The main concept of our course is the concept of the SRLA norm.

The last term needs clarification: a literary language is not a language fiction, is the language of cultural, educated people; protected by dictionaries, reference books, norms from distortions and deformations, rich in functional varieties; t.

E. he has special resources for business, scientific, public, everyday and other areas of communication; the Russian language is not only the language of the Russian nation, but also the language of international communication between the peoples of Russia and some countries of the near abroad, the UN language, one of the world languages; the modern Russian language developed mainly by the 40s of the nineteenth century as a result of literary activity A. S. Pushkin. The language of the last 168 years is called modern. We consider its variety of the 2nd half of the twentieth century. SLL is a strict hierarchical system, and each of its elements has its own system of norms studied by normative linguistic sciences. compliance

The term “norm” is used in 2 different meanings: 1) “norm” is a common usage fixed in the language; the norm is the use recommended by the grammar, reference book, dictionary (the so-called codified norm). A codified norm is stronger than an uncodified one, especially if the codification is known to the general population. It opens up opportunities to ensure greater stability of the norm, to prevent semi-spontaneous and seemingly uncontrolled changes in it.

In modern linguistic works, the hypothesis of the norm proposed by the Romanian scientist E. Coseriu has gained recognition: “The norm is a set of the most stable, traditional implementations of elements

linguistic structure, selected and fixed by public linguistic practice.

The norm presupposes evaluative attitude speakers and writers to the functioning of the language in speech: so it is possible, and so it is impossible; they say so, but they don't say so; so right and so wrong. This attitude is formed under the influence of fiction (its authoritative figures for society), science (it begins to describe, “codify” norms), schools.

The norm becomes a regulator of people's speech behavior, but this is a necessary but insufficient regulator, because compliance with the requirements of the norm alone is not enough for oral or written speech to be quite good, that is, to have the necessary finish and culture for communication. This can be explained by the fact that the norm regulates the purely structural, symbolic, linguistic side of speech, without affecting the relations of speech to reality, society, consciousness, and people's behavior that are most important in communication. Speech can be quite correct, i.e., not violating the language norm, but inaccessible for easy understanding. It may be logically inaccurate and contradictory, but correct. It may be correct, but in certain cases it is completely inappropriate. That is why all the great writers and critics understood that speaking and writing correctly is not the same as speaking and writing well.

Language norms are only at first glance static and unshakable. Of course, they imply relative stability and constancy, but this does not mean at all that the norms do not change. They reflect the dynamics of the language, its slow but steady development. People of one generation hardly notice this, but from the perspective of several generations, it is possible to trace the dynamics of language norms.

The Russian linguist of the 19th century, J. Grot, spoke about this in relation to vocabulary: “In the beginning, the word is allowed by very few; others shy away from him, look incredulously, as if at a stranger ... Little by little they get used to him, and his novelty is forgotten: the next generation already finds him in use and completely assimilates him ... "

Thus, norms are dynamic. But this dynamics is dialectically combined with relative constancy, consistency: only that new is assimilated and only those changes that are really necessary for the development of the language are strengthened (for example, foreign borrowings that have flooded into Russian speech today, not all will take root in the language).

It would seem that the norm implies an unambiguous decision: this is right, and this is wrong. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases it is. But any rule is only supported by exceptions. The norms of SRLYA can be variable (for example, solemn and solemn, bile and bile, sparkling and sparkling). The variability of norms is an indicator of their dynamics, "an objective and inevitable consequence of linguistic evolution."

In the course of language development, one of the options becomes obsolete and becomes a thing of the past (for example, hall = hall = hall; turner = turner in the 19th century; beetroot = beetroot, sanatorium = sanatorium; piano - now m. R. and piano - f. R. in the 19th century; tulle - obsolete. Zh. R. and tulle - now m. R.; report card of the schoolboy - m. R. and the Table of Ranks, introduced by Peter I - f. R.).

The change in norms, which is a consequence of the development of the language, is explained by the actual linguistic (intralinguistic) and social (extralinguistic) factors. Among the intralinguistic factors we should mention unification, simplification of grammatical forms; exclusion of doublets; convergence (coincidence during historical development two sounds into one) and divergence (the splitting of one speech sound in the course of historical development into two, for example, a table and a table). In the course of the culture of speech, it is more important to consider the extralinguistic factors of language changes, and, consequently, the dynamics of norms:

1) the nature of the development of social life (in our time - words from the field of business);

2) language policy - the conscious impact of society on language development(Paul 1 and his fight against gallicisms; for example, instead of a sergeant, he introduced military rank non-commissioned officer; citizen instead of tradesman);

3) degree of public freedom;

4) an objectively emerging sense of proportion in the use of linguistic units (vulgarism, jargon).

You can also find information of interest in the scientific search engine Otvety.Online. Use the search form:

More on the topic 3. The concept of a language norm. Literary norm codification:

1. 8. The concept of a language norm. Norm dynamics. Stability, mobility, variance as conditions for the existence of a language norm. The question of the admissibility of standard deviations.
2. The concept of norm as one of the most important in practical stylistics. The norm is linguistic and functional-style. Norm variability.

