Kostomarov in the linguistic taste of the era. Vereshchagin E.M., Kostomarov V.G.

Doctor of Philology, Professor, President of the State Institute of the Russian Language. A. S. Pushkin

Born January 3, 1930 in Moscow. In 1952 he graduated as an external student from the Russian Department of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov, in 1953 - the English Department of the Translation Department of the Moscow Institute of Foreign Languages. In 1955 he received a Ph.D. degree (postgraduate study at the Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences), in 1969 - a Doctor of Philology degree (Faculty of Journalism, Moscow State University). Full member of the Russian Academy of Education (until 1991, the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR).

He worked at the Higher Party School under the Central Committee of the CPSU as a translator, then as a teacher and head of the Russian language department until 1964, after which for two years he headed the speech culture sector of the Russian Language Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Currently, he is the President of the State Institute of the Russian Language named after V.I. A. S. Pushkin (until 1971, the Scientific and Methodological Center of the Russian Language as part of the Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov). In 1990-1992 was elected president of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR.

V. G. Kostomarov belongs to the linguistic school of academician V. V. Vinogradov and is engaged in the study of modern Russian stylistics and lexicology, trends in the development of the Russian language, which are found primarily in the field of mass media language (books “Culture of Speech and Style”, “ Russian language on a newspaper page”, “Linguistic taste of the era”, “Our language in action”). In collaboration with E. M. Vereshchagin, he studied the relationship between language and culture, substantiated a special scientific direction - linguoculturology (the books "Language and Culture", published in six editions, "Linguistic and Cultural Theory of the Word", etc.). He was also interested in sociolinguistic problems, the place and role of the Russian language among other languages ​​(the books "The Life of a Language", "The Russian Language Among Other Languages ​​of the World"). On duty, he was engaged in linguodidactics (collectively written books “Methodological guide for teachers of the Russian language to foreigners”, “Methods of teaching Russian as a foreign language”, as well as a number of textbooks, primarily “Russian language for everyone”, which had 14 editions and was awarded in 1979 State Prize of the USSR). The total number of publications exceeds 600. Under the guidance of VG Kostomarov, 56 doctoral and master's theses were defended. Editor-in-Chief of the Russian Speech magazine, member of the editorial board of the Russian Language Abroad magazine.

Since the formation of the International Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature, he has been elected to its leadership as the Secretary General and President, and is currently elected Vice President.

Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, laureate of the Russian President's Prize in the field of education, has domestic and foreign awards, an honorary doctorate from a number of universities.

Vitaly Grigoryevich Kostomarov (January 3, 1930, Moscow) is a Soviet and Russian linguist, Doctor of Philology, professor, corresponding member, full member and president of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR (now the Russian Academy of Education).

Since 1966 - Director of the Scientific and Methodological Center of the Russian Language at Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov, the initiator of the creation of the State Institute of the Russian Language. A.S. Pushkin, director and first rector of the Institute, since 2001 - President of the IRL. A. S. Pushkin. Ex-president of the International Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature (MAPRYAL).

Editor-in-Chief of the Russian Speech magazine. Member of the Board of Trustees of the Interregional Public Foundation "Center for the Development of Interpersonal Communications" (Chairman of the Board - Artur Sergeevich Ocheretny).

One of the students and followers of the famous Soviet linguist Viktor Vladimirovich Vinogradov. In collaboration with E.M. Vereshchagin studied the relationship between language and culture, substantiated a special scientific direction - linguistic and regional studies (the books "Language and Culture", published in six editions, "Linguistic and Cultural Theory of the Word", etc.).

Books (5)

Language life. From Vyatichi to Muscovites

The book retrospectively recreates the life of the Russian language from modernity to antiquity, from the familiar to the forgotten.

The author connects the development of the language with the history of peoples, paying considerable attention to Russian antiquity, the peculiarities of the life of Russians, especially Muscovites, since it was on Moscow soil that the basic norms of Russian literary speech were formed.

Our language in action

Essays on modern Russian stylistics.

The author proposes a new concept of stylistics, reflecting the functioning and state of the Russian language at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. The interaction and interpenetration of "styles" leads to shifts in the ratio of the stylistics of the resources of the language and the stylistics of their current use (stylistics of texts). Groupings of texts, which are described not by a list of typical language units, but by a vector indication of the rules for their selection and composition, become the key concept and object of study.

Particular attention is paid to the texts of the mass media, the new ratio of written and oral texts, bookishness and colloquialism, even vernacular in communication, as well as the appeal to non-verbal means and ways of transmitting information, which is characteristic of modern texts.

Dictionary of grammatical difficulties of the Russian language

The dictionary is an experience of an aspect lexicographic manual and is a linguistic description for educational purposes of complex phenomena of Russian morphology.

It consists of two parts. The first part of the dictionary systematizes 18 grammatical categories of three parts of speech: noun, adjective and verb. The second part of the dictionary includes about 2.2 thousand entries, each of which is devoted to a word marked by the difficulties described in the first part.

Language and culture

The study consists of 3 sections, 12 parts, 56 chapters. For the first time in the book, a holistic and comprehensive presentation of the linguistic understanding of the central linguistic problem - the relationship between language and culture. The proposed philological tool really allows you to objectify the national culture through language, texts and capture the specifics of the semantics of the language in terms of the genesis and functioning of culture.

The language of the moment. The concept of correctness

The processes taking place in the modern Russian language are analyzed, among the most important is the convergence of its spoken and written varieties, which occurs under the influence of network communication. The mechanisms of changing the language norm and the influence of society on the language are also considered.

V. G. Kostomarov

Language taste of the era

© Kostomarov V. G. (text), 1999

© LLC Center "Zlatoust", 1999

* * *

The author sincerely thanks O. Veldina, M. Gorbanevsky, I. Ryzhova, S. Ermolenko and L. Pustovit, I. Erdei, F. van Doren, M. Peter, R. N. Popov and N. N. Shansky, N. D. Burvikov, who published reviews of the first and second editions of the book, N. A. Lyubimov, S. G. Ilyenko, V. M. Mokienko and other colleagues who organized its public discussion in St. Petersburg, as well as Yu. A. Belchikov , N. I. Formanovskaya, O. D. Mitrofanov, O. A. Laptev, O. B. Sirotinin, N. P. Kolesnikova, L. K. Graudin, T. L. Kozlovskaya and many others who conveyed their opinions and comments to the author. Heartfelt gratitude to A. M. Demin, V. A. Sekletov, T. G. Volkova and all friends at the Pushkin Institute of the Russian Language.

The remarks and wishes made, if possible, were taken into account, the factual material was updated, but in general this is a reprint, and not a new work. It does not take into account the fundamental research on the topic that appeared after 1994, such as “The Russian language of the end of the 20th century (1985–1995)” edited by E. A. Zemskaya (M., 1996) or “Russian language” edited by E. N Shiryaeva (Opole, 1997). The justification can be that the most important ideas for the author (the concept of taste as a socio-psychological factor in the evolution of the language, the relationship between colloquialism and bookishness in it, the role of mass media, etc.) remain relevant and still not developed.

The book uses the following abbreviations:

AiF - Arguments and Facts

BV - Exchange statements

VM - Evening Moscow

VYa - Questions of linguistics

WRC - Issues of culture of speech

Izv. – Izvestia

KP - Komsomolskaya Pravda

LG - Literary newspaper

MN - Moscow News

MK - Moskovsky Komsomolets

MP - Moskovskaya Pravda

NG - Nezavisimaya Gazeta

OG - General newspaper

Etc. - Truth

RV - Russian News

RG - Rossiyskaya Gazeta

RR - Russian speech

RYa - Russian language in the national school (Russian language in the USSR, Russian language in the CIS)

RYAZR - Russian Language Abroad

RYASH - Russian language at school

SK - Soviet culture

FI - Financial news

ES - Private property

Note. Unless otherwise specified in the text, the following order of citation of the source is adopted. In the name or its abbreviation, the year and number are given after the comma (without the sign No.), and also, when necessary, the page (after the page). In many cases the date of the daily newspaper is given, with the first digit being the day, the second the month, and the third the last two digits of the year.

Introduction: Problem Statement

0.1. The most common characteristic of the living processes observed in the Russian literary language of our days cannot but be recognized as democratization - in its understanding, which is substantiated in the monograph by V.K. Zhuravlev "Interaction of external and internal factors in the development of the language" (M., Nauka, 1982; Actual tasks of modern linguodidactics, in: "Linguistic and methodological problems of teaching Russian as a non-native language. Actual problems of teaching communication", M., 1989). Such spheres of literary communication as mass communication, including the written language of periodicals, are most clearly democratized.

However, the term liberalization is more accurate to characterize these very rapidly developing processes, because they affect not only folk layers of the national Russian language, but also educated which turned out to be alien to the literary canon of recent decades. On the whole, the literary and linguistic norm becomes less definite and obligatory; the literary standard becomes less standard.

