And so, as already said with the scope literary language the existence of four types is associated speech culture: elite, medium-literary, literary-colloquial and familiar-colloquial.
Let's look at them in more detail:
1. Elite speech culture - a standard speech culture, meaning fluency in all the capabilities of the language, including its creative use. Elite speech culture allows its speakers to use the language expediently and appropriately in any sphere of communication and situation, using in each case the corresponding functional styles developed in the language, their varieties and forms of speech. An elite speech culture is characterized by strict adherence to all norms of speech culture (orthological, ethical, stylistic, functional-style). For bearers of an elite speech culture, there is an unconditional ban on rude, especially obscene, expressions, which gives rise to a developed system of euphemisms and their skillful use. Respect for the interlocutor is caused by a strict distinction between oral and written forms of speech, which does not allow, in particular, the use of participles and participial phrases, excessive bookishness, and in written speech - semantic incompleteness of information; “you-and you-communication” is associated with it, depending on the age, degree of proximity and social role of the addressee of the speech. Elite speech culture is the art of speech, so it does not characterize all educated speakers of a literary language.
All other speech cultures are, to a greater or lesser extent, “defective” from the point of view of the possibilities for the full and creative use of language.
2. Average literary speech culture is most often a failed elite speech culture. It is characterized by incomplete compliance with all norms and, unlike elitist speech culture, possession of only two (less often three) functional styles(colloquial speech and scientific style or colloquial speech and journalistic style, etc., a theoretically possible lack of mastery of the norms of colloquial speech while mastering any other functional variety of the literary language is actually in pure form unlikely to occur). Signs of average literary speech culture are accents such as means (even in advertising!), driver, quarter and either excessive saturation of speech with bookish (including foreign) words, or, conversely, the use of colloquial and even colloquial words not justified by the situation (forcibly, unfasten money for something, etc.). The bearers of average literary speech culture are the majority of educated townspeople, often with a special philological education. We hear them on radio and television, often reproaching them for violating stress norms, stylistic sloppiness, abuse of foreign and non-literary words, and often lack of basic speech tact. The same speech culture characterizes some modern newspapers and works fiction. Penetration of average literary speech culture into media mass media promotes its spread.
For a number of speakers of average literary speech culture, its manifestations are the result of a conscious repulsion from elite speech culture (conscious coarsening of speech and deliberate stylistic sloppiness).
Violations of norms form a unique system in average literary speech culture, which makes it possible to distinguish it as independent type speech culture.
Two other types of speech culture associated with native speakers of a literary language have a dual character. On the one hand, each of them is only a variety of either elite or average literary speech culture, or is used in a limited sphere of communication: literary-colloquial in the informal sphere, familiar-colloquial in the even narrower sphere of closely related or closely friendly communication between people of the same age. On the other hand, these are independent types of speech culture if their use knows no restrictions. These types of speech culture (as independent ones) characterize those native speakers of a literary language who speak only colloquial speech.
- 3. The literary-colloquial type is characterized by possession only conversational style, which is used by the speaker in any setting, including formal ones; the predominance of “you-communication”; the use of names without patronymics, a large number of foreign or book words, which often become simple fillers for pauses in speech (such as, specifically, as if, here); mixing communication styles.
- 4. The familiar-colloquial type is characterized by a general stylistic decline and coarsening of speech, which brings it closer to vernacular speech culture (it differs from it by the observance of orthological norms in the elite and only individual violations of them in the average literary speech culture and in the independent type).
For a long time, speech culture was understood only as elite speech culture, and all other types of speech culture (including folk speech) were considered a violation of the norms of the literary language. However, each type of speech culture has its own system, each of them reflects the properties and needs of its carriers, and therefore deserves special study, although not each of them is desirable for dissemination.
The type of speech culture is not only a linguistic, but also a cultural concept. It roughly corresponds to the concept of “speech style”, but also includes speech behavior - the relationships between partners established in the process of communication, and most importantly - assesses the cultural value of each of the types of speech culture identified by scientists.
In the late 80s - early 90s. last century in the works of N.I. Tolstoy, O. B. Sirotinina and other linguists in the domestic speech environment, the following cultural and value hierarchy of the types of speech culture that existed at that time was established:
- 1) elitist;
- 2) average literary;
- 3) literary and colloquial;
- 4) familiar;
- 5) vernacular;
- 6) argotizing (jargonizing);
- 7) folk (folk-colloquial).
Let us briefly describe them.
The elite type of speech culture presupposes a conscious preference for the old, and sometimes even outdated, language norm over the new norm, and even more so for non-normative phenomena of language and speech, speech behavior.
The elite type of speech culture these days is a rarity and of great cultural value. That is why we examine its main pronunciation features in detail in the next chapter, giving you the opportunity, by completing the tasks and exercises given there, to master the system of markers of elite pronunciation - not in order to impose it as an indispensable teaching norm, but so that you learn to appreciate the elite speech, feel its special beauty, understand its necessity in society and protect it, just as rare and endangered species of animals are now preserved. An elite type of speech culture is a much more valuable acquisition than an elite cottage or suit: after all, such speech easily introduces you to the world of people of culture and art, placing you separately from everything “average” and above it. The bearers of the elite type of speech culture are people with high culture, not only philological (an example would be the late physicist Pyotr Kapitsa, long-time host of popular science television programs; the living Nikolai Drozdov, zoologist, host of the program “In the Animal World”), and other scientists , especially the older generation, many artists, some writers.
It is very difficult for a bearer of an elite type of speech culture, if it is natural from birth, learned from childhood, to get on the same page with a recent acquaintance, with a student, even with a graduate student. Example: one of the teachers told me that when his graduate student, only a few years younger than him, asked why the boss didn’t call him “on your own”, because it was easier to working together during expeditions and in general during daily communication, he replied: “When you, my dear, defend your dissertation and also become a candidate of sciences, then perhaps it will be easier for me to address you on a first-name basis.” But for now, no, you know, it’s too early.” The elite type of speech culture is characterized, despite the strict observance of etiquette norms, by increased emotionality: warmth, goodwill, sincerity when communicating with unfamiliar and even strangers, regardless of their social status, if they behave “like humans,” and, on the contrary, harsh , harsh, with the pathos of condemnation, although absolutely correct suppression of any manifestation of “rudeness”. By the last word in quotation marks we mean “conscious verbal aggression”. Likewise, it is suppressed and uncompromisingly condemned misbehavior in general - refusal to shake hands, coldness of tone, etc., but never will a bearer of an elite type of speech culture allow himself not to say hello to a familiar person: he will say hello coldly, in an emphatically formal manner, and yet... This is what a professional speech etiquette, and retreat from it is not allowed. The “equality” with the partner emphasized in speech is characteristic. The elite type of speech culture does not allow top-down communication, although it establishes a certain personal distance.
The average literary type of speech culture is, according to Professor O.B. Sirotinina and her colleagues from Saratov state university, Just " good speech"and etiquette, often formal, normative speech behavior of announcers and presenters of central television channels. Speech literary norms are observed, mistakes happen, but they are few; the main thing is a frequent preference modern norm when choosing options: the person will say "cottage cheese", but not "cottage cheese", "tiny", but not " pitch-black", "provision", but not " security"(although the first option is considered not the norm, but an error): we’ll talk about this in the next lecture. The tone of communication is more neutral, less expressive, less emotional.
Literary-colloquial type of speech culture. The literary-colloquial type of speech culture is distinguished by greater freedom, informality of communication, but adherence to literary norms in speech: it is clear that the speaker is an educated, cultured person, however, non-literary elements are very common in speech: common jargon, especially for youth, and generally new words and phrases , deliberately used colloquial elements, but never too rude - with a paradoxical combination of all this with scientific terminology, not always understandable to a mass audience or a non-specialist interlocutor.
An example from the domestic media is the speech of the host of the “Dialogues about Animals” program, Ivan Zatevakhin. It is typical that in official communication situations, a bearer of the literary-colloquial type of speech culture can switch to average literary speech and speech behavior (the reverse is also true).
Familiar type of speech culture: example - V.V. Zhirinovsky in his public image. There are quite a lot of errors - deviations from the literary norm; the speech is highly emotional, but this emotionality, this pathos always has one sign, negative. Characteristic is “rudeness” - conscious verbal aggression. Relationships with the audience or partner are built familiarly, but not equal, but “from top to bottom.” It is natural to have a tendency to communicate on a first-name basis; otherwise, for a bearer of a familiar type of speech culture, it is awkward, inconvenient, unusual, and not necessary. Such a person seems to be attacking someone all the time: speaking in front of an audience - at a certain image of the “enemy”, which can be anything, depending on the situation and in accordance with the subject of speech; turning to the interlocutor, “pounces” on him if he is lower or equal in social status, and is very exaggeratedly polite, not to say servile, if he occupies a higher level of the social hierarchy. Only in this case can the emotionality of speech become positive, but even then it is beyond measure. There is no harmony or beauty in such speech. This type of speech culture, like all subsequent ones, lies outside the framework of literary speech. Many characters in Russian classical literature illustrate precisely the familiar type of speech culture: we easily recognize them in the novels of Gogol and Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, in the stories of Chekhov...
Vernacular type of speech culture. Its speakers are people who do not know the norms of Russian speech - neither written nor oral. They are not educated enough and do not have sufficient speech training to public speaking. It's not just about mistakes in pronunciation or grammar. When starting a phrase, they try to construct it as is customary in book speech - complexly, “branched”, but once they start, they forget what was just said.
The thread of their reasoning is difficult to grasp; sometimes it turns out something completely meaningless. The famous political figure of the era of perestroika V.S. will remain in the memory of generations as a brilliant bearer of Russian vernacular. Chernomyrdin: his public statements were so anecdotal and expressive that to this day the Internet keeps a list of “Chernomyrdisms.” The most memorable phrase that expresses the very essence of “perestroika” is still Chernomyrdin’s aphorism: “We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.” The people will not forget the other: “ Better than vodka there is nothing worse." However, such stars of the vernacular type of speech culture rarely shine on the public horizon. The sphere of existence of the vernacular type of speech culture is the everyday communication of not very educated and uncultured people.
The jargonizing (argotizing) type of speech culture has asocial spheres of distribution: this is the Russian fenya - the speech and speech behavior of the zone, ITU, which spilled out beyond the boundaries of places of detention along with its speakers. There were two such “waves” of liberation of feni from the places of its original existence: the first - with the mass release of political prisoners who lived in the same barracks with the “thieves”, after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. The speech and speech behavior of the intelligentsia during the years of the “thaw” were wonderfully described in the book “Yawning Heights” by the Russian philosopher A.A. Zinoviev, devoting a special chapter of Newspeak to this, which describes a conversation in the smoking room of the Lenin Library. The second wave - at the beginning of “perestroika” - swept over the entire society, occupied the media, and today anyone can listen to and see the reproduction of a jargon type of speech culture in any domestic detective or “gangster” series.
The folk type of speech culture ended up “wrongly” at the bottom rung of the value ladder. In fact, in terms of its cultural value, it is not inferior to the elitist and is just as rare: this is the speech and speech behavior of speakers of pure territorial dialects, untouched by “civilization” and the media - Russian dialects. There are very few such carriers left: these are very old people, mostly uneducated peasant women who have not traveled outside their village or region. For our topic, this disappearing image of folk speech in its various dialect variants, rare in beauty and harmony, is insignificant, but not to mention its existence (or rather, disappearance) would be criminal.
O. B. Sirotinina
At first glance, it seems obvious that speakers of an elite type of speech culture produce only good speech. As a consequence of this view, even the use of the term appeared elitist speech as a synonym and even an absolute synonym of the term good speech. However, we cannot agree with this usage.
Firstly, in modern Russian usage the use of the concept is very stable elitist to designate something not only rare (and good speech is still not such a rare phenomenon), the best (and besides good speech, excellent speech is also possible, clearly rarer than good, and better than good), but also for not reflected in explanatory dictionaries meaning (or rather, additional connotation) of “something divorced from the people, incomprehensible to them” ( Well, this is elitist art, we don’t understand it etc.). Good speech is understandable and accessible.
Secondly, the bearer of an elite type of speech culture does not always produce good speech. Any type of speech culture creates the prerequisites for the production of speech of one quality or another, but these are only prerequisites; the speech itself as a result can turn out either good (and not only for a speaker of the elite type, as see in the following sections) or bad. The quality of speech depends on many factors. Such a carrier of an elite type of speech culture cannot have good oral speech, who, due to congenital or acquired pathology of the speech organs, is not able to clearly pronounce certain sounds, due to brain injury, use words in their meaning, or speaks too slowly, without the necessary intonation discharge ( various shapes aphasia). The possibility of good speech in a speaker who is deaf and mute or even simply completely deaf is questionable (impossibility of controlling the required volume of speech), etc. In addition, a bearer of an elite type of speech culture, in principle mastering the functional-style system of language, never masters all functional styles in equal to degrees. Therefore, it may turn out that a specialist in a certain field, not being a bearer of an elite type, in this field produces a text that is superior in quality to a text produced by a bearer of an elite type of speech culture, but a non-specialist in this field. So, a lawyer will draw up a statement of claim better than the most bright representative elite speech culture, not associated with jurisprudence, and a writer will write a story better than a lawyer, no matter what type of speech culture each of them belongs to.
From many psychological reasons The degree of logic of speech depends, including even on the quality of memory, a person’s ability to retain in consciousness what was said. The ways of representing reality (visual-iconic or rational-analytical) are influenced by a person’s profession and the characteristics of his temperament, and not only by the degree of his communicative competence.
All of the above proves that there cannot be a direct identification of the quality of speech and the level of speech culture of its producer. However, it is also undeniable that under equal conditions (one profession, one temperament, etc.) the speech of a bearer of an elite type of speech culture is superior in quality to the speech of a bearer of any other type.
The type of speech culture does not determine the quality of speech, but at the same time there is their potential interdependence. It is impossible to determine the type of speech culture by good speech, but by bad speech it is possible. Based on the nature of the errors, it is possible to determine the type of speech culture with a fairly high degree of probability, although not unconditionally.
To belong to one or another type of speech culture means to have a certain level of culture, both general and speech. Belonging to an elite type of speech culture - rarer and better than other types, means not only knowledge and possession of orthological and functional-style norms, but also the presence of of this type a whole series of skills not so much related to speech as to psychological ones: the development of self-control skills (in general, and not just one’s speech), lack of self-confidence (in general, and not just in the correctness of one’s speech, and hence the presence of the habit of always and in everything check), respect for your interlocutor, partner and people in general, a thirst for all knowledge, for art, literature in their best manifestations, etc.
And yet, all these qualities are not manifested to the same extent in a particular bearer of an elite type of speech culture. The most prominent representative of the elitist type, judging by all polls, occupying first place, is Academician D.S. Likhachev. Indeed, his speech was in every respect not only good, but beautiful. From all points of view, D. S. Likhachev, with his modesty, extremely sincere respect for people (and for the interlocutor in particular), with his highest general culture, erudition in the masterpieces of the world classics, with his understanding and love for genuine masterpieces of visual and musical art, a bearer of an elite type of speech culture.
In second place they usually call V.K. Molchanov, whose speech is also excellent. The situation is much more complicated with such representatives of the elite type of speech culture as, for example, A. I. Solzhenitsyn (see illustrative examples of his masterful mastery of the capabilities of the Russian language in the section “Rhetorical organization of speech”). At the same time, due respect for the interlocutor is not always present in his communication; he often abuses in his public and artistic speech non-commonly accepted expressions, words and forms that are far from the modern Russian literary language (theft, in the midst of an argument, smearing the wheel axle), in his “Dictionary of the Expansion of the Russian Language” includes words that are not used by anyone and are hardly advisable for general use (description - story, zryatina - trifles, bookish - shaped like a book otdar – return gift, slack - sissy, tsezh – strained solution, shtukar - artist, inventor, etc.), which rather testifies to the “average literary aggressiveness” of A. I. Solzhenitsyn, his self-confidence in his knowledge and the right to judge (including linguistic phenomena). When surveyed, his belonging to the elitist type rarely emerges and is never considered indisputable.
With doubts, such television journalists as E. A. Kiselev, S. I. Sorokina are classified as an elitist type in surveys. It seems that there are reasons for doubt, although undoubtedly both of them, if not fully bearers of this type of speech culture, are in any case very close to it.
One of the indicators “for” in relation to S.I. Sorokina is not only the correctness of her speech, but also a pronounced respect for the interlocutor (this was especially noticeable in her programs “Hero of the Day” and in “Voice of the People” in comparison with the previous presenter - E. A. Kiselev), which is also manifested in her reactions to her own reservations - an apology, an embarrassed smile, a correction, which, except for her, perhaps none of the TV presenters does, although many are mistaken and much more often and unacceptable (for example, V Kiknadze said: after the most terrible disaster in the Pacific Ocean with the Titanic - Vesti 02/3/2001, there was no amendment or apology).
In relation to E. A. Kiselev, there are quite a lot of indicators “against”: obvious disrespect for the interlocutor, obvious increased self-confidence and self-admiration, numerous speech flaws (regular non-literary just now instead of “recently” - Voice of the People 07/04/2000, often Fuck, they don’t understand a damn thing - Voice of the people! 1.04.200, between - Results 12/24/2000, benefits– Voice of the People 07/16/2000, in a new way - Results 02/13/2000, uttered not entirely disrespectful words - Results 07/04/99, "Experts - Results, 04/2/2000, about seven hundred - Results, 05/14/2000. etc.).
Among TV journalists, V.V. Pozner and N.K. Svanidze were also doubtfully classified as an elitist type of speech culture in surveys. Indeed, their speech is also very close to this type, although individual violations of norms occur in them as well. Of course, one cannot expect precise definitions of belonging to one or another type of speech culture from a single participant in surveys, to whom journalists are known only from television programs (it is impossible to check all the signs of a type of speech culture), but it is characteristic that it never occurred to anyone to classify them as carriers of an elitist culture. type of speech culture, neither A. Sharapov, nor A. Lyubimov, nor, especially, V. S. Chernomyrdin, B. N. Yeltsin, etc.
Of the politicians, V.V. Putin, V.A. Ryzhkov, A.B. Chubais, G.A. Yavlinsky (in descending order of votes) are usually named as belonging to the elitist type (but with doubts). Each of them has some speech flaws (very rarely, but they are found even in the spontaneous speech of D.S. Likhachev, not to mention other representatives of the elite type). With regard to V.V. Putin (he was called a politician during the election period), one cannot be sure that his speech does not reflect the efforts of some image makers, speech writers (although in the same conditions it never occurred to anyone to classify B’s speech as an elitist type N. Yeltsin). V. A. Ryzhkov’s speech, indeed, is always bright, figurative and correct, reflects to a large extent the creative component, but sometimes is not entirely accessible to the addressee (voters) due to the very great syntactic complexity, rhetorical virtuosity, designed for intellectuals, not ordinary voters (usually in his speeches a large number of historical allusions). The speech of G. A. Yavlinsky clearly claims to be called “elite” (in the usual use of this word), but what separates G. A. Yavlinsky from the elitist type of speech culture is narcissism, the absence of even hints of criticism of himself, his behavior, his speech . Hence the constant violations of orthological norms (intentions, agreement, beginnings), disrespect for the addressee, endless “yaking”.
As already mentioned, belonging to an elite type of speech culture (even undisputed) does not guarantee that in any situation the speech of this person can be called good according to all the criteria of such speech. As an example, let us give impressions from the speeches at the first congress of people's deputies of the USSR by A.D. Sakharov and Yu.N. Afanasyev. Those who watched and listened to the live broadcasts of the congress remember, firstly, that A.D. Sakharov’s speech was not loud enough, very difficult (with many hesitations), not emotional enough, even monotonous, although in terms of content, if you don’t listen, Read the published transcript, the speech was both very emotional and very logical and clear. However, it was poorly perceived by ear, and this largely prevented A.D. Sakharov from establishing contact with the audience (of course, the often-sounding obstruction of his speech by the “aggressive-obedient majority” of the audience depended not only on the quality of speech, but it also contributed to this) .
A. D. Sakharov is an unconditional bearer of the elite type of speech culture, who perfectly knew how to express his thoughts, but was accustomed mainly to written speech, and not to public, oral speech (this was facilitated by the facts of his biography and living conditions), in addition to the formation of oratorical qualities , probably, the state of his health also interfered (in many ways also a consequence of living with constant hassle, force-feeding during hunger strikes, etc.), but the fact remains: A.D. Sakharov’s speeches at the congress were not good oral speech and therefore (including) were not accepted by the congress. During numerous objections from the seats and from the podium, he was unable to change the mood of the audience, did not find new arguments, but only continued to repeat what was not accepted by the audience. This was reflected in the lack of targeting of his speech (the addressee of his speeches was not sufficiently taken into account). But there is no such thing as good speech in the abstract.
The situation is approximately the same with the speeches at this congress by Yu. N. Afanasyev. Yu. N. Afanasyev is also an undisputed bearer of the elite type of speech culture, but unlike A. D. Sakharov, he is a university teacher with extensive experience in lecturing and oral speech in general. But his speeches at the congress did not achieve their goal. And it seems that this is not only the fault of the “aggressively obedient majority” of deputies, but also the speaker himself. One gets the impression that Yu. N. Afanasyev’s main goal was not to convince the audience that he was right, but, first of all, to declare his position and that of the interregional group, on whose behalf and on behalf of which he spoke. But for successful communication, stating a position is not enough; you also need to convey this position to the listeners, try to convince the deputies that you are right. Yu. N. Afanasyev failed to do this, and, as it seems, the failure was largely due to the inability to speak not in academic language, but simply, accessible to the majority of deputies. One gets the impression that Yu. N. Afanasyev did not strive for this: he did not respect the aggressively obedient majority (this is his term) of deputies, and this was felt in his speeches.
Disrespect (in Yu. N. Afanasyev, in fact, even contempt) of the addressee in a good speech is unacceptable. Due to contempt for the audience, Yu. N. Afanasyev’s speech was also neither loud enough, nor emotional, nor accessible - nothing was done to convince, and not just convey the correct points.
It should be noted that the inability convince- the problem of many of our politicians and statesmen, neglecting the targeting of speech results in the failure of many good initiatives and, ultimately, the reason that the masses do not understand what they want from them, what they can count on. As a rule, they tell us something (if they tell us), but they do not explain or convince us that what is proposed is the only one possible under the given conditions or that what is proposed will benefit the country and, consequently, each of its inhabitants.
Another bearer of the elite type of speech culture - E. T. Gaidar tried to explain and convince, but apparently overestimated the capabilities of his listeners (deputies) - he convinced, but did not convince, although, despite the negative attitude towards himself (according to rating voting for the post the premiere took one of the last places) earned applause. In October 1993, E. T. Gaidar managed to convince many Muscovites to come to the Moscow Soviet to defend democracy.
Thus, good speech is not synonymous with elitist speech, much less synonymous with elite speech, that is, the speech of some elite (political, artistic, etc.). And although it is most often associated with the elite type of speech culture, good speech can also be produced by speakers of other types of speech culture (including, in many respects, good speech and speakers of the folk speech type), in addition, a speaker of the elite type does not always, not always in all situations (and not everyone) produces good speech.
Tickets for speech culture
Modern Russian language as a means of communication. Russian language as a state language, as a language of interethnic development and as a world language. Basic functions of the language. Stages of formation and development of the Russian language, the main spheres of its existence (areas linguistic culture).
Modern Russian is the national language of the Russian people. It is called Russian because its creator and main bearer is the Russian people. The Russian language is a historically established linguistic community, genetically belongs to the group of East Slavic languages, which go back to one source - the common Slavic language, common and uniform (to varying degrees) for all Slavic tribes. From the 6th century The Old Russian language begins its independent existence. Since the 14th century the collapsed Old Russian language gives rise to the formation of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian languages. The Russian language is becoming an independent language. It is based on the Moscow Koine. In pre-revolutionary Russia, Russian was the compulsory state language. In the multinational USSR there was no single state language. In the Russian Federation, Russian is the state language.
Main functions of the language:
- official language Russian Federation, i.e. the language of official documents, laws, office work, legalized in this status by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Art. 68: "1. State language The Russian language is the Russian language throughout its entire territory.”
- language of interethnic communication, i.e., a language chosen voluntarily in a multinational state as a language of communication. In the Russian Federation, due to a number of objective reasons, the Russian language has become such. This is the language in which people of different nationalities communicate in everyday life, in science, culture, art, economics, etc.
World language - Russian is included in the club of six world languages (English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic), since it is globally widespread, is an academic discipline outside of Russia, has been chosen as the working language of the UN and a number of international organizations.
Spheres of existence of the Russian language (areas of linguistic culture): Russian language functions in modern society in different areas. Its varieties, the emergence of which is determined by the area of functioning, are called differently (language varieties, sublanguages, areas of linguistic culture, spheres of existence):
- frozen language of written monuments- silent speech, a set of texts from previous eras; closed circle of creators and recipient; allows you to better understand the language system in statics and dynamics; forms the spiritual beginning of a linguistic personality
- modern Russian language: 1. oral form- everyday colloquial and vernacular (characteristic features: unpreparedness, ease, possible combination of bookish and colloquial); spoken language dialects (specific features of phonetics, vocabulary; communicatively closed; a dialect speaker combines a literary language with a dialect one); 2. written form- language of literature, press, state. documents; ordinary texts are focused on correlation with extra-linguistic reality - art. the lyrics reflect a fictional world
- professional language- language of science and technology; communicatively closed
- "computer language"- form of the vocational and technical sphere. Communicatively closed. Can be considered as a transitional form of an international technical language
- non-native Russian speech- speech of foreigners; synthesis of Russian and native language speaking Russian
- foreign language- a form of the Russian language that has been influenced by a different social and linguistic environment. Speakers of this form are excluded from the use of the living language. The degree of conservation is determined by the level of competence of the carrier.
Modern Russian national language and its stratification. Literary language as highest form national language. Language situation and language policy.
The Russian language in all its manifestations forms a common (national) language. One of the temporary forms of the national language is the modern Russian language. The boundaries of the “modernity” of the Russian language are defined in different ways: 1. the language of the last decades of our time; 2. language from the 30s of the XX century to the present day; 3. language from Pushkin to the present day, etc. The last point of view has become most widespread in Russian studies because it was during Pushkin’s time that the basic norms of the literary language were formed. Being a means of communication, the modern Russian language performs the functions of message (informative), communication (communicative), influence (imperative); as well as cognitive (cognitive), aesthetic, educational, etc. The variety of functions determines the current socio-functional stratification of the Russian language:
- literary language- a standardized form of the national language, excluding dialects, jargons, and vernaculars
- dialects- varieties of Russian speech, the functioning of which is limited to a certain territory; form of existence - oral; differ from the literary language in lexical composition, grammatical and phonetic features; are constantly exposed to literary language
- jargons (social dialects)- varieties of RY used in groups of people united by common interests, occupation, profession, age, etc.; They usually differ only in vocabulary; an ancient, rapidly changing phenomenon in language; use is unacceptable in official communication; a type of jargon - argot - originally the language of declassed elements
- vernacular- a type of spoken language, characterized by the use of words and expressions not accepted in the literary language; not limited by territory; deliberately coarsens speech, gives it a special looseness
Language situation - a functional set of forms of existence (and styles) of one language or several languages serving an ethnic group/people/society in a certain geographical region or administrative-political entity. The components of a language situation can be either functionally equivalent, or they can be in a relationship of hierarchical dependence.
Language policy - a system of events and legislative acts carried out by the authorities and/or public institutions of the country, which set themselves certain socio-linguistic goals. Language policy depends on: the language situation, the political goals of the state, and government institutions.
Speech culture and speech culture. Types of speech culture.
A culture of speech - a set of selection and use skills linguistic means with the aim of optimal solution communicative tasks in accordance with the norms of literary language and communication ethics.
Speech culture - part of the culture of a people associated with the use of language. It includes the language itself, its ethnic specificity, functional and social varieties, embodied in oral or written form. In addition, it includes the ethnic features of the linguistic picture of the world, and established customs and rules of behavior. The concept of speech culture is broader than the concept of speech culture, which includes only the nature of the use of language, the attitude towards it, but not the language itself and the picture of the world enshrined in it. Speech culture is realized in speech, in the process of communication.
Types of speech culture:
- Fully featured type is observed among people with higher education, is typical for people with the highest level of general culture. It is characterized by: mastery of all functional styles of the literary language, the habit of self-control of speech, the ability to consult dictionaries and reference books not only within the framework of one’s profession, the fullest use of all the possibilities of the literary language with a very careful and always appropriate use of extraliterary means, compliance with orthological, communicative and ethnic norms. For carriers of this type of speech culture, the standard of speech and precedent texts are the texts of classical fiction and truly exemplary texts of other types of speech. Knowing a language (often several), they do not abuse either foreign or abbreviated words, do not replace written speech with what is characteristic of oral speech, or oral speech with structures of written speech, and freely move from one functional style to another depending on conditions and tasks communications. Education and training (family, school, university), character contribute to the formation of a fully functional type of speech culture professional activity, requiring social activity and versatility, but the main thing is active self-education, a constant desire to expand your knowledge, test yourself not only in your profession, but also in the language (check the correct pronunciation, spelling, meaning of words, etc.).
- Not fully functional the type is close to the full-functional one and is characteristic of people who still have a high culture, although less high than that of the carriers of the full-functional type. These are also people with higher education, but their level of proficiency in the literary language does not reach the full-functional level: not proficiency in all functional styles (usually only those that are professionally significant for them and colloquial); not all the riches of the lexical and grammatical system (only a small part of the synonymous capabilities of the language is used); They do not completely differentiate between oral and written forms of speech (substitution or possession of only one of them is possible). In their speech, there are violations of orthological, communicative and ethical norms (but gross violations are rare) due to their insufficient mastery. This is, as it were, an unformed, fully functional type of speech culture. Some conditions of family upbringing contribute to this (low cultural level of parents, lack of a home library), bad teachers at school and at university, but the main reasons are pronounced professional and social single-role (only a speaker or only a “bookworm” - accountant, office worker, etc. .d.) in the absence of the desire or due effort to expand the range of one’s interests, the habit of testing oneself not only in the professional sphere. Often these are first-generation intellectuals who are guided not by dictionaries and reference books when it comes to language, but by what they hear on television and read in newspapers. Their precedent texts are not only texts of classical literature, but also texts of the media, texts of “semi-fictional” works, texts written by a boss or teacher. Critical attention to the speech of others and to oneself is weakened.
- Average literary the type characterizes the majority of the population with secondary education, and is also found among people with higher education. In this type of RK, violations of orthological, communicative and ethical norms are frequent and systemic, not only due to insufficient proficiency in lit. language, but above all because of the deliberate ignorance of its norms with very great self-confidence in their knowledge. Usually, speech errors are accompanied by factual ones, indicating both a low level of general culture (in a newspaper, a journalist writes about the Sakhalin Peninsula) and excessive self-confidence (in a newspaper, a journalist confuses the names of well-known governors in the country, changes the areas they govern, without bothering with basic checks) . Belonging to the average literary type of some journalists creates a vicious circle, because... their speech is perceived by other speakers of this type as a standard, and, consequently, the journalist’s mistakes are replicated. The feeling of some inferiority of their speech capabilities, with their characteristic self-confidence, leads speakers of this type of speech language either to focus on purely bookish speech, to the widespread use of foreign words, or to deliberate shocking (expletive language, even obscenities). Since the precedent texts for speakers of the average literary type are the media and pseudo-fiction that reflects the same type, this type of speech culture constantly reproduces itself without any effort on the part of its speakers.
- Literary jargon the type was formed at the end of the twentieth century. through the efforts of journalists as a reaction to the officialdom and formality of the speech of the Soviet era media. The desire for uninhibited speech and rapprochement with the people led to journalistic unbridledness, primarily in their speech. This type of R. K. is characterized by a deliberate decrease in speech (jargonization of speech, preference for the literary word of any of its synonyms from the vernacular, dialects, jargon, and swear words). Its main differences from the argotic type (see below) are in the social group of the speakers (journalists) and the function of the jargon they use (primarily expressive). It is observed among journalists who are not of the highest culture, but outside their profession, perhaps belonging to an incompletely functional type, so it is not so much special type A person's R.C., the impression he creates, the type of R.C. of a specific television or radio program, a specific newspaper. The influence of such media on the population gives rise to the gradual formation of the literary-jargon type as a truly independent type of RK, the bearers of which are no longer journalists, but those users of the literary language ( Neshchimenko, 2001), who, focusing on the speech of the media, widely use jargon and any reduced vocabulary for expressive purposes, believing that this is how one should speak and write.
- Everyday type does not imply a conscious attitude towards one’s speech, choice the desired shape and the desired style. Carriers of this type of RK are the lowest in the sphere of action of lit. language - in any conditions, including in an official setting, they use only spoken language mastered from childhood and are therefore helpless in the face of the need to use speech in its written form. Their oral monologue is not structured like a text, but always breaks down into a dialogue with one of the listeners ( Got it, no? You understand?). In television programs, even if this is a speech by someone invited to the program in front of those present in the studio (and the main addressee is the television viewers), this is actually a dialogue with a familiar presenter; in some radio programs, it is a dialogue between a DJ and one of the callers. The formation of this type of speech culture is the result of the fact that its bearer never made any effort to master the skills of good speech, and the precedent texts for it are only home and street speech and advertising, imprinted in the subconscious due to its annoying repetition.
Outside the literary language there are colloquial, argotic And folk speech types. Vernacular is typical for the speech of poorly educated city dwellers; argotic is formed in certain social groups for the sake of “encryption”, hiding information from strangers and in the password function; folk speech is typical for dialect speakers with their special culture, special linguistic, communicative and ethical norms and even ideas about the world. "Pulling" from these types certain words and forms sometimes enriches the literary language, but more often it simply clogs it. For all these types, only the oral form of speech is organic, and even the transfer of knowledge from generation to generation also occurred (and occurs) only in oral form. Slang and dialect dictionaries are created by linguists, not by speakers of these types and not for their speakers, but for the sake of studying the relevant social components of the national language or understanding the words used in these social groups.
Levels of speech culture: high – medium – low, i.e. culturally – uncultured – completely uncultured, we define each person unconsciously. As a rule, we silently note either a very high level of speech culture, or a low one, and “don’t notice” the average level. At the same time, all levels of speech culture give an assessment of the quality of speech both in general and according to individual aspects and criteria.
The high level of culture is evident in everything. Externally - in the sounds of voice and intonation, in the way a person walks, stands, sits, in the manner of speaking, in gestures, facial expressions, gaze - all this in oral speech is assessed from the standpoint of how much they correspond to our ideas about the culture of communication. It analyzes how a person treats other people, how he conducts a dialogue, how he constructs a monologue, etc. In written speech: what kind of handwriting does a person have - an analogue of good diction (it is no coincidence that calligraphy was given so much attention in classical education and education could not be imagined without it), how he arranges the text on the page, are there any visual aids - diagrams, tables, graphs, photographs etc.; how and on what the text is written, how correctly it is in terms of spelling and punctuation; whether the genres are designed correctly and much, much more. Compliance with language and speech norms is also necessarily assessed, and the assessment is based on the level of knowledge of the evaluator.
The low level of speech culture is also evident in everything. If a person of high culture takes care in everything not to cause inconvenience to anyone, then a person of low culture forces him to do the exact opposite - to assert himself at the expense of others. Hence the rudeness and peremptory nature, ignorance of something and unwillingness to find out, and even more so the unwillingness to follow any norms. It is due to these manifestations that we immediately see a person with low culture.
The range of manifestations of the average level of speech culture is much wider. As a rule, in this case there is no open disregard for various norms; rather, there is some orientation to the situation - basic norms must be observed when a violation can be punished. Otherwise, people with an average level of culture are usually much closer to low level than to a high one, because a person with a truly high level of culture most often considers himself unworthy to sacrifice it, breaking the rules in any situation
Researcher O.B. Sirotinina distinguishes full-functional, incompletely functional, average literary, literary-jargonizing and everyday types of speech culture.
a) full-featured type
Speakers of a fully functional type of speech culture are characterized by the most complete mastery of all the riches of the Russian language, the active use of synonyms, taking into account all the nuances of their meaning and use, free activation and appropriate use of any word from their extensive vocabulary.
They are also characterized by:
Mastery of all (albeit to varying degrees) functional styles of the literary language, which is manifested not only in knowledge of their features, but also in the ability to construct texts in a given style situation.
Compliance with the norms of the literary language (spelling and punctuation, spelling and intonation, stylistic, lexical compatibility norms, etc.).
But, unfortunately, absolutely error-free speech is an extremely rare phenomenon, but a speaker of a fully functional type is characterized by a minimum of violations of norms, their unsystematic nature, randomness, and, no less important, the person’s lack of excessive self-confidence, the developed habit of testing himself in everything (in relation to correctness of speech - according to dictionaries and reference books).
The role of a fully functional type of speech culture, despite the relatively small number of its speakers, in the fate of the literary language, the preservation of its existence and in its very development is very great.
b) non-full-functional type
In general, an incompletely functional type of speech culture can be characterized by the word less: less knowledge, less effort to expand it, a lower level of skills, etc.
The role of people with an incompletely functional type of speech culture, on the one hand, is significantly less than the role of people with a fully functional type, since they cannot serve as a standard of good speech, but, on the other hand, their role is quite significant for the state of the speech culture of the population, since it is precisely This type of speech culture includes the majority of people with higher education, including school teachers, university professors, journalists and writers, whose speech they are guided by.
c) average literary type
The most widespread is the average literary type of speech culture; its carriers are primarily people with secondary and incomplete secondary education. They are characterized by a very superficial knowledge of the norms of the literary language, and therefore there are systematic deviations from them in pronunciation, form formation, and a fashion for foreign words that are used inappropriately, with the wrong meaning, and with incorrect pronunciation. Ignorance of the differences between oral and written forms of speech leads such people to focus on “more prestigious” written speech (abuse of book elements, the desire to use participial and participial phrases without taking into account the norms of their use, etc.)
The speech of representatives of the average literary type is replete with rude and abusive words. Speech is dominated by clichés; the necessary self-control and preliminary preparation for speech are lacking.
d) literary-jargon type
The specificity of this type lies in the conscious imposition of reduced, often even illiterate speech. The desire for a “human language,” which manifested itself as a reaction to the Soviet officialdom of the media, led to the fact that people without any linguistic training came to journalism.
The danger of this type of speech culture lies in its perception by readers of newspapers and magazines and television and radio listeners as a standard of good speech.
e) everyday type
This type is found among the poorly educated population. Its speakers have only everyday skills, i.e. spoken language: they are unable to produce either formal monologue or written speech.
The most popular and implemented among young people is the average literary type of speech culture, which is also characterized by abruptness in the perception of the world and understanding of it; the predominance of information rather than persuasion.
Based on the current state of the speech culture of society in Lately In the science of speech culture, the problem of functional literacy as the basis for mutual understanding is being actively developed. Functional literacy does not cancel or downplay the importance of linguistic correctness, but emphasizes the insufficiency of a purely linguistic approach to the formation of speech culture, the need to focus primarily on the main functions of speech - communicative, and also requires great attention to speech culture in all the diversity of this concept.