Before talking about speech norms, it is necessary to introduce the concept of the correctness of speech. Correctness of speech – this is the correspondence of its linguistic structure to the current language norms, this is not the only thing, but the main thing communication quality speech. The correctness of speech ensures mutual understanding between native speakers of any language, and also forms the unity of speech. In turn, the correctness of speech is due to compliance with the norms literary language, respectively, the incorrectness is associated with a deviation from these norms.

Let's start with the concept of a language norm. Language norm - this is "a set of the most stable, traditional implementations of the elements of the language structure, selected and fixed by public language practice." For a more complete and deeper understanding of the norm, one should take functioning structure and take into account paradigmatics and syntagmatics as two norms of "behavior" of the signs of a language in the process of its functioning. In the speech process, first the choice of one member of a particular paradigm occurs, and then the choice of one of the syntagmatic possibilities of a word (or another linguistic sign). The norm just prescribes what choice should be made by the author of the speech or the speaker. Consequently, the norm becomes a regulator of people's speech behavior, but it is a necessary but not sufficient regulator. You can follow all the rules, but at the same time, oral or written speech will not be good enough. In addition to the norm, there are other regulators of speech behavior: accuracy, consistency, purity, expressiveness, richness (variety), relevance of speech. However, the norm, as mentioned above, is a fundamental regulator of speech activity.

Considering all of the above, we can give the following definition of the norm: norm – this is the historically accepted choice of one of the functional and syntagmatic variants of a linguistic sign in a given language community. From this definition it follows that norms change over time and as a result of the action social conditions. Therefore, at any stage of the development of the language, the observance of both the old and the new norm is characteristic, since the change in norms cannot be uniform and fast.

In the Russian language, until recently, in the form of some words, they fluctuated between soft and hard pronunciations and spellings, especially in syllables. ry, ri. Thus, Pushkin often wrote: hide, hide, in Turgenev and Tolstoy we find: jerky Belinsky wrote: Alexandrinsky Theater etc. At the moment, this old norm is gone, and only the new one remains, according to which we pronounce the words like this: creak, chaise, Alexandrinsky Theater etc.

The norms change or remain depending on many circumstances, in particular on the degree of influence of the book on society and on the degree of influence of various language styles on the speech activity of people. The change in norms is also influenced by strong and sometimes dying dialects, changes in the composition of the population of cultural, administrative and political centers, the level of literacy, mastery of the literary language and its styles, and the codification of the literary norm itself.

Literary norm codification - this is its official recognition and description in dictionaries, reference books, grammars that have authority in the opinion of society. Codification makes it possible to ensure greater stability of the norm, to prevent its spontaneous changes. For example, colloquial speech imposes stress on native speakers call, call, call. However, the stress in the paradigm of the verb to call is different, codified: ringing b shh, ringing b t, ringing, ringing b those etc. When a norm is violated, the unity of the language is damaged, which is why the codification of the norm is so important.

The historical change in the norms of the literary language is an objective phenomenon, independent of the will and desire of individuals. It often happens that a particular norm is simply not learned by a person, he either did not encounter it in his speech, or, if he did, did not pay attention, did not study it properly and did not translate it into his speech skill. Sometimes a person forgets how to write or speak correctly and uses an easier version that is usually not correct. Sometimes a person does not even think about how he says: right or wrong. Maybe that's why we often hear in transport: "Passengers, pay for the fare!" The conductor does not think about the fact that "pay" need "travel", but "pay" - "for travel". As a result, errors occur in the speech of the speakers, which are often perceived and repeated by others.

In this regard, in speech it is necessary to distinguish between the norm and its distortion. There is a fundamental difference between objective fluctuations in the norm and their reflection in speech and subjective distortions of the norm. AT recent times works appeared, the authors of which talk about new norms colloquial speech. They refer to tape recordings, or interview tapes. These researchers consider their point of view to be correct, since they record the speech of educated people (teachers, scientists, engineers with secondary and higher education). However, education in itself does not provide knowledge of the language norm in its entirety and does not provide the assimilation of the necessary range of speech skills. Thus, talking about the existence of "norms of colloquial speech" is not entirely legitimate.

The norms of the literary language regulate functional variation, the choice of paradigmatic and syntagmatic variants on different levels language structure. In this regard, several structural-linguistic types of norms are distinguished.

Pronunciation norms regulate the choice of acoustic variants of the phoneme or alternating phonemes.

Stress norms control the choice of placement and movement options for each stressed syllable among the unstressed ones. The mobility and diversity of Russian stress make it difficult to master, especially for people who learn Russian as a foreign language.

Morphological norms regulate the choice of variants of the morphological form of the word and the ways of its coupling with others.

Syntactic norms determine the correctness of the construction of sentences - simple and complex.

Lexical norms regulate the choice of words and their meanings, characteristic and suitable for a given speech act. This choice is explained, first of all, by the expediency of using this or that word in any of its meanings.

Stylistic norms regulate the compliance of the chosen word or syntactic construction with the conditions of communication and the prevailing style of presentation. Here, too, they are guided not only by accepted norms, but by expediency in speech communication. To comply with stylistic norms, it is not enough just to know them, you need “taste” and “talent” to be able to apply them.