To a certain extent, the situation of the 20s is repeated, when post-revolutionary pink optimism gave rise to a desire to profoundly transform not only the social system and economic structure, but also culture, but also the literary language canon. Of course, contemporaries assessed what was happening very differently (see: L. I. Skvortsov. On the language of the first years of October. RR, 1987, 5; cf. S. O. Kartsevsky. Language, war and revolution. Berlin, 1923; A. M Selishchev, Language of the Revolutionary Era, Moscow, 1928). Such a social situation is in good agreement with the ideas of A. A. Shakhmatov about expanding the boundaries of the literary language, and this is exactly how the representatives thought and acted, as S. I. Ozhegov put it, new Soviet intelligentsia. Methodists, in particular, argued that the traditional subject native language in the Russian school there is, in fact, the study of a foreign language, which requires "to expand the study of the standard language ... to study the dialects with which our standard language is surrounded, from which it feeds" (M. Solonino. On the study of the language of the revolutionary era. "Russian language in the Soviet school ”, 1929, 4, p. 47).

The “old intelligentsia”, for the most part in exile, stood for the inviolability of the literary language, resenting its flood with dialectisms, jargon, foreignness, even changing spelling rules, especially the expulsion of the letter yat. This diametrically opposed approach also triumphed within the country, emerging in the 1930s and unquestionably triumphing in the 1940s. The discussion in 1934, connected with the authority of M. Gorky, outlined the path to the mass cultivation of speech, demanding write in Russian, not in Vyatka, not in robes. Conscious proletarian language policy was held under the slogan of overcoming multilingualism, primarily peasant - a single national language for all workers. Linguistic variability was also fettered in the literary language itself.

By virtue of these, necessarily schematically and simplified events of history, as well as a number of subsequent ones, we came to the 50s with a very ossified and strictly enforced literary norm, which fully corresponded to the socio-political situation of a totalitarian state. By the end of the first post-war decade, free-thinking writers began to fight against it - both in their practice and in theory, and K. I. Chukovsky was in the forefront of them. The return to living orientations was, however, painful. Russia as a whole turned out to be more conservative than innovative.

Will history repeat itself? Now our society, no doubt, has embarked on the path of expanding the boundaries of the literary language, changing its composition, its norms. Moreover, the normal pace of linguistic dynamics is sharply increased, which creates an undesirable gap in the continuity of traditions, in the integrity of culture. Even being quickly suspended, such processes of the 1920s - with their creative orientation towards the liberalization of the language - left significant traces in our educated communication. And even now voices are heard more and more loudly, expressing fears about the state of the Russian literary language, to which the following leads along the path of expanding literary and linguistic boundaries.

Even those who welcome the triumphant liberalism, to whom it seems quite justified against the background of society's departure from inert authoritarian unanimity to freedom, to freedom, to diversity, protest against the recklessness of this process, against the extremes in the desirable course of events. Agreeing with the call of A. S. Pushkin to give the Russian language “more freedom to develop in accordance with its laws”, they do not want to calmly put up with carelessness, looseness in the use of the language, with permissiveness in the choice of means of expression. But in these phenomena they do not see the inevitable consequences of a justified attitude, but only individual, albeit frequent to the mass level, manifestations of the low cultural level of the population, elementary ignorance of the norms of the literary language and the laws of style.

Undoubtedly, and this is the case, exacerbating the results of the conscious actions of quite literate and cultured people who are well aware of the norms and laws of style. This is evidenced by the following experimental data: Moscow schoolchildren in 80% of speech situations requiring the use of speech etiquette formulas do without them; about 50% of boys address each other by nicknames, of which more than half are offensive; about 60% of students use stamps that do not convey sincerity of feeling when congratulating parents, teachers, friends. The author of these calculations believes that it is increasingly necessary to specifically teach children at school the accepted rules of communication (N. A. Khalezova. On the possibilities of working on speech etiquette when studying grammatical material. РЯШ, 1992, 1, p. 23).

It is significant that now there is an obvious drop in the level of artistic taste, for example, according to a sociological study, only 15 percent of children with a developed artistic taste leave urban schools now, while in the early 80s there were about 50 percent; in rural schools, respectively, 6 and 43%. The preference of the population is focused mainly on foreign layers of art, and especially popular are chamber plots dedicated to love, family, sex, adventure, as well as lightweight music, of dubious quality of film detective. (Yu. U. Fokht-Babushkin. Artistic culture: problems of study and management. M .: Nauka, 1986; his own. Artistic life of Russia. Report to the Russian Academy of Education, 1995.)

Based on a huge amount of factual material, the book analyzes the processes taking place in the language of modern mass media. the ever-increasing role of the media in the formation of the language norm is noted and the concept of taste is introduced as a factor influencing the norm, explaining the direction of language evolution. The book is intended for a wide range of readers who are concerned about the fate of their native word.

Introduction: Problem Statement

0.1. The most common characteristic of the living processes observed in the Russian literary language of our days cannot but be recognized as democratization - in its understanding, which is substantiated in the monograph by V.K. Zhuravlev "Interaction of external and internal factors in the development of the language" (M., Nauka, 1982; Actual tasks of modern linguodidactics, in: "Linguistic and methodological problems of teaching Russian as a non-native language. Actual problems of teaching communication", M., 1989). Such spheres of literary communication as mass communication, including the written language of periodicals, are most clearly democratized.

However, the term liberalization is more accurate to characterize these very rapidly developing processes, because they affect not only folk layers of the national Russian language, but also educated which turned out to be alien to the literary canon of recent decades. On the whole, the literary and linguistic norm becomes less definite and obligatory; the literary standard becomes less standard.

To a certain extent, the situation of the 20s is repeated, when post-revolutionary pink optimism gave rise to a desire to profoundly transform not only the social system and economic structure, but also culture, but also the literary language canon. Of course, contemporaries assessed what was happening very differently (see: L. I. Skvortsov. On the language of the first years of October. RR, 1987, 5; cf. S. O. Kartsevsky. Language, war and revolution. Berlin, 1923; A. M Selishchev, Language of the Revolutionary Era, Moscow, 1928). Such a social situation is in good agreement with the ideas of A. A. Shakhmatov about expanding the boundaries of the literary language, and this is exactly how the representatives thought and acted, as S. I. Ozhegov put it, new Soviet intelligentsia. Methodists, in particular, argued that the traditional subject native language in the Russian school there is, in fact, the study of a foreign language, which requires "to expand the study of the standard language ... to study the dialects with which our standard language is surrounded, from which it feeds" (M. Solonino. On the study of the language of the revolutionary era. "Russian language in the Soviet school ”, 1929, 4, p. 47).

The “old intelligentsia”, for the most part in exile, stood for the inviolability of the literary language, resenting its flood with dialectisms, jargon, foreignness, even changing spelling rules, especially the expulsion of the letter yat. This diametrically opposed approach also triumphed within the country, emerging in the 1930s and unquestionably triumphing in the 1940s. The discussion in 1934, connected with the authority of M. Gorky, outlined the path to the mass cultivation of speech, demanding write in Russian, not in Vyatka, not in robes. Conscious proletarian language policy was held under the slogan of overcoming multilingualism, primarily peasant - a single national language for all workers. Linguistic variability was also fettered in the literary language itself.

By virtue of these, necessarily schematically and simplified events of history, as well as a number of subsequent ones, we came to the 50s with a very ossified and strictly enforced literary norm, which fully corresponded to the socio-political situation of a totalitarian state. By the end of the first post-war decade, free-thinking writers began to fight against it - both in their practice and in theory, and K. I. Chukovsky was in the forefront of them. The return to living orientations was, however, painful. Russia as a whole turned out to be more conservative than innovative.

Will history repeat itself? Now our society, no doubt, has embarked on the path of expanding the boundaries of the literary language, changing its composition, its norms. Moreover, the normal pace of linguistic dynamics is sharply increased, which creates an undesirable gap in the continuity of traditions, in the integrity of culture. Even being quickly suspended, such processes of the 1920s - with their creative orientation towards the liberalization of the language - left significant traces in our educated communication. And even now voices are heard more and more loudly, expressing fears about the state of the Russian literary language, to which the following leads along the path of expanding literary and linguistic boundaries.

Even those who welcome the triumphant liberalism, to whom it seems quite justified against the background of society's departure from inert authoritarian unanimity to freedom, to freedom, to diversity, protest against the recklessness of this process, against the extremes in the desirable course of events. Agreeing with the call of A. S. Pushkin to give the Russian language “more freedom to develop in accordance with its laws”, they do not want to calmly put up with carelessness, looseness in the use of the language, with permissiveness in the choice of means of expression. But in these phenomena they do not see the inevitable consequences of a justified attitude, but only individual, albeit frequent to the mass level, manifestations of the low cultural level of the population, elementary ignorance of the norms of the literary language and the laws of style.

Undoubtedly, and this is the case, exacerbating the results of the conscious actions of quite literate and cultured people who are well aware of the norms and laws of style. This is evidenced by the following experimental data: Moscow schoolchildren in 80% of speech situations requiring the use of speech etiquette formulas do without them; about 50% of boys address each other by nicknames, of which more than half are offensive; about 60% of students use stamps that do not convey sincerity of feeling when congratulating parents, teachers, friends. The author of these calculations believes that it is increasingly necessary to specifically teach children at school the accepted rules of communication (N. A. Khalezova. On the possibilities of working on speech etiquette when studying grammatical material. РЯШ, 1992, 1, p. 23).

It is significant that now there is an obvious drop in the level of artistic taste, for example, according to a sociological study, only 15 percent of children with a developed artistic taste leave urban schools now, while in the early 80s there were about 50 percent; in rural schools, respectively, 6 and 43%. The preference of the population is focused mainly on foreign layers of art, and especially popular are chamber plots dedicated to love, family, sex, adventure, as well as lightweight music, of dubious quality of film detective. (Yu. U. Fokht-Babushkin. Artistic culture: problems of study and management. M .: Nauka, 1986; his own. Artistic life of Russia. Report to the Russian Academy of Education, 1995.)

A bright fire of criticism is caused by the media, primarily television. And the point here is not only in violations of the literary and linguistic norm, but precisely in disrespect for the word, in attempts to change the “linguistic sign” and through it the national traditional mentality. The Russian proverb “What is written with a pen cannot be cut down with an ax” seems to be losing its power. This is what makes many subscribe under such observation by the First Deputy Prime Minister of the Government of Moscow V. Resin: “Some kind of terrible epidemic of unreliability, distortion of figures, facts, words, situations is raging in the press” (Nov., 24.1.98). In unison, the words of Academician A. I. Vorobyov sound about some medical interviews: “We are talking about our common fall into sin. We talk too much and think too little about how our randomly thrown phrases will respond to the fate of other people ”(MK, 24.1.98).

Against this background, it is clear why the traditional phraseology is being destroyed ( Not one of those in power expressed indignation- "Soviet Russia", 29.11.97 - contamination of expressions hold power and those in power. Shortest way to Rome- cell phone advertisement in January 1998, refuting well-known expressions all roads lead to Rome, language will bring to Kyiv etc.), the usual phrase is violated ( creaking heart - TV RTR 9.11.97, in the weather forecast "Mayak" 29.12.97: coldest, warmest there instead of warmest). Accepted stylistic decencies are discarded (in the speech of the host of the Silver Rain radio station A. Gordon on the morning of 4.8.97: I'm wildly sorry, a new joke, well, if you prick, a CD will be released, and a cassette for poor rockers. The podium of the avant-garde fashion crowd is also open for ready-to-wear- AiF, 1996, 34), direct errors are allowed ( You can forfeit that they didn’t even enter the first hundred -"Mozhayskoe highway", 1997, 7, although in the Russian dictionary there is only a verb grumble. I hope there are no objections- Radio Moscow, 16.5.97. What time is it now- ORT, 20.6.97. Refused to hand over authority to his receiver- ORT, 15.8.97 in the speech of the announcer Z. Andreeva, confusing the reception device with the successor of the case), indifference to the pronunciation is expressed ( Lie down in the hospital- ORT, 24.6.97; together and apart- ORT, 14.2.98. To the left of the elevator- ORT in June 1997 in a daily advertisement for the film with Richard - only when it was shown on 26.6.97 did the announcer put the accent correctly).

An attentive reader of modern newspapers, a radio listener, and a television viewer can easily make the list of such examples truly endless. And the point, in fact, is not in them as such, but precisely in their mass character, in a certain taste indifference of writers and speakers, their often conscious normative-linguistic indiscipline. It is unlikely that she would have written, if she had re-read what she had written and thought, the journalist had such a passage: Night club "Sophie". Cool light, deep sound, the dance floor is surrounded by columns. Erotic show "Topless models" with consummation(Center-plus, 1997, 48).

Therefore, it would be naive to attribute everything that happens only to negligence and illiteracy, especially taking into account the very good level of education of the population achieved in the former USSR. People today, of course, are generally more literate than before, but the norm then was more unambiguous and strictly observed. In addition, the initiators of a freer use of the language are now just quite literate people - journalists and other professionals of the pen. It is already indicative that they call “liberation of the language” what the intelligentsia of the older generation sees as “barbarization” or “vandalization”.

Extremely indicative are the mutual accusations of “ignorance of the Russian language” that are exchanged between journalists from Chimes, Moskovskaya Pravda and Moskovsky Komsomolets, i.e. those publications that now freely use even swearing (see at least the article by Ya. Mogutin - "New Look", 1993, 38). True, an opinion is also expressed that we are facing a “destructive onslaught of education” (Yu. D. Apresyan. Quoted from: Yu. N. Karaulov. On the state of the Russian language of our time. M., 1991, p. 38). An analysis of the factual material convinces us that we are undoubtedly facing a consciously formed trend that reflects the course of all social development.

The underlined, one can say carnival (see: N. D. Burvikova, V. G. Kostomarov. Carnivalization as a characteristic of the current state of the Russian language. In the book: Functional Semantics of Language ... M., 1997), it is easy to see the neglect of the norm, for example, in the spread of a funny fashion to use variants of oscillating forms, as if emphasizing their unwillingness to understand what is right and what is wrong. So, in the program about the oligarchs who rule the country, it sounded: Happiness is not about money or, as the artists say, money... So, it's about money or, if you like, about money(Radio Moscow, 12/13/98). M. Leonidov, host of the program "These funny animals", in the words of the participant I don’t like cottage cheese… or, as it should be, cottage cheese? remarked: It does not matter. Our broadcast is not in Russian; at the end he said: Well, Sasha, we got to you. Or got there - it doesn't matter(ORT, 10/15/98). Accordingly, scientific normalizers are more and more willing to mark “acceptable” ( cottage cheese, add. cottage cheese, destiny and outdated. fate, thinking and thinking…).

If we remember that the game with forms girl - girl, wide - wide- a recognized device of folk poetry, given that the variability in the Russian literary language of the last half century was clearly underestimated, then one cannot but admit that we have a completely legitimate indicator of the time of shaky norms, the coexistence of variants or their historical change.

It is possible to give other examples, so to speak, of the calm attitude of people to their insecurity in the language, which they have ceased to be ashamed of. The Mayak announcer at noon on December 31, 1996 did not at all vow to find out how the numerals decline, but without any embarrassment, even proudly declared: You see - with these, well, numbered words, I feel bad. This is the fashion today. The question of evaluating what must be fought and must be reconciled with is becoming more and more obvious.

The processes that have unfolded are based on changes in the psychological attitude of the masses who use the Russian language, in their linguistic taste and intuition for the language. These socially and historically meaningful phenomena sometimes receive some kind of official approval (at least by the example of the speech of political authorities and the speech practice of the mass media), and sometimes even legislative consolidation. But the most important thing is in public aesthetics, in the desire to what understood as beautiful. “It is beautiful,” according to the meaningful remark of Maya Plisetskaya, “what is fashionable” (Izv., 28.3.95).

Let us consider two illustrative examples that will help to objectify the concept of taste (and fashion) as a category that influences the development of language, even determining the direction of its dynamics.

0.2. The closest illustration can be appeals, in particular the manner of calling people by their first and last names in an official setting, which has especially spread on radio and television. Not without the memory of those who got sick of the senseless-endless full titles General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR Comrade Brezhnev Leonid Ilyich a new norm is emerging for naming public and political figures, more precisely, the tradition of naming artists and writers by name and surname is transferred to them, which, by the way, also corresponds to the Western European tradition: Boris Yeltsin, Yegor Gaidar, Mikhail Gorbachev, Pavel Grachev, Viktor Chernomyrdin.

This, of course, was immediately noticed and condemned by the zealots of tradition and order: It has become fashionable to write about one or another of our leaders and other persons without mentioning the word "comrade" (or at least "comrade" or simply "comrade"). They began to indicate only their names, without patronymics (M. Gorbachev, N. Ryzhkov) or even write Mikhail Gorbachev, Nikolai Ryzhkov, Anatoly Sobchak ... Have we already become ashamed of the address "comrade"? Has our custom to call a person by his first name or patronymic or full initials become unfavorable to us? After all, in Russia only tsars and ministers of the church were called by name. Today's journalists need to be sure to play a monkey and adopt from foreigners what is tradition and familiar to them, but which not only hurts our ears, but also does us no honor.(Misha, Tolya, Kolya and other officials. Izv., 2.1.91).

High emotions that have been cultivated for decades in the word comrade (they even had to be removed if necessary: I began the letter with the appeal "Dear comrade ..." This is how it is customary. But you, of course, understand that this is just a form of politeness ... Izv., 11/27/72), already by the middle of the era of perestroika, they were overgrown with pejorative overtones. Apparently, therefore, new appeals suddenly and epidemically spread - man Woman. Back in the early 80s, the public lost interest in this proud word, which we are dearer than all the beautiful words. In the history of this word, it was repeated, only with the opposite sign, what happened to it in the 20s, when, according to emigration, “the beautiful word comrade became an empty appeal” (S. and A. Volkonsky. In defense of the Russian language. Berlin, 1928, p. 20; for details, see: S. I. Vinogradov, The Word in Parliamentary Speech and the Culture of Communication, RR, 1993, No. 2, p. 54).

However, attempts to avoid and replace it for a long time caused condemnation. Here is a typical newspaper reminder that “we are always and everywhere comrades”: “Man, go ahead!”, “Woman, pass the ticket!” - such appeals are often heard on the street, in the subway, in the store. Or else - a young guy turns to an elderly saleswoman: “Girl, give me a pound of sugar” ... We have a wonderful word comrade in Russian. So why don't we say: comrade seller, comrade driver, comrade, please pass the ticket?(Izv., 27.11.83)

This remark is typical: The word "comrade", which always meant the highest spiritual unity, became, on the contrary, a sign of cold alienation. When they say "comrade such and such", it began to mean that they are dissatisfied with a person. The exalted Leninist "citizen" now is when a person is caught. To replace the former criteria, somehow creeping, vegetatively, from one to another, others spread.(LG, 1988, 16).

Already at the end of 1991, in a review of letters, an opinion was cited: Why do some in Moscow address the audience with the word "gentlemen" instead of comrades? Who allowed the people of Izvestinsky to write the word "gentlemen" in an advertisement for the Moscow Commodity Exchange? This is our newspaper, not bourgeois. A newspaper commentary defended freedom: “Do you like being called ‘comrade’? Contact us!.. Some are allergic to the word “gentlemen”, while others are allergic to the word “comrade”… Our partnership is a purely conditional concept, as, indeed, the word “gentlemen”. In Georgia, for example, the words "batono" - master and "kalbatono" - madam never disappeared from the lexicon, especially to strangers. This is a measure of respect. And to the banal trolleybus question “Are you leaving now?” they do not answer “Yes”, but, as a rule, “Diah, batono” - oh yes, sir! And if someone sees centuries-old oppression, exploitation, tyranny in this egg of politeness, then you need to contact ... a doctor ”(Izv., 27.11.91).

A deep analysis of the semantic-functional reasons for society's dissatisfaction with the word comrade, as, however, with other appeals, in general, with etiquette formulas of the Soviet period, is given in the works of N. I. Formanovskaya (see at least her book “Speech Etiquette and Culture of Communication”. M., 1989). It is now important for us to emphasize precisely the taste of the current public, which is all the more influential, the more thoroughly it relies on proper linguistic factors. Separate departures from the generally accepted have always, of course, been and will be; for example, among the Cossacks it is not recommended to call men “muzhiks”, “comrades” and “gentlemen” - they will be offended, and in response to the cherished “village dweller” they will blur in a proud smile (AiF, 1994, 18).

Word mister, who lived only as an appeal to foreigners (and, of course, as a humiliating appeal to his strangers; it is curious that Kenneth D. Kaunda used in one speech and Mr. Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, and Comrade Chairman ...- Izv., 11/23/74), began to quickly expand the scope. The new estimates were undoubtedly influenced by the practice of various republics that gained independence: domnule Snegur(mandatory appeal to the President of Moldova and in Russian. Izv., 22.10.90), sir Kravchuk(cf.: The word “comrade” was removed from the Charter, servicemen are invited to address each other with the addition of the word “pan” before the title: pan captain, pan soldier ... In the regiments of the Ukrainian Cossacks, this was a traditional form of communication.- Izv., 23.5.92), etc. Of course, the general reassessment of pre-revolutionary life in Russia also played its role. Moved away from the addresses corresponding to Russian comrade, and in those countries where they were planted. So, in China, tong zhi fell out of use, in the Czech Republic soudruh, etc.

Against this background, and taking into account public dissatisfaction with the system of accepted appeals, which is evidenced by the hotly debated long-standing call by V. Soloukhin to restore the words sir, sir, there could be no question of “returning the due prestige to the glorious word “comrade”, since “we are all comrades, if not at work, then at work” (Izv., 10.3.85). A propaganda favorite reminder that words sir, madam“carry an ideological connotation” and that for the workers they “sound like a mockery” (Izv., 1.10.91), lost all evidence and began to provoke a backlash. Mark Zakharov and Arseny Gulyga were among the first to publicly and frankly speak in the press for the return of these words to active use: Of course, we don’t have “masters” in the old sense of the word - oppressors, but we also suffered worse troubles from “comrades” (like Stalin) who were of the same womb in the class(LG, 1989, 48).

Vladimir Soloukhin also took part in the discussions; satisfied with the famous spread of words sir and madam, he remarked that “it is impossible to say “Monsieur Petrov came to see me yesterday” or “Madame Ivanova had a loss”. In these cases, the words “master” and “lady” should be used ... The same is with the plural. It is not entirely correct to say: “Well, sir, how are you?” Or to address the assembly: “Sirs and madams!” - it is forbidden. Previously, they said either “gentlemen!”, Or “gracious sovereigns and gracious sovereigns”, or “ladies and gentlemen”. And if you don’t like it and don’t turn your tongue, keep babbling “comrades!” ”(Izv., 10/18/91)

This permission is by no means welcomed by everyone, and another influential poet, Viktor Bukov, writes:

They called me today - sir?

And pulled on the sleeve.

And the dishes clinked in the closet,

And the sugar fell off the shelf

They called me Mr.

And I answered: - Not like it!

And all the words in a single circle

Embarrassed to hear this lie.

And I'm still a comrade!

As in those distant years.

You tried so hard in vain

Enroll me as a gentleman!

(Ex. 19.1.94).

The variety of attitudes towards these words gives rise to irony: Guys (you can’t say in the transition period - comrades or gentlemen, this can be assessed badly by both sides), let's create ... a depoliticized state(AIF, 1991, 42). And without much hint of a joke, journalists ask: How are you, comrades?(AIF, 1993, 19). Is this the way we go to the rule of law, dear gentlemen-comrades?(Izv., 19.5.93). No, sir or fellow citizen, your hopes for survival are illusory(Ex. 16.7.93). Central Radio was more specific: It's good that we stopped being comrades and became just people (14.3.93, 11.30).

It is curious that the “colloquial-servile address, Mr. Comrade” appeared shortly after 1917 and was widely used for some time (Kartsevsky S. O. Language, war and revolution. Berlin, 1923, p. 18). Today, in this revived expression, some differentiation has begun to be felt: gentlemen is accepted as an appeal, but after the word comrades some social-nominative meaning is fixed (ordinary people? working people? maybe "scoops"?). Orthographically, this is confirmed by the rejection of hyphenated spelling comrades. This is especially clear in contrasting contexts: Will the ministers remember the comrades?... We live well, comrades... The ministers are different people both in their views and in terms of income. Gentlemen, comrades (I write the word “comrade” without any humiliation - the overwhelming mass of the population refers to them) are also different people ... How does he live, what does Mr. comrade think? ... Our ordinary gentlemen comrades are now deeply outraged by the showdown that is taking place in the highest echelons of power(RV, 6.8.93). In a word, as the humorist noted, the trouble is not that we have become masters, but that we have ceased to be comrades!

0.3. Another vivid illustration of the processes taking place in the language, which makes it possible to judge the fashion that is responsible for them, can be an epidemic of geographical renaming. Its scale is such that it is not possible to give exhaustive lists. In contrast to most linguistic phenomena (even from the considered shifts in the system of addresses, which, strictly speaking, are formed spontaneously), it is the result of a direct and conscious influence on the language, which takes on an obvious legislative form.

For example, by decision of the Moscow City Council No. 149 of November 5, 1990, the following historical names of squares, streets, lanes of Moscow were returned from January 1, 1991: Tverskaya Zastava Square(Belorussky railway station square), Maroseyka street(Bogdan Khmelnitsky St.), Novopeschanaya street(Walter Ulbricht St.), Sandy 2nd Street(Georgiou-Deja St.), Tverskaya-Yamskaya 1st street(Gorky St. - from Mayakovsky Square to Belorussky Station), Nikolskaya street(Twenty-fifth October st.), Lubyanka Square(Dzerzhinsky sq.), Lubyanka Bolshaya street(Dzerzhinsky st.), Cow Wall Street(Dobryninskaya st.), Vozdvizhenka street, Novy Arbat street(Kalinina Ave.), Basmannaya Old Street(Karl Marx St.), Myasnitskaya street(Kirov st.), Sukharevskaya area(Kolkhoznaya Bolshaya and Kolkhoznaya Malaya Square), Prechistenka street(Kropotkinskaya st.), Ilyinka street(Kuibyshev st.), Mokhovaya street, Okhotny Ryad street, Theater Square(Marx Ave.), Patriarch's Ponds(Pioneer Ponds), Patriarchal Small Lane(Pionersky Small Lane), Manezhnaya Square(Fiftieth Anniversary of October Square), Varvarka street(Razina St.), theatre square(Sverdlov Square), Aminevskoe highway(Suslova st.), autumn boulevard(Ustinova Marshal St.), Znamenka street(Frunze st.), Novinsky boulevard(Tchaikovsky st.), Earth shaft street(Chkalova st.).

The same decision renamed the stations of the Moscow Metro: Tverskaya(Gorkovskaya. This is already the second time - by renaming the street), Lubyanka(Dzerzhinskaya), Alexander Garden(Kalininskaya), Chistye Prudy(Kirovskaya), Sukharevskaya(Collective farm), Tsaritsyno(Lenino), China town(pl. Nogina), Theatrical(pl. Sverdlov), Okhotny Ryad(pr. Marx), Novo-Alekseevskaya(Shcherbakovskaya).

Even earlier in Moscow were renamed: Ostozhenka street(Metrostroevskaya st.), metro stations Chistye Prudy and red gate(Kirovskaya and Lermontovskaya) and others. 1993 was declared the year of the revival of the historical center of the capital and the cleansing of the toponymic image of its central reserved part; in the spring, the original names were returned to another 74 streets, embankments, lanes. The peppy tone of the reports about this gives material for judging the fashionable motives for the current language changes:

The Bolshevik past is finally disappearing "from the face" of Moscow. For example, Sovetskaya Square is now Tverskaya Square... The lane of the founder of socialist realism M. Gorky has been given back the name Khitrovsky lane. Now we can better imagine the location of the infamous Khitrovka - the famous slum area ... Ulyanovskaya Street was renamed in 1919 during the life of the leader. A modest man, Vladimir Ilyich did not mind ... The former Nikolaevskaya, which suddenly received such an honor, was called so because the church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker on the Pits(AIF, 1993, 20).

The same motives are permeated with the interview of the chairman of the commission of the Moscow Council on names: During the years of Soviet power, the capital has lost more than a thousand original names that our ancestors have kept for centuries. Sometimes it just reached the point of absurdity: Fourth Street on March 8, Gas Pipeline Street, Lower Knitwear (why not Underwear?). Is it really more pleasant to walk along the Pioneer Ponds, shuddering from the ghost of Pavlik Morozov, than than along the Patriarchal Ponds? ... Some celebrities will have to make room. Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin would certainly never have agreed that the world-class rarity, Dmitrovka Street, which has a history of six hundred years, would certainly bear his name. The same applies to Chekhov and Stanislavsky...(Izv., 5.6.93).

They cut down the forest - the chips fly: in the heat of excitement, it doesn’t even occur to the head that it is hardly desirable for the national culture to restore the memory of Khitrovanka’s bunkhouses, and even at the expense of forgetting the famous writer. Old new names appeared on the site of Lermontovskaya Square, Tchaikovsky Street, Chkalov Street, although the poet, composer and even the pilot did not seem to be guilty of anything, and their contribution to national culture is worthy of perpetuation in the toponymy of the city.

The passion for renaming immediately led to completely meaningless changes (Savelevsky Lane is now Pozharsky, Astakhovsky - Pevchesky, Neglinny - Zvonarsky, etc.), about which the feuilletonist E. Grafov wrote: “First of all, Marx and Engels were buried in the first category. Now their street will be vindictively called Starovagankovsky Lane ... Bolshevik Lane was also stung. To be him now Gusyatnikov. And Komsomolsky Lane with a twist was called Zlatoustinsky. As for the lane named after the noble Bolshevik Stopani, it has become the Ogorodnaya Sloboda at all. Apparently, the Moscow City Council is no stranger to sarcasm. I do not argue, apparently, Nikoloyamskaya street sounds much more beautiful than Ulyanovsk. But I assure you, it was not at all the Ulyanov that you thought of ... Yes, and Stankevich Street, in general, it is quite possible to call Voznesensky Lane. Yes, but this is not the Stankevich that Stankevich is, but a completely different one. So there was no need to worry. And why should Serov passage be renamed Lubyansky passage? The man headed the KGB with great difficulty. He certainly deserved to have his name immortalized in the Lubyanka. However, this, it seems, is not the same Serov, but a heroic pilot. But all the same, it was not worth extracting the word “Lubyanka” from the Bolshevik centuries. After all, no one spoke - they took him to Dzerzhinsky Square. They said they were taken to the Lubyanka ... No need to go crazy with renaming ”(Izv., 25.5.93).

Expressing a natural disagreement with the re-enthusiasm for renaming, a group of writers and theater figures (O. Efremov, M. Ulyanov, Yu. Solomin, E. Gogoleva, E. Bystritskaya, Yu. Borisova, G. Baklanov, A. Pristavkin, V. Korshunov, V. Lakshin, I. Smoktunovsky) sent a protest to the chairman of the Moscow City Council about the deprivation of Moscow of such street names as Pushkinskaya, Chekhov, Stanislavsky, Yermolova, Fedotova, Nemirovich-Danchenko, Sadovskikh, Ostuzhev, Yuzhin, Vakhtangov, Moskvin, Kachalov, Khmelev, Griboedov, Sobinov , Vesnin, Zholtovsky, Shchukin.

They write about the decree he signed: “It would seem that this document is intended to play a good role and cleanse the cultural image of the capital from the opportunistic and ideological distortions of many decades. But already at the very first reading, it becomes clear that we are dealing with a bureaucratic circular, the implementation of which will become an act of vandalism and lead to irreparable cultural losses ... Instead of a reasonable cultural policy, we are dealing with another campaign from among those that are so familiar to us from recent past... A lion is recognized by its claw. Donkey - on the ears. And yesterday's communists - for senile anti-communism. Only unenlightened people, brought up on Lenin's articles, where they constantly woke someone up, can delete Belinsky, Herzen, Granovsky from our everyday life. What the Bolsheviks could not destroy, they tried to appropriate. And this had its own logic. Common sense suggests an asymmetric answer because these outstanding people belong to the whole of Russian culture... And the Moscow City Council expels great Russians and not only Russians (together with them, the Pole Mickiewicz and the Georgian Paliashvili) from the center of Moscow. It is necessary to stop the mockery of culture, because toponymy is its integral part” (Segodnya, 1.6.93).

The process of restoration of old names, changes and clarifications affected the entire Russian toponymy, in particular the names of many cities: Vladikavkaz(Ordzhonikidze), Vyatka(Kirov), Yekaterinburg(Sverdlovsk), Naberezhnye Chelny(Brezhnev), Nizhny Novgorod(Bitter), Rybinsk(Andropov), Samara(Kuibyshev), St. Petersburg(Leningrad, Petrograd), Sergiev Posad(Zagorsk), Tver(Kalinin), Sharypovo(Chernenko), etc. (see: Moiseev A.I. Nominal memorial names of Russian cities. RYAZR, 1992, 2). The process also captured non-Russian cities - Ukrainian: Zmiev(Gottwald), Lugansk(Voroshilovgrad), Mariupol(Zhdanov); Azerbaijani: Beylagan(Zhdanovsk), Ganja(Kirovabad); Georgian: Baghdadi(Mayakovsky), Martvili(Gegechkori), Ozurgeti(Makharadze); Estonian: Kuryasaari(Kingisepp), etc.

Starting with the naive "Estonization" of Russian spelling Tallinn(previously with one n at the end), this process went along the line of etching not only unwanted names, but also Russified forms of national toponyms in general and replacing them with Russian names. For example, a resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Kazakhstan subjected dozens of toponyms to renaming or “ordering transcription in Russian” at once: the cities of Shymkent and Dzhezkazgan became Shymkent and Zhezkazgan, the villages of Sergeevka, Pugachevo, Airship, Maralikh steel aulami Kainar, Ushbulak, Kyzylsu, Maraldy(Izv., 17.9.92), cf. also Ashgabat(Ashgabat), Tuva(albeit with an inconsistent decision to keep Tuvan, Tuvan- RV, 28.12.93), Halm Tangch(Kalmykia), Mari-el, Sakha(Yakutia).

They changed the traditional form in Russian everyday life to one that is closer to the national language, such names as Belarus (Belarusian, Belarusian), Kyrgyzstan (Kyrgyz, Kyrgyz), Moldova (Moldovan, Moldovan), Bashkyrtostan. However, in this area, the main task was, of course, the elimination of unwanted names: Bishkek(Frunze), Lugansk(Voroshilovgrad), Mariupol(Zhdanov), etc.

With joyful mischief, the correspondent in the article "Kyiv streets are changing names" reports: The capital of Ukraine is rapidly getting rid of the attributes of the socialist era. The city authorities approved the new names of Kyiv streets, parks and metro stations ... Most of all changes are associated with the removal from the city map of street names that propagandized the names of leaders and leaders of the revolution. Tangible "losses" from Vladimir Ilyich: Lenin Street was renamed into Bogdan Khmelnitsky Street, Lenin Boulevard - into Chokolovsky Boulevard. The glorious Chekists also got it. The street under their name now bears the name of Hetman of Ukraine Pylyp Orlyk. Other names were given to the streets of the October Revolution, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, Menzhinsky, Parkhomenko, Korneichuk ...(Izv., 17.2.93).

In essence, there is nothing new or unusual in this process: let us recall at least Zaire, Zimbabwe, Kinshasa on the site of the Belgian Congo, Rhodesia, Leopoldville, a very recent and less understood Ivory Coast instead of Ivory Coast. Changes of names in the former CMEA states justified by political and ideological considerations are understandable. What attracts attention is only the pace and scale of the process, so great, like everything else in Russia, that it is also being captured that does not seem to deserve to be renamed. There is something totalitarian, neo-Bolshevik in the renaming campaign; in a curious way, other republics of the former USSR act as if they received an order from a common center.

To what has already been said about the toponymy of Moscow, we can add the following interesting and even funny facts. Although the navy considers renaming ships a bad omen, now the names of Kirov, Frunze, Kalinin and other Soviet figures, as well as the names of the capitals of the former Soviet republics Baku, Tbilisi and others, have been replaced in the proper names of heavy aircraft carriers, anti-submarine and missile cruisers with the names of Russian admirals Ushakov, Nakhimov, Senyavin, and also Peter the Great. A number of nuclear submarines have received the names of predators: Leopard, Leopard, Tiger, the other part of the submarines are the names of Russian cities: Arkhangelsk, Voronezh, Kursk. The ships of the "Komsomol squadron" were completely renamed - patrol Leningrad Komsomolets, minesweeper Novgorod Komsomolets etc. (AIF, 1993, 22).

For the general mood, for the moment that determines the taste, it is indicative that in the old building of Moscow University on Mokhovaya Street (the former Marx Avenue!) The main auditorium is again called Theological- “It was always called that until it was renamed Leninskaya” (Izv., 17.2. 93).

The process of renaming is generally uneven, emotionally opportunistic, comes with interceptions and a very rapid movement back. Here are two typical messages: AT Chechen Republic, as she now calls herself, everything turned out differently(Izv., 21.9.92). Not Sukhumi, but Sukhum. The session of the Supreme Council of Abkhazia ... restored the names of the capital of Abkhazia, the city Sukhum and mining town Tkuarchal(from the second half of the thirties they were called in the Georgian way - Sukhumi and Tkuarchali). The urban-type settlement of Gantiadi received a historical toponym Tsandrypsh, Leselidze and Khenvani villages - respectively Aechrypsh and Amzara (Izv., 12/15/92).

The desire to bring the name closer phonetically and / or spelling to the original spelling and sound is natural and eternal, unfolding as literacy, culture and mutual respect of peoples grow. It was impossible, for example, not to approve the post-revolutionary changes in the accepted Russian forms of Tiflis, Vilna, Kovno, etc. Tbilisi, Vilnius, Kaunas(cf. also Komi instead of Zyrians- Literally "repressed" the current adoption of the form kyrgyz in this regard, it is quite justified, because Kyrgyz has unpleasant consonances for the Kyrgyz ear).

Even if often naive-linguistic perception of one form or another by the affected foreign-speaking population should be recognized as fundamental. And there is nothing wrong with the almost legislative imposition of a form Ukrainian of two coexisting accentological variants, although I would not like to correct Pushkin's classic "Quiet Ukrainian Night". It is not difficult to agree with the unusual for Russians in Ukraine- so be it, if it seems to someone that in Ukraine humiliatingly reminds on the edge, on the outskirts. So at one time the Chinese asked to distinguish in Taiwan(on the island) and in Taiwan(in a state not recognized by the PRC).

But it is impossible not to see here an amazing linguistic naivety. At the time of the collapse of the USSR, the political and journalistic attacks on the form with on the. It was attributed to the insidious confusion of words Ukraine(from steal"cut off from the whole") and outskirts- with reference to the work of S. Shelukhin of 1921 "The Name of Ukraine" reprinted, for example, in the almanac "Chronicle-2000" (issue 2, Kyiv, 1992), where Poles and Russians are directly accused of this (the author considers the latter not so much Slavs , how many Finnish-Mongolian tribes). But soon objective, calmly reasonable voices of linguists, and not politicians, appeared, calling not to see great Russian malice in it and to remember that the great patriots of Ukraine, especially T. Shevchenko, did not disdain it.

In any case, the Kyiv reviewers of the first edition of this book, in my opinion, unreasonably saw in the assessment of Russian (so! I didn’t even think to judge how better it is in Ukrainian) usage of my use of words some of my tactlessness. Russian and Ukrainian languages ​​are closely related, but each with its own laws and traditions. The article by V. Zadorozhny in the journal “Ukrainian Language and Literature in Schools” (1993, No. 5–6), to which they refer, examines Ukrainian constructions in Ukraine - in Ukraine. By the way, I am more impressed by N. Sidyachenko's article on the same topic in the collection of the Ukrainian Language Institute of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine "Culture of the Word" (1994, 45). And yet, and yet! Ukrainians officially, although not very publicly, approached the US State Department with the idea to use the form in Ukraine instead of the English form in the Ukraine - with the same, in essence, motivation (the absence of the article seems to reinforce the idea that we have our own name ).

Taking for granted the pathos of self-determination, we must not mutilate our language; one must understand that “sovereignty is one thing – a fact of their history, and another thing is a name – a fact of our language” (MN, 1994, 1). Indeed, having achieved the “Estonization” of the Russian name of its capital, the Estonian parliament retained the non-Russian accent in its name of the capital of Russia - Moskva - not to mention the fact that it did not change the names of Petseri, Pihkva, Irboska, Kaasan, Saraatov to Pechera, Pskov, Izborsk, Kazan, Saratov.

The trouble is not even that the new forms break a long language habit, but that they may turn out to be unusual, difficult to pronounce and even unpleasant for the Russian language ear. After k, g, x, let’s say, it’s not written and pronounced s, which is why the spelling doesn’t sound and doesn’t “look” Kyrgyzstan and under. Pretty pointless, because Russian cannot pronounce it like that, write in Russian two consonants at the end of a word Tallinn, somehow looks illiterate in the Russian text Belarus, belarus, belarusian. Similar processes are observed in people's own names: the name of the former president of Azerbaijan is written Abulfaz Elchibey(traditional Russian spelling Abulfas; now difficulties arise not only with the pronunciation of a voiced sound at the end of a word, but also the pronunciation of the form of the genitive and other cases changes).

Tradition stands in the way of the natural desire to “correct the inaccuracies” of a foreign name, and the older and more stable it is, the stronger its resistance. This is hardly why Russians will ever speak Bet or, confusing the city with the ancient hero, Paris instead of Paris, Roma or Rum instead of Rome. It is unlikely, however, that even the Germans, offended by the role of the USSR in history, will demand that we call their country not Germany, but Deutschland! It seems that Russia has ceased unconditionally accepting foreign attacks on Russian language traditions.

In March 1994, a decision was made on radio and TV, supported by the Institute of the Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences, to consistently return to the previous names: “No language can dictate to the Russian language its rules for pronunciation and spelling of proper names, as this humiliates and distorts it” (Pr. , 18.3.94). “People, even far from the problems of linguistics, were perplexed, knowing that in any language a borrowed word always obeys new grammatical and sound laws and is almost never preserved in its original form. After all, the British have Russia - Russia, the French - Russ, the Germans - Russland, the Moldovans - Russia, the Ingush - Rossi. Native Russian speakers have the same right to traditionally pronounce and write Ashgabat, Alma-Ata, Chuvashia. This question has nothing to do with the problems of sovereignty and respect for national dignity” (MP, 15.3.94).

It is impossible, however, not to ignore the triumphant fashion, the mood of the people. One cannot but reckon with today's taste for change, for the rejection of the familiar, or at least for variability: even such innovations that contradict the Russian language system will be more likely to be accepted than rejected. In any case, it would be ridiculous to quarrel with Estonians over a letter, like the Czechs and Slovaks, whose differences over the hyphen in the name of the country became one of the reasons for divorce. One should also take into account the huge Russian diaspora, which is forced to obey the laws of the country of residence; this means that a lot of variable place names will inevitably appear in the Russian language. Sometimes one has to put up with the most naive political and national thinking: there are things higher than the inviolable purity of the literary and linguistic canon.

0.4. The examples given allow us to express some theoretical considerations regarding taste as a category of speech culture (see: V. G. Kostomarov. Questions of speech culture in the training of Russian teachers. In the book: “Theory and Practice of Teaching the Russian Language and Literature. The Role of the Teacher in the Process teaching". M., Russian language, 1979).

Taste in general is the ability to evaluate, the understanding of what is right and beautiful; these are passions and inclinations that determine the culture of a person in thought and work, in behavior, including speech. Taste can be understood as a system of ideological, psychological, aesthetic and other attitudes of a person or social group in relation to language and speech in this language. These attitudes determine one or another value attitude of a person to language, the ability to intuitively evaluate the correctness, relevance, aesthetics of speech expression.

Taste is a complex fusion of social requirements and assessments, as well as the individuality of a native speaker, his artistic inclinations, upbringing, education (which is why the phrase “Tastes differ”). However, this individuality is also formed in the course of assimilation of social knowledge, norms, rules, and traditions. Therefore, taste always has a concrete-social and concrete-historical basis; therefore, manifesting itself individually, taste reflects in its development the dynamics of social consciousness and unites the members of a given society at a given stage of its history (it is not for nothing that one speaks of the tastes of a society and an era).

The most important condition of taste is social in nature, assimilated by every native speaker, the so-called feeling, or intuition of the language, which is the result of speech and general social experience, the assimilation of knowledge of the language and knowledge about the language, the unconscious assessment of its tendencies, the paths of progress. In the words of L. V. Shcherba, “this feeling in a normal member of society is socially justified, being a function of the language system” (L. V. Shcherba. On the triple aspect of linguistic phenomena and on the experiment in linguistics. In the book: “Language system and speech activity”, L., 1974, p. 32). The very flair for language is a kind of system of unconscious assessments that reflects the systemic nature of language in speech and social linguistic ideals.

A sense of language forms the basis for a global assessment, acceptance or rejection of certain development trends, certain layers of vocabulary, for assessing the appropriateness of certain stylistic and, in general, functional-stylistic varieties of the language under the prevailing conditions and for these purposes. In this sense, it is very dependent on the systemic and normative features of the language, on its "spirit" and "willfulness", its origin, history and ideals of progress, acceptable and desirable sources of enrichment, the originality of its structure and composition. So, say, inflection, the formal expression of connections in a sentence, makes the Russian language sense much more intolerant of a heap of identical forms than English or French, which is why, for example, consecutive constructions with of or de are more permissible than Russian genitive cases (outside of limited special spheres, see O. D. Mitrofanova’s works on “scientific language”).

Due to the specifics of Russian grammar, Russian speech turns out to be flexible and diverse in terms of intonation and word order, which in turn makes the possibilities of expressive actual articulation of statements more diverse. Homonymy is weakly characteristic of it, which, by the way, is why Russians love to look for it, stumble over it, although, of course, ambiguity is usually easily extinguished by the text.

The very composition of the Russian language, as well as its structure, affects the taste. Thus, each new look at the historical relationship between Old Slavonic literacy and the original East Slavic folk-speech element significantly modifies our stylistic ideas. Slavicisms, on the one hand, are organically part of the literary language, on the other hand, for many decades they have been perceived as ponderous and pompous, often ridiculous archaisms. With a change in the goals in the use of the language and the emergence of its new functions, brought to life by a changed attitude towards the Orthodox Church, towards religion in general, the attitude towards the old (Church) Slavicisms also changes dramatically.

Every now and then, folklore poetics, dialectal oppositions of north and south, medieval “weaving of words”, business speech and urban koine dating back to Moscow orders - colloquial speech, influxes of German, French, and today American foreignness - are the most diverse phenomena of different stages of the history of the Russian language.

The disputes between “Shishkovists” and “Karamzinists”, “Slavophiles” and “Westernizers”, not to mention the synthetic activity of the founder of the modern literary language A. S. Pushkin and other classics of the 19th century, are alive and in many ways educate today's taste. Cultural and national memory is reflected in the flair of the language, layers of different heritages, different poetic and speech concepts are dissolved. An important role in the formation of Russian language sense and taste has been and is played by the ratio of bookish and non-bookish speech, which often takes on the character of rivalry between the literary and “folk” language.

In the Soviet period, high rates of development and abruptly changing tastes accumulated a significant stock of heterogeneous changes and deformations, which today, with the beginning of the post-Soviet era, are being tested and reassessed. Accordingly, now we should expect (and the actual material of the subsequent chapters confirms this) a search for "fresh" linguistic material, a redistribution of stylistic layers, a new synthesis of means of expression.

Taste is thus essentially a changing ideal of the use of language according to the character of the age. “General norms of linguistic taste”, coinciding or not coinciding with the language of the writer, fall, according to G. O. Vinokur, “on the bridge leading from language, as something impersonal, general, supra-individual, to the very personality of the writer” (G O. Vinokur, On the Study of the Language of Literary Works, Selected Works on the Russian Language, Moscow, 1959, p.

Taste often loses its historical validity and follows opportunistic, random aspirations. It then becomes bad taste. He then loses even the naturally mediated connection with the thought-content aspect of communication and with the natural aesthetic limiting framework. In other words, taste appears as the extremes of fashion. Speech in this case goes out of the range between the “unattainable ideal” and “not yet a mistake”, loses the evaluative and taste qualities of “good speech” (see: B. N. Golovin. Fundamentals of the theory of speech culture. Gorky, 1977; N. A Plenkin, Criteria for Good Speech, Russian Language at School, 1978, 6). Let us note, looking ahead, that such a quality of “good speech” as freshness, i.e., the desire to update the familiar means and methods of expression, is especially relevant for our time.

With all the natural desire to objectify the concept of taste as a cultural-speech category, one cannot, of course, deny it subjective individuality either. Without developing this thought now, let us cite only the curious reflections of a prominent modern poet and writer: “You cannot hang a screw to a flower in the form of an addition. It is impossible to attach paper clips in the form of pendants to a string of pearls on a woman's neck. You cannot add the word marriage to the word palace. It is also impossible to explain why this cannot be done. It comes down to linguistic hearing, to taste, to the feeling of language, and ultimately to the level of culture ”(V. Soloukhin. Autumn Leaves).

The qualities of “good speech” are relative, sometimes even internally contradictory - and not only because of their general subjective-taste character and close dependence on the specific meaning expressed in a particular case, on the conditions and goals of a given communicative act, but primarily because of the strict determinism of any speech by the norms available in the literary language. However, in the current situation, these normative means of expression and the established methods of their use with typical content, in statements similar in content, goals and conditions, turn out to be very often not corresponding to the new taste and are resolutely revised.

End of introductory segment.

The tab is under development.

SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

• Kostomarov V.G. About display texts//Russian Language Abroad.- 2019.- No. 1.- P. 61-64
• Kostomarov, V. G. Language is my friend, language is my enemy. Native language // Russian word in a multicultural space: Sat. scientific papers for the anniversary of Professor G.V. Yakusheva. - 2019. - S. 12-16
• Kostomarov V.G., Rusetskaya M.N. Congratulations to the Russianists of MAPRYAL from the Pushkin Institute//Russian Language Abroad.- 2017.- No. 6.- P. 7
• Kostomarov V.G. Grammatical doctrine of the word (in memory of academician V.V. Vinogradov) / In the book: Russian grammar 4.0 Collection of abstracts of the International scientific symposium. Under the general editorship of V.G. Kostomarov. 2016. S. 22-25
• Maksimov V.I., Golubeva A.V., Voloshinova T.Yu., Ganapolskaya E.V., Kostomarov V.G., Nasonkina M.O., Ponomareva Z.N., Popova T.I. Russian language and culture of speech // Textbook for bachelors / Moscow, 2016. Ser. 58 Bachelor. Academic course (3rd edition, revised and enlarged).
• Kostomarov V.G. Remembrance of V.V. Vinogradov / Russian language abroad. 2016. No. 3 (256). pp. 10-11
• Burvikova N.D., Kostomarov V.G. Is loving a book a source of knowledge? Glance and something/Russian language abroad. 2016. No. 4 (257). pp. 89-92
• Kostomarov V.G. "The Edge of the Beautiful" // Host of the program, 4th channel TV1, September 1, 1993
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language of the Time of Troubles at the end of the 20th century // Pulse. 1995. S. 4-7 (Interview)
• Kostomarov V.G. The Russian language is what society is like//Podmoskovnye Izvestiya. December 21, 2000
• Kostomarov V.G. I am an anti-globalist when it comes to culture//Tribune. 11 September. 2003
• Kostomarov V.G., Maksimov V.I. Modern Russian literary language in 2 volumes//Textbook / Moscow, 2015. Ser. 58 Bachelor. Academic Course (1st ed.). M.: Yurayt Publishing House. 920 p.
• Kostomarov V.G. Vereshchagin E.M. Language and culture. three linguistic and cultural concepts: lexical background, speech-behavioral tactics and sapienteme. M.|Berlin, 2014. 509 p.
• Maksimov V.I., Golubeva A.V., Voloshinova T.Yu., Ganapolskaya E.V., Kostomarov V.G., Nasonkina M.O., Ponomareva Z.N., Popova T.I. Russian language and culture of speech// Textbook for bachelors / Moscow, 2013. Ser. 58 Bachelor. Academic course (3rd edition, revised and enlarged).
• Kostomarov V.G. Why do we care about what kind of coffee, but not that it is not inclined?//Russian speech. 2013. No. 1. S. 44-50
• Kostomarov V.G. Whims of Russian stress / Russian language abroad. 2013. No. 1 (236). pp. 43-48
• Kostomarov, V. G. Stylistics. Compendium of lectures given in the 2003/2004 academic year to bachelors of the State Institute of the Russian Language. A.S. Pushkin [Text] / V. G. Kostomarov. - M.: [b. and.], 2012. - 255 p.
• Kostomarov V.G. The language of the current moment: the concept of the norm// The world of the Russian word. 2012. No. 4. S. 13-19
• Kostomarov V.G. Preface. A.Onkovich. Media didactics. Mass media in the educational process in Russian and foreign // Cap Lambert Academie Publishing, 2012. P. 3-7.
• Kostomarov V.G. Language life. From Vyatichi to Muscovites / Moscow, 2011. Ser. About everything in the world to parents and children. 288s.
• Kostomarov V.G., Nasonkina M.O., Ganapolskaya E.V., Voloshinova T.Yu., Popova T.I., Ponomareva Z.N. Russian language and culture of speech. Textbook / Edited by V.I. Maksimova, A.V. Golubev. Moscow, 2011. Ser. Fundamentals of Sciences (2nd edition, revised and enlarged). 358 p.
• Kostomarov V.G. Norm of language and norms in language (experience of interpretation). Russian language abroad. 2011. No. 4 (227). pp. 55-59
• Kostomarov V.G. Scientist. Poet. Enlightener. Human. To the 300th anniversary of M.V. Lomonosov // Problems of modern education. 2011. No. 6. S. 23-29
• Kostomarov V.G. V. I. Maksimov. Modern Russian literary language / / Textbook for students of higher educational institutions studying in the humanities / [Maximov V. I. and others]; ed. V. G. Kostomarova,. Moscow, 2010. Ser. Universities of Russia (2nd ed., revised and additional).
• Burvikova N.D., Kostomarov V.G. Here is the best teaching! St. Petersburg, 2010. 63 p.
• Kostomarov V.G. Gogol as a cultural-psychological and folk-linguistic phenomenon / Russian language abroad. 2009. No. 2 (213). pp. 8-9
• Vereshchagin E.M. V.G. Kostomarov. Language and culture//Three linguo-cultural experts. concepts: lex. background, speech. Tactician and Sapientema / Ed. Yu.S. Stepanova; State. In-t rus. lang. them. A.S. Pushkin. Moscow, 2008.
• Kostomarov V.G. Reasoning about the forms of the text in communication // State Institute of the Russian Language named after A.S. Pushkin, Moscow, 2008, p.84
• Kostomarov V.G. Burvikova N.D. Logoepistemic component of modern linguistic taste//Philological sciences. 2008. No. 2. S. 3-11
• Kostomarov V.G. Our language in action//Knowledge. Understanding. Skill. 2008. No. 1. S. 34-37
• Burvikova N. D., Kostomarov V. G. Reading "A short guide to rhetoric for the benefit of lovers of sweet speech" by M.V. Lomonosov//M. V. Lomonosov and modern philology. Scientific readings. - M.: State. IRA them. A.S. Pushkin, 2008. - S. 17-21
• Kostomarov V.G. Language. Culture. Civilization/№2. 2007, pp. 93-101
• Kostomarov V.G. Sunrise. Takeoff. The fall. Renaissance//Russian language abroad. 2007. No. 1 (200). pp. 14-16
• Kostomarov V.G. Our language in action//Alma mater (Vestnik vysshei shkoly). 2007. No. 10. S. 5-7
• Kostomarov V.G. Burvikova N.D. Reproducible combinations of words as a linguo-cognitive and terminological problem / No. 2, 2006, pp. 45-53
• Kostomarov V.G. Kurvikova N.D. What is a logoepistema? /№7. 2006. S. 13-17, M., RUDN
• Kostomarov V.G. Vereshchagin E.M. Language and culture. Three linguocultural concepts: lexical background, speech-behavioral tactics and sapienteme. 2005. M., 1037 p.
• Kostomarov V.G. Our language in action: Essays on modern Russian stylistics. M., Gardariki, 2005. 287 p.
• Kostomarov V.G. The views of V.V. Vinogradov on stylistics and prospects for their development // Problems of modern linguistics and methods of teaching the Russian language: Proceedings of the international scientific conference dedicated to the memory of academician V.V. Vinogradov. Yerevan, 2004, pp. 64-65
• Kostomarov V.G. Events that inspire some optimism//News of education. 2003. No. 3. pp. 6-7
• Kostomarov V.G. Units of linguocultural space (in terms of the problem of tolerance) / Co-authors. with N.D. Buravkina//Philosophical and linguoculturological problems of tolerance. Yekaterinburg, 2003, pp. 426-440
• Kostomarov V.G. Language in relation to culture and civilization//Slavistics, Book. VII. Belgrade, 2003, pp. 13-21
• Kostomarov V.G. Language in relation to culture and civilization//III International Likhachev Readings. SPb., 2003. S. 17-21
• Kostomarov V.G. Units of linguistic and cultural space / Co-author. s.n.d. Buravkina//Russian as a foreign language: theory, practice. Issue. VI. SPb., 2003. S. 13-18
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language in the modern world / Co-author. with G.V. Khruslov // Essays on the theory and practice of teaching Russian as a foreign language. M., 2003. S. 7-21
• Kostomarov V.G. Saying little, saying a lot / In et al. with N.D. Burvikova//Russian speech. 2003. No. 3. pp. 39-41
• Kostomarov V.G. Mass communication and the development of the Russian language // New in the theory and practice of describing and teaching the Russian language. Warsaw, 2003, pp. 145-148
• Kostomarov V.G. Save the eternal // Journalism and culture of Russian speech. 2003. No. 3. S. 9-12
• Kostomarov V.G. Problems of the Russian language today//Actual problems of the humanities. Issue. 21. St. Petersburg, 2003. S. 117-127
• Kostomarov V.G. National-cultural units of communication in the modern cultural space - a linguo-methodological aspect / Co-author. with N.D. Burvikova//From word to deed. M., 2003. S. 40-46
• Kostomarov V.G. In search of new ways of development of linguistic and regional studies: world knowledge outside and through language (hypothesis<лого>epistemes)/Co-authors. with E.M. Vereshchagin. M., 2002 (11 auth sheet)
• Kostomarov V.G. Language in law. In what?//Rossiyskaya Gazeta. June 25, 2002
• Kostomarov V.G. There is no and cannot be a reform of the Russian language in Russia // News of education. 2002. No. 10/11. S. 19
• Kostomarov V.G. The role of the Russian language in international communication//Russian language and literature as a means of intercultural dialogue. Ulaan-Baatar, 2002. S. 3-10
• Kostomarov V.G. Speech culture and language taste//Russian language and literature as a means of intercultural dialogue. Ulaan-Baatar, 2002. S. 128-140
• Kostomarov V.G. Pushkin's Moloch and the Old Testament Moloch//Russian speech. 2002. No. 2. pp. 3-6
• Kostomarov V.G. Carnivalization of life and carnivalization of language//Co-authors. with N.D. Burvikova//Theory and practice of linguo-stylistic analysis of media texts in forensic examinations. M., 2002. S.34-48
• Kostomarov V.G. V.V. Vinogradov. Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the XVII-XIX centuries / Foreword. to the 4th ed. M., 2002. S. 3-7
• Kostomarov V.G. V.V. Vinogradov. Russian language. Grammatical doctrine of the word / Preface. to the 4th ed. M., 2001. S. 3-4
• Kostomarov V.G. Genesis of logoepistems/Co-authors. with N.D. Burvikova//Teaching and research of the Russian language. Harbin, 2001. pp. 31-48
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language at the turn of the millennium//University meetings. SPb., 2001. S. 212-220
• Kostomarov V.G. Lexical background: a posteriori observations//Studying and teaching the Russian language. Volgograd. 2001. S. 12-27
• Kostomarov V.G. S.I. Ozhegov: Russian speech and "Russian speech" // Dictionary and culture of Russian speech. M., 2001. S. 17-22
• Kostomarov V.G. A new look at old linguistic problems // Russian language in the socio-cultural space of the XXI century. Almaty, 2001. S. 4-16
• Kostomarov V.G. Das Russische als internationale Verkehrssprache//Sprachenpolitik in Europa. Berlin, 2001, pp. 49-58
• Kostomarov V.G. Vereshchagin E.M. In search of new ways of development of linguistic and regional studies: the concept of logoepistema//House of life of language. M., 2000. (6, 5 auth. sheets)
• Kostomarov V.G. Keeper and creator of the Russian language and culture. The experience of applying methods for calculating meanings to the works of A.S. Pushkin/Co-authors. with E.M. Vereshchagin. M., 2000. (9, 25 aut. sheets)
• Kostomarov V.G. On the language of dissertations//Bulletin VAK. M., 2000. S. 1-4
• Kostomarov V.G. The Place of the Russian Language in intercultural communication: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow//Antologia 10 Encuentro nacional de profesores de Lenguas Extranjeras. Mexico, 2000. P.71-80
• Kostomarov V.G. Modern dialogue and the Russian language// The role of language and literature in the world community. Tula, 2000. S. 3-9
• Kostomarov V.G. Logoepistema as a "decoration" of speech, but not only ... / In et al. with N.D. Burvikova//Teaching skills. M., 2000. S. 22-27
• Kostomarov V.G. Logoepistema as a category of linguoculturological search//Linguodidactic search at the turn of the century. M., 2000. S. 88-96
• Kostomarov V.G. Vereshchagin E.M. Speech-behavioral studies of Pushkin's parable of the prodigal daughter//Problems of linguistics. 2000. No. 2. pp. 90-117
• Vereshchagin, E.M. In search of new ways of developing linguistic and regional studies: singular speech-behavioral tactics / Vereshchagin E.M., Kostomarov V.G. - M.: State. in-t of the Russian language. A.S. Pushkin, 2000. - 64 p.
• Efremova T.F., Kostomarov V.G. Dictionary of grammatical difficulties of the Russian language. M., 1999 (3rd ed.).
• Kostomarov V.G. Language taste of the era. From observations on the speech practice of the mass media. M., 1999. 3rd ed. - St. Petersburg. (19 auto sheets)
• Kostomarov V.G. Oh, great, mighty, truthful and free...//Rural life. February 25, 1999
• Kostomarov V.G. Modern Russian language and cultural memory//Modern Russian language: functioning and problems of teaching. Budapest, 1999. S. 30-32
• Kostomarov V.G. The first lