a rule, neuter: highway, cafe, coat.

2. In the genitive plural the following forms are used:

- words male: a pair of boots, boots, stockings (socks, oranges, eggplants, hectares, tomatoes, tangerines), Armenians, Georgians, Bashkirs, Tatars, Turkmen (Kalmyks, Mongols, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Yakuts), ampere, watt, volt (grams, kilograms);

– feminine words: barges, waffles, fables, shoes, weddings, sheets;

– neuter words: saucer, towels, blanket, mirror;

– words that do not have a singular number: manger, everyday life, twilight.

3. Prepositional forms like on vacation, on vacation preferably on – e(on - y - colloquial forms).

4. In literary language, forms ending in - and I: director, inspector, doctor, professor, vacation, passport, etc.; with ending – and, – s: engineers, drivers, accountants, editors, contracts, cakes, workshops, etc.

5. Preposition because of used when indicating negative reason, thanks to - for a positive reason (because of the rain I missed the bus, thanks to the rain the fields turned green).

6. Pronouns are often used incorrectly: correctly - I’m thinking about you, I miss you, they miss us, I’m coming to you, their choice (not theirs).

7. Adjective in short form– characteristic, inactive, responsible.

8. The education of comparative and superlatives: It’s impossible to say – the closest one.

9. The collective numerals two, three, etc. are used in the following cases:

– with nouns naming male persons (two friends);

– with nouns children, people, guys, persons (meaning person);

– with nouns used only in plural(three days).

Syntactic norms prescribe the correct construction of phrases and sentences. When constructing sentences, it is necessary to remember that in the Russian language, with free word order, direct word order is preferable rather than reverse (inversion). In direct order, the subject precedes the predicate, the initial information is new information. If this order is not followed, the sentence may be ambiguous. “Will he go to the seminar? He will go..."

When constructing a phrase, you need to remember about management. For example, director of something, in charge of something, pay for something, pay for something, talk about something, point out something, worry about someone, worry about someone, superiority over something -, advantage over someone, etc.

Prepositions thanks, in agreement, in spite of require consumption dative case- according to the timetable.

It is a mistake to use two subjects: The room was not small at all.

It is often unjustified to include a word like this, for example: Automation conditions, they are like this...

With a subject expressed by a collective noun (row, majority, minority, part) in combination with genitive case plural, the predicate is usually placed in the plural if we're talking about about animate objects, and only when it comes to inanimate objects (most students passed the exams).

At the words a lot, a little, a little, a lot, how much the predicate is in the singular (how many schemes were developed?).

Prepositions are used to express cause-and-effect relationships in view of, as a result of, in connection with, due to and etc.

When constructing a participial phrase, we must remember that the main action, expressed by the verb, and the additional action, expressed by the participle, are performed by one person: While reading a book, the student usually took notes.

When using homogeneous members of a sentence, you must remember:

– it is impossible to combine heterogeneous concepts as homogeneous members – study mathematics and types of tea; and also you cannot include specific and generic concepts (I love mathematics, physics, educational subjects);

– double unions should be connected by homogeneous members: he not only received the technical task, but also completed it;

– with two homogeneous members, a common controlled word is placed if the control words require the same case and preposition (read and take notes on lectures) (not right, love and think about the country).

It is also necessary to avoid piling subordinate clauses, for example: Design engineers gathered for a meeting, which took place in assembly hall, which was recently renovated by builders who tried to correct the deficiencies within the time limit that was established by the plan, which was approved a month ago in the same room.

In M. Bulgakov’s novel “Heart of a Dog” there is an example of incorrect sentence construction: “We, the management of the house,” Shvonder spoke with hatred, “came to you after a general meeting of the residents of our building, at which the issue of densifying the apartments of the building was raised...” - Who is on whom? stood? - Philip Philipovich shouted.

Stylistic norms are associated with features functional styles, speech genre, with the purpose and conditions of communication.

“Of course, standing on the platform, I inform you that apartment No. 10 is suspicious in terms of moonshine. And in the kitchen their little dog, a poodle, attacks the consumer and tears his legs. This poodle, cholera in her side, grabbed me by the legs.” This letter from the hero of the story M. Zoshchenko is an indicator of confusion various styles– official business, scientific, colloquial and everyday. As a result, the official paper causes laughter.

Norms make speech understandable, logical, and expressive.

In the Russian language, native Russian vocabulary makes up 90%. The rest of the vocabulary is borrowed from different languages. Original Russian vocabulary is divided into the following groups:

– Indo-Europeanisms are the most ancient words, formed in 5–4 thousand BC. e. (oak, wolf, sheep, mother, son, moon, snow, daughter);

– Common Slavic vocabulary – words inherited from the Common Slavic language before the 6th century. and now used in South Slavic, West Slavic and East Slavic languages ​​(see, sow, fight, head, man, sit, gold, I, you, you);

– East Slavicisms – words that arose and are used in the East Slavic group of languages ​​(Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian) (here, today, village, dog, bullfinch);

– Russian words themselves appear in the period from the 16th century. to the present (sadness).

Borrowed vocabulary consists of three groups:

1) words that are the only names of vital concepts (bed, bath, mathematics, sailor, guitar);

2) words that are the only names of designated concepts, but are recognized as foreign (metro, trolleybus, pajamas);

3) names that have original Russian analogues (punctual - precise, contract - agreement).

The third group gives barbarisms - foreign words included in speech unnecessarily. Currently, there are a lot of them - impeachment, monitoring, holding, presentation, briefing, populist, etc. Purity of speech requires the correct use of borrowed words and limits the scope of their distribution.

Relevance is a requirement for such selection linguistic means, which make speech consistent with the goals and conditions of communication. The same style is not suitable for every situation, age, moment and listener. There are stylistic, contextual, personal and psychological relevance. Style is taking into account the methods of selecting vocabulary in accordance with the style used - business, scientific, conversational. Contextual is determined by the speech environment. Personal-psychological requires speaking delicately and tactfully, kindly and respectfully.

A beautiful, correctly constructed speech is always rich in nuances, it is expressive, evokes a response, and creates a certain mood.

The expressiveness and richness of language depends on the inclusion of epithets, metaphors, the use of phraseological units, comparisons, hyperboles and much more. Examples include the works of Russian poets and writers, speeches by famous Russian lawyers, lectures by scientists, and articles by journalists.

All of us, all of us in this world are perishable,

Copper quietly pours from the maple leaves...

May you be blessed forever,

What has come to flourish and die.

S.A. Yesenin

A.C. Pushkin, according to estimates, used more than 21 thousand words, Shakespeare - more than 20 thousand words, modern man - much less - 5-9 thousand. The “Consolidated Dictionary of Modern Russian Vocabulary” in 2 volumes contains more than 170,000 words. It is a kind of guide to dictionaries, as it includes 14 dictionaries. This and other dictionaries reflect various aspects of linguistic reality modern period, linguistic richness. Using dictionaries, you can significantly expand your lexicon and check yourself.

There are explanatory dictionaries that explain the meaning of words, one of the most popular is edited by SI. Ozhegova. Published etymological dictionaries, explaining the origin and history of words, dictionaries of synonyms, homonyms, dictionaries foreign words, dictionaries of word compatibility, spelling dictionaries, dictionaries of Russian names and many others.

Thanks to the use of norms, richness and expressiveness, as the great L. Tolstoy said: “The Russian language is real, strong, where necessary - strict, serious, where necessary - passionate, where necessary - lively and lively.”

1. Types of norms, practice of their application. Give your examples of using norms in speech.

2. Working with a dictionary.

APPLICATION

Russian language dictionaries

Alexandrova Z.E. Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. M., 1989.

Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of homonyms of the Russian language. M., 1989.

Belchikov Yu.A., Panyusheva M.S. Dictionary of paronyms of the modern Russian language. M., 1994.

Lvov M.R. Dictionary of antonyms of the Russian language. M., 1997.

Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1997.

Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language / Ed. P.A. Avanesova. M., 1989.

Rosenthal D.E., Dzhandzhakova E.V., Kabanova N.P. Handbook of spelling, pronunciation, literary editing. M., 1999.

Modern dictionary of foreign words. M., 1993.

Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language / Ed. A.I. Molotkov. St. Petersburg, 1994.

Lecture 13. Trends in cultural universalization in the modern global process 1. Factors and mechanisms of cultural transformation Over ten thousand years of its development, human culture has gone from the stone ax to space exploration. She never stayed