In modern linguistics, the term "norm" is understood in two meanings: firstly , the norm is the generally accepted use of a variety of language means, regularly repeated in the speech of speakers (reproduced by speakers), Secondly, instructions, rules, instructions for use, recorded in textbooks, dictionaries, reference books.

Language norms(norms of the literary language, literary norms) are the rules for the use of language means in a certain period of development of the literary language, i.e. rules of pronunciation, spelling, word usage, grammar. A norm is an example of a uniform, generally recognized use of language elements (words, phrases, sentences).

Language norms are not invented by philologists, they reflect a certain stage in the development of the literary language of the whole people. The norms of the language cannot be introduced or canceled by decree, they cannot be reformed by administrative means. The activity of linguists studying the norms of a language is different - they identify, describe and codify linguistic norms, as well as explain and promote them.

The main sources of the language norm are:

• works of classical writers;
• works contemporary writers, continuing the classical traditions;
• media publications;
• common modern usage;
• linguistic research data.

The characteristic features of language norms are:

• relative stability;
• prevalence;
• general use;
• general obligation;
• conformity with the use, custom and possibilities of the language system.

Norm criteria:

1) Matching the model. The first condition of normativity linguistic phenomenon- the correspondence of this phenomenon to productive word-formation, morphological, syntactic models.

2) Usability.

3) Necessity. Mere compliance of the model is not enough to be able to speak about the normativity of this or that phenomenon. It is also necessary to take into account the commonness of this formation, its existence in speech. The commonness of a phenomenon, its prevalence in the language is the most common and frequently encountered criterion of normativity.

Norm and literary language. Norm and codification.

In the literary language, the following types of norms are distinguished:

1) norms of written and oral forms of speech;

2) norms of written speech;

3) norms oral speech.

The norms common to oral and written speech include:

• lexical norms;
• grammatical norms;
• stylistic norms.

The special rules of writing are:

• spelling standards;
• punctuation rules.

Applies to spoken language only:

• pronunciation standards;
• stress norms;
• intonation rules.

The norms common to oral and written speech relate to the linguistic content and construction of texts. Lexical norms, or norms of word usage, are norms that determine the correct choice of a word from a number of units that are close to it in meaning or form, as well as its use in the meanings that it has in the literary language.

Lexical norms reflected in explanatory dictionaries, dictionaries foreign words, terminological dictionaries and reference books.

Compliance with lexical norms is the most important condition for the accuracy of speech and its correctness.

Grammatical norms are divided into word-formation, morphological and syntactic. Grammatical norms are described in the "Russian Grammar" prepared by the Academy of Sciences, in Russian language textbooks and grammar references.

Word-building norms determine the order of connecting parts of a word, the formation of new words.

A word-building mistake is the use of non-existent derivative words instead of existing derivative words with other affixes, for example: character description, salesmanship, hopelessness, the writer's works are distinguished by depth and truthfulness.

Morphological norms require the correct formation of grammatical forms of words of different parts of speech (forms of gender, number, short forms and degrees of comparison of adjectives, etc.). A typical violation of morphological norms is the use of a word in a non-existent or context-inappropriate inflectional form (the analyzed image, the reigning order, the victory over fascism, called Plyushkin a hole). Sometimes you can hear such phrases: railway rail, imported shampoo, registered parcel post, patent leather shoes. In these phrases, a morphological error was made - the gender of nouns was incorrectly formed.

Syntactic norms prescribe the correct construction of the main syntactic units - phrases and sentences. These norms include the rules of word agreement and syntactic control, correlating parts of a sentence with each other using grammatical forms of words in order for the sentence to be a competent and meaningful statement. There is a violation of syntactic norms in the following examples: when reading it, a question arises; The poem is characterized by a synthesis of lyrical and epic principles; Having married his brother, none of the children were born alive.

Stylistic norms determine the use of language means in accordance with the laws of the genre, the features of the functional style and, more broadly, with the purpose and conditions of communication.

The unmotivated use of words of a different stylistic coloring in the text causes stylistic errors. Stylistic norms are recorded in explanatory dictionaries as special marks, commented on in textbooks on the style of the Russian language and the culture of speech.

Stylistic errors consist in violation of stylistic norms, inclusion in the text of units that do not correspond to the style and genre of the text.

The most common stylistic mistakes are:

• stylistic inappropriateness (goes in cycles, royal lawlessness, doesn’t care, the love conflict is described in all its glory - in the text of the essay, in a business document, in an analytical article);
• the use of cumbersome, unsuccessful metaphors (Pushkin and Lermontov are two rays of light in a dark kingdom; These flowers - messengers of nature - do not know what kind of violent heart beats in their chests under stone slabs; Did he have the right to cut off this thread of life, which he did not hang himself? );
• lexical insufficiency (I am deeply concerned about this issue);
• lexical redundancy (He wakes them up so that they wake up; We must refer to the period of their life, that is, the period of time when they lived; Pushkin is a poet with a capital letter of this word);
• ambiguity (While Oblomov was sleeping, many were preparing for his awakening; Oblomov's only entertainment is Zakhar; Yesenin, preserving traditions, but somehow not so fond of the beautiful female sex; All actions and relationships between Olga and Oblomov were incomplete).

Spelling norms These are the rules for naming words in writing. They include the rules for designating sounds with letters, the rules for continuous, hyphenated and separate spelling of words, the rules for using uppercase (capital) letters and graphic abbreviations.

Punctuation norms determine the use of punctuation marks.

Punctuation tools have the following functions:

delimitation in a written text of one syntactic structure (or its element) from another;

fixation in the text of the left and right boundaries of the syntactic structure or its element;

combining several syntactic structures into a single whole in the text.

The norms of spelling and punctuation are enshrined in the "Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation" (M., 1956), the only most complete and officially approved set of spelling rules. On the basis of these rules, various spelling and punctuation reference books have been compiled, the most authoritative among which is D.E. Rosenthal, which was repeatedly reprinted, in contrast to the official set of rules itself, published twice - in 1956 and 1962.

Orthoepic norms include norms of pronunciation, stress and intonation. Compliance with orthoepic norms is an important part of the culture of speech, because. their violation creates an unpleasant impression on the listeners about the speech and the speaker himself, distracts from the perception of the content of the speech. Orthoepic norms are fixed in orthoepic dictionaries of the Russian language and stress dictionaries. Intonation norms are described in "Russian Grammar" (Moscow, 1980) and textbooks of the Russian language.

Dictionary. The most complete information about the word gives dictionary. The modern standard explanatory dictionary is the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by S.I. Ozhegov and N.Yu. Shvedova. It serves as a guide to the correct use of words, the correct formation of words, correct pronunciation and writing. From the whole variety of vocabulary of the modern Russian language, its main composition has been selected for this dictionary. In accordance with the tasks of the dictionary, it did not include: special words and meanings that have a narrow professional use; dialect words and meanings, if they are not widely used in the literary language; vernacular words and meanings with a pronounced rough coloring; obsolete words and meanings that have fallen out of active use; own names.

After interpreting the meaning of the word, if necessary, examples are given to illustrate its use in speech. Examples help to better understand the meaning of the word and how to use it. As examples are given short phrases, the most common combinations of words, as well as proverbs, proverbs, everyday and figurative expressions showing the use of this word.

Fifteen years ago, I happened to be on the phone when an assistant from the Deputy Minister of Culture of the USSR called our department and asked to consult his boss. What question did the deputy minister ask me? He said: “We have a magazine called Soviet Variety and Circus. They say here that this is a wrong name: it turns out that the circus is not Soviet.” I reassured the Deputy Minister, said that the circus was also Soviet and that this is how, in the singular, it is customary to use the definition in such cases. I gave a textbook example from I.S. Turgenev: “ Wild goose and the duck flew in first,” he remembered that they always wrote in party documents: “Soviet press, radio and television.” The last example seemed to my interlocutor especially convincing, and we said goodbye. A few minutes later, the referent called again and indignantly asked: “Why are you setting such a norm?”
The wording of the question is very revealing. It indicates a misunderstanding of the objective nature literary norms. People who do not have special philological training believe that the norms are set by linguists - compilers of dictionaries and authors of books on the culture of speech. This is completely false.
I will give a few examples. catalog or catalogue? ENGINEERS OR ENGINEER? According to the law or according to the law? How right? Modern dictionaries recommend the first option. Why? Who decides? Linguists? Maybe they still dictate language norms? No, no one invents the norms of the literary language, they do not depend on anyone's individual taste.
The language norm is how it is customary to speak and write in a given society in a given period. No one can introduce any word into use or, conversely, prohibit something in the language, remove it from it. Norms are formed gradually, on their own, in the language practice of people with a high speech culture: writers, scientists, journalists. It is not at the whim of linguists that we must speak the catalogue, engineers, according to the law. The fact is that other variants contradict the speech custom, do not correspond to the traditional use of these words by intelligent people. And dictionaries and grammars only reflect what, regardless of linguists, has developed in the literary language. A.S. understood this very well. Pushkin, who wrote as early as 1833: "Grammar does not prescribe laws to the language, but explains and approves its customs."
The publication of any dictionary or reference book is preceded by a long and painstaking work. Scientists using a variety of methods study how many educated people speak and write: in what meanings they use words, how they are pronounced, declined or conjugated, what words and constructions they use depending on the conditions of speech (after all, what is appropriate, say, in a conversation with friends - for example, a reader, quickly, I have something to write, it will sound strange in a scientific report).
Having thus obtained an idea of ​​the traditions that have objectively developed in literary speech, linguists fix them in dictionaries, reference books, grammars in the form of rules, recommendations, and thereby protect these traditions, make them obligatory for all of us who speak a literary language, wherever we live. . Such fixation of objectively existing literary norms is called codification (from the Latin word codex - "book").
A consistent distinction between the concepts of norm and codification was first carried out in the works of scientists from the Prague Linguistic Circle. This association of linguists, which existed in Prague before the Second World War, also included prominent Russian scientists: S.O. Kartsevsky, N.S. Trubetskoy and P.O. Yakobson. P. G. Bogatyrev, G. O. Vinokur, E. D. Polivanov, B. V. Tomashevsky, Yu. N. Tynyanov were creatively connected with the Prague people.
Scientists of the Prague Linguistic Circle believed that norms are inherent not only in the literary language, but also in any jargon or dialect. "The fact that a certain normalized, regular complex takes place here," wrote B. Gavranek, "is best revealed in the fact that deviations from this complex are perceived as something abnormal, as a deviation from the norm." I remember how in one of the villages of the Arkhangelsk region, where I was on a dialectological expedition, women laughed at their girlfriend, who deviated from the norms inherent in their dialect.
So, there are norms in any language community. But only literary norms are codified. Only they are protected by codification. When we say that a literary language is a standardized language, we mean the codification of literary norms. The codification is addressed to native speakers. Therefore, the Dictionary of Russian Folk Dialects (M., L., St. Petersburg, 1965-1994) or the Dictionary of Prison-Camp-Thieves Jargon (M., 1992) cannot be considered codification. Linguistic description of a literary language, vernacular, dialect or jargon, addressed to a narrow circle of specialists, not focused on native speakers given language, vernacular, dialect or jargon, and therefore having no effect on their speech practice, is not a codification. Codification also affects speech practice. For example, I want to use the form chauffeurA (im. pad. plural), but the codification qualifies it as colloquial and recommends another option - chauffeurs. And I consciously, under the influence of codification, refuse the form of a chauffeur and will use chauffeurs, chauffeurs, etc. This is where "the factor of social prestige comes into play - an important non-linguistic stimulator and "regulator" of normative regulations and assessments." I prefer the "chauffeurs" option, because the circle of people with whom I would like to associate has always used this option, it is also traditional for print, radio and television.
The terminological distinction between the concepts of norm and codification is necessary in order not to slide into the understanding of the norm as a dictate of linguists. The usefulness of such a distinction can be illustrated by the following examples.
The norms of the literary language are formed spontaneously, while codification is done by people, and they can make mistakes. So, the dictionary-reference book "Difficulties in word usage and variants of the norms of the Russian literary language" ed. K.S. Gorbachevich recommends pronouncing the initial consonant in the word "timbre" softly, even gives a prohibitive mark: "not [te] mbr". But this contradicts the language experience of each of us and the data of other dictionaries. In the "Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language", ed. R.I. Avanesova, the pronunciation variants of the words "effective", "peculiar" and similar ones with soft consonants "s" and "t" in the suffix "-stv-" are qualified as preferred, and variants with hard consonants are acceptable, although it is quite obvious that the first, old Moscow, the options are long outdated. Facts of this kind can be attributed to the curiosities of codification, but this should not cause us to be skeptical about dictionaries, which still in the vast majority of cases give us solid, proven material.
The life of a language is dynamic. Its norms, although slowly, are constantly changing (lexical norms change faster than pronunciation and grammatical ones). Sometimes a situation arises when the norm changes, but the codification remains the same, old, i.e. coding is out of the norm. When the eightieth birthday of Ditmar Elyashevich Rozental, who for many years headed the Department of Stylistics of the Russian Language at the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow University, was celebrated, the hero of the day was greeted by radio announcers. They sang comic verses to the tune of a gypsy romance. They contained these lines:
You gave us foil
And canceled rakurs.
What did the speakers mean? You will understand this if you find these words in dictionaries. The fact is that until very recently all dictionaries recommended pronouncing "foil" and "rakurs". Ditmar Elyashevich allowed the announcers to pronounce these words the way all normal people pronounce them, i.e. he changed the codification, made it conform to the norm. But how can we say that Ditmar Elyashevich changed the norm? No, the norm has changed spontaneously, for objective reasons. The codification was deliberately updated.
Linguists are in no hurry to legitimize any innovation. They, on the contrary, try, as long as there is an opportunity, to keep, to preserve the old norm. This is explained by the very essence, the purpose of codification as a means of language policy.
Language policy is understood as a conscious, purposeful impact of society, i.e. its specially designed institutions, on the functioning and development of the language. For example, the sphere of language policy in multilingual countries includes resolving the issue of giving a particular language the status of a state language, creating conditions for the development of culture, education in the national languages ​​of different peoples, developing alphabets for unwritten languages, and improving spelling.
One of the most important goals of the language policy is the preservation of the cultural heritage of the nation, its transmission from generation to generation. The codification of the norms of the literary language is called upon to achieve this goal. “If the literary dialect,” wrote the outstanding Russian linguist A.M. Peshkovsky, “changed quickly, then each generation could only use the literature of its own and the previous generation ... But under such conditions, there would be no literature itself, since the literature of each generation is created all previous literature. If Chekhov did not already understand Pushkin, then Chekhov would probably not exist. Too thin a layer of soil would give too little nourishment to literary shoots. The conservatism of the literary dialect, uniting centuries and generations, creates the possibility of a single powerful centuries-old national literature ".
In the poem by V.V. Mayakovsky "A cloud in pants" the words "parquet" and "Goethe" ("geti") rhyme:
What do I care about Faust
rocket extravaganza
sliding with Mephistopheles in the heavenly parquet!
I know -
nail in my boot
more nightmarish than Goethe's fantasy!
This verse is soldered by the sound roll call "parquet" - "in the boot" - "at Goethe" ("geti"). Sometimes school teachers When faced with such cases, they explain them as a distortion of the word by the poet for the sake of rhyme. This, of course, is not true. V.V. Mayakovsky was a professional poet, and he did not need to disfigure our language so that any word would fit into the meter and rhyme. The rhyme "parquet" - "geti" indicates that at the beginning of the 20th century a Russified version of the pronunciation of the German poet's surname was still possible. M.V. Panov in his "Phonetics" quotes lines from "Eugene Onegin":
He traveled the world with a lyre...
Under the sky of Schiller and Goethe... -
and explains that in Pushkin era there was not yet a special pronunciation subsystem of borrowed (“foreign cultural”) words, which is in the modern Russian language (after all, we pronounce many borrowed words in a completely different way than native ones). "The surname of the German poet Goethe could be pronounced either with strict observance of German phonetics ... (foreign insertions into Russian speech were generally accepted), or in a completely Russified form ... Pushkin's rhyme requires this second pronunciation, and then it is accurate ..."
But how to pronounce these verses of Pushkin and Mayakovsky today? No matter how we read them - observing modern norm or old, it will be bad. These verses are destroyed. Destroyed due to the fact that the norm has changed.
"Dictionary of Stress for Radio and Television Workers" from the fifth edition recommends the "spelling" pronunciation of the word "rain" - "dosht", while earlier the old Moscow version dominated the air - "dosh" - and this norm could still be preserved. Very soon we will forget that such a pronunciation was possible, it will seem to us as strange as "geti". And some other verses will be destroyed. For example, the exact rhyme in the verses of A.A. will be destroyed. Akhmatova "The Death of a Poet" (about B.L. Pasternak):
The unique voice was silent yesterday,
And the interlocutor of the groves left us.
He turned into a life giving ear
Or in the thinnest rain glorified by him.
“It can be so hard for the fate of poetic texts to change pronunciation norms. They die if there are a lot of changes (imagine a poem in which most of the rhymes turned out to be destroyed!).
An architectural monument also destroys time; it is being restored... With a sharp change in pronunciation norms, the restoration of a poetic text is impossible. (We are talking about its restoration for living perception, and not for scientific purposes.) This is the more cruel impact of time, this is irreparable damage. That is why the task of a reasonable orthoepic influence on the language is not to rush to accept, legitimize, recommend a pronunciation innovation. "This conclusion of M.V. Panov regarding the codification of pronunciation can be extended to the codification of all literary norms: in language policy, in general, traditionalism is progressive.
So, codification makes the literary language stable, helps it to remain itself as long as possible, to unite people who spoke and speak it in time. "The perfection of the literary language is in the unity of the norms of speech of fathers and children, great-grandfathers and great-grandchildren." This implies the main difficulty of codification - the search for a golden mean: the preservation of cultural and linguistic traditions should be reasonably combined with the adoption of those innovations that have become stable and widespread in the speech of educated people of our time.
The so-called permissible variants of pronunciation and stress dominate in the modern air. According to the scale of normativity proposed in the Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language, edited by Ruben Ivanovich Avanesov, an acceptable option is a “less desirable version of the norm” compared to the main, exemplary one. The difference between exemplary and acceptable options can be shown in the following example. Svetlana Morgunova, an announcer of Central Television, a professional of the highest class, took part in one of the Apocrypha programs (Culture TV channel). When one of the participants in the program said: “We created ...”, Morgunova immediately corrected him: “We created!”. The reaction of an experienced announcer is very indicative: the variant was created - exemplary, elitist, and created - acceptable. With the help of the dictionary mark “permissible”, linguists go towards native speakers, as if they are telling them: “Well, say it, since you want it so much.” Indeed, the acceptable options almost do not compromise the speakers. It is easy to explain the linguistic patterns that determine the high frequency of these variants.
The modern Russian language inherited from the Old Russian language the stress on the ending in nouns, combined with the numerals two, three, four, both: two hoursA, two stepsA, two rowsA, two sides. These are relic forms of the nominative case of the dual number (these forms were used in the Old Russian language when it came to two, three or four objects), perceived by modern linguistic consciousness as forms genitive singular. Now options with an accent on the ending, as in the examples given, are gradually being replaced by options with an emphasis on the root. To the greatest extent, this applies to the phrase both parties, often heard in news programs, but, as a rule, pronounced by journalists in a new way - with an emphasis on the root. It seems to me that in this case it is still possible to keep the old norm. And why this should be done, I tried to explain in this work. Why kill the norms that bind us to cultural heritage Russia? You need to be aware that, for example, "The Tale of Igor's Campaign" as artistic text for us is largely lost: even the best translation of his, such as N.A. Zabolotsky, - this is already the work of N.A. Zabolotsky. Only people who are indifferent to the fate of Russian culture can calmly relate to the fact that language norms are changing too quickly.
In conclusion, I would like to urge journalists to strictly follow scientific recommendations in their speech behavior: refer to dictionaries more often, study special works, and when learning a profession, pay more attention to language classes. Then Russian speech on the air and on the pages of newspapers will be able to regain its former status of an authoritative model.
When solving the problem of choosing an option for the broadcast, the good old advice of Ruben Ivanovich Avanesov remains in force: you need to “look more often into authoritative dictionaries and reference books”. With all the costs that exist in the lexicographic business, dictionaries in the overwhelming majority of cases give verified, well-founded recommendations.
References
1. Pushkin A.S. Works in three volumes. T.Z. M., 1986, p.491.
2. See the collection "Prague Linguistic Circle". M., 1967.
3. Gavranek B. Tasks of the literary language and its culture. - In the book: Prague Lin-
guistic circle, p.339.
4. Itskovich V.A. Essays on the syntactic norm. M., 1982, p. eleven.
5. Skvortsov L.I. Theoretical basis speech culture. M., 1980, p. 105.
6. Difficulties in word usage and variants of the norms of the Russian literary language. Slo-
var-reference book, ed. K.S. Gorbachev. L., 1974, p.440.
7. Pronouncing dictionary Russian language. Ed. R.I. Avanesov. M., 1997, p.116,
509.

8. Peshkovsky A.M. An objective and normative point of view on language. - In the book: Pesh-
Kovsky A.M. Selected works. M., 1959, p.55.
9. Mayakovsky V.V. Selected works in two volumes. T.2. M., I960, p. 13.
10. Panov M.V. Modern Russian language. Phonetics. M., 1979, p. 199.
11. Ageenko F L., Zarva M.V. Accent Dictionary for Radio and Television Workers.
Ed. D.E. Rosenthal. Ed. 5th. M., 1984, p. 131.
12. Akhmatova A.A. Poems and prose. L., 1977, p.412.
13. Panov M.V., op. cit., pp. 199, 200.
14. Ibid., p. 199.
15. Avanesov R.I. Russian literary pronunciation. M., 1984, p. 221.

Language levels- these are subsystems of the general language system, each of which is characterized by a set of relatively homogeneous units and a set of rules governing their use and grouping into various classes. The following U.I. are usually distinguished: phonetic (unit - sounds and phonemes), morphemic (unit - morphemes), lexical (unit - lexemes), morphological (unit - forms and classes of words), syntactic (unit - sentences and phrases).

Language norm- these are the rules of speech behavior of a native speaker, socially approved, objectified by speech practice and reflecting the laws of the language system.

Reasons for changing the norm:
Language reasons:
1) the law of speech economy = the law of least effort
2) Law of analogy
3) Law of speech tradition
Non-linguistic (extra-linguistic) reasons for changing the norm are various social and historical factors, as well as linguistic fashion and linguistic taste.

Signs of the norm:

1) the norm is static in a certain period of time and dynamic in its development. The dynamics of the norm is associated with the existence of a triad of systems (a language system is a set and a way of expressing special ones in a given language).
2) the norm is variant and variant. A variant is understood as parallel ways of expressing the same linguistic content. Options give more options for their implementation: neutral and outdated (film, sanatorium); neutral colloquial (on vacation - on vacation); neutral colloquial (their - theirs); neutral vernacular (compAs, alcohol, drug addiction); neutral folk-ethical (gate - gate, girl - red girl)
3) universality and locality. Locality is professional and territorial.

There are the following types (types) of structural and linguistic norms:

1) I. n. pronunciations regulate the choice of acoustic variants of the phoneme or alternating phonemes - at each step of the development of speech and in each syllable of a single word. It is possible - (gold), it is impossible - (gold); you can - (agarot, usad "ba), you can not - (agharod, mustache" ba).

2) I. n. stresses regulate the choice of placement and movement of the stressed syllable among the unstressed ones. You can - (quarter), you can not - (quarter). N. Russian modern stress in the literary language is closely related to morphological properties parts of speech and turn out to be one of their formal indicators. The mobility and heterogeneity of modern Russian stress makes it difficult to assimilate, especially by persons for whom Russian is not their native language and is not assimilated by them. early childhood, which leads to the "imposition" of new accentological Ya. n. into old ones, already learned in their native language.

3) I. n. lexical ones regulate word usage - they do not allow violation of the traditionally fixed correlation of the name with a certain object, a phenomenon of the real world. So, for example, it is forbidden to call a loaf of white or black bread a loaf, because the word loaf has a traditionally fixed correlation with another object: a product made from wheat flour, which has a round or oval shape, is called a loaf. Lexical I. n. determine reproducibility in literary texts and in oral forms communication of a certain word from a number of possible ones that have the same subject relatedness in various forms the existence of the Russian language. So, for example, the first word of these series is literary-normalized, although all the words of this series denote the same object or the same phenomenon: yesterday, the other day; eyes, peepers, zenki, burkaly, walleye, balls; slap, slap in the face; thank you, thank you; cold, cold, chill; generous, thorny, etc. Phraseological Ya. n. regulate the use of turns of speech traditionally associated with the characteristics of certain phenomena. So, for example, the expression goosebumps is recognized as a codified expression as a figurative characteristic of the state of a person who feels an attack of some chill or trembling, but the expression of goosebumps jumping (or crawling) is considered unacceptable.

4) I. n. derivational ones do not allow the use of words in literary texts, the structure of which violates the principles of combining morphemes. Therefore, these I. n. restrain the influx into the composition of the literary vocabulary of words that do not correspond to the word-formation structure of the models.

5) I. n. morphological ones determine the literary status of certain word forms and do not allow the use of other word forms, although they are a speech means in various types of "speaking". So, for example, the following word forms are recognized as literary, correct: officers (not an officer), engineers (not an engineer), elections (not a choice), professors (not professors), shurya (not brothers-in-law), brothers-in-law (not brothers-in-law), sonorous (not louder), sweeter (not sweeter), a pair of socks (not a sock), a pair of stockings (not stockings), a cup of coffee (not coffee), etc.

6) I. n. syntactic ones require compliance with the rules of agreement: big kangaroo, big bra (but not big kangaroo and not big bra), controls: laugh through tears (but not through tears), rules for the arrangement of words in the sentence structure, expression of various relationships between parts complex sentence etc.

7) I. n. stylistic cover certain aspects (features) of use speech means in various areas of literary-normalized communication: they predetermine the attachment of one or another means of speech to a certain area of ​​speech activity, i.e., the use of words, expressions, word forms, the way words are combined, types of syntactic constructions in certain contexts and speech situations .

Differ I. n. imperative and dispositive. Imperative (i.e., strictly obligatory) I. n. - these are those whose violation is regarded as poor language proficiency (for example, violation of the norms of declension, conjugation or belonging to the grammatical gender). Such I. n. do not allow variants (non-variable Ya. n.), and any other implementations are regarded as incorrect, invalid, for example: alphabet (not alphabet), accepted (did not accept), chicken (not chicken), thanks to which (not due to which). Unlike imperative Y. n., dispositive (i.e., supplementary, not strictly obligatory) allow options - stylistically different or completely neutral (variable Y. n.), for example: barge and barge, on vacation (neutr.) - on vacation (colloquial), compass - for sailors: compass. A literary norm can be a fact of codification or be at the stage of realization of codification possibilities, and also act as a potency of normalizing tendencies in the sphere of communication. That is why researchers consider it necessary to focus on the dynamic nature of the literary norm, on the dialectical nature of the very process of codification of means of communication.

At the level of speech activity, such I. n. are distinguished, such as embodied, or realized, and unembodied, potential, realizable. Implemented Ya. n. consists of two parts: 1) the actualized part (modern, productive, active, well-recognized and practically codified), 2) the non-actualized part (it includes archaisms, obsolete variants of Y. n., as well as rare-to-use variants, doublets, etc.). ImplementedI. n. also breaks up into two parts: 1) becoming I. n. - neologisms and neologisms at different levels of the language and 2) a fundamentally uncoded area of ​​​​speech activity (individual, occasional, created for the occasion, etc., but necessary in the process of communication of education). General literary Y. n. may vary in different ways, i.e., appear in the form of variants as a consequence of the functional-dynamic existence of means of communication. So, in the accentological state of the modern literary language, there is a competing activity of variants with the stress moving to the beginning of the word cooper vm. cooper, butt vm. butt, glider vm. glider, born vm. was born), as well as variants with stress moving to the end of the word (need vm. need).
Significant groups of words are drawn into the sphere of morphological variation. This is due to a number of factors: the presence of sonorous sounds in the outcome of the stem of nouns (eggplant vi. eggplant, roe deer vm. roe deer, similar vm. gangway, nursery vm. manger), movement of stress (winds vm. winds, barge vm. barge), etc. . P.
The increase in variability in the field of literary normalized communication is a complex and multifaceted process associated with the development of the literary language and its role in society; this may be a consequence of evolutionary transformations in the structure of the language, the aging of some Ya. n. and the emergence of others, the interaction of oral (colloquial) and written (book) forms of speech, the competition of the system capabilities of one or another means of communication within the literary language. Nevertheless, the tendency towards expediency in acts of speech activity predetermines the direction of the structural and linguistic preference of the speech variant, which finds its expression in the development and codification of literary norms (interaction and interpenetration of functional speech variants, expansion of the normative weight of the variant, neutralization of the functional speech mark as a consequence of the convergence of the variant of oral and written speech, the normalization of variants as a fact of stylistic differentiation).

Norm codification- fixing the norm in dictionaries, reference books, grammar, etc.
Language system- a set of units of a given language level in their unity and interconnectedness; classes of units and rules for their formation, transformation and combination. In this sense, one speaks of a phonological, morphological, word-building, syntactic, lexical, semantic system of a given language or (more narrowly) of systems (subsystems) of declension and conjugation, verb and name, aspect and tense, gender and case, etc. Distinguish the core of the system, which includes the main language units and rules, and its periphery - little-used facts that stand on the border of the literary language (outdated, jargon, dialect, etc.); distinguish between the core and the periphery of the grammatical system. In connection with the functional-stylistic stratification of the language (colloquial, official, newspaper-journalistic, scientific, etc.) and the fundamental admissibility of non-coincidence of norms in different styles, language is sometimes defined as a system of systems (or subsystems).
Usus- (from Latin usus - use, use, custom) - in linguistics, the generally accepted use of a language unit (word, phraseological unit, etc.) in contrast to its occasional (temporary and individual) use (for example, neologisms are not usual units language). Usus is a speech practice, the actual use of language in different areas communication. The concept of language is closely connected with the concepts of a language norm and a language system. The language norm fixes only some of the possibilities provided by the language, and reflects only some of the possibilities of the usual use of the language. Usually, the usual use of language units is fixed by dictionaries (explanatory, phraseological, spelling, orthoepic, etc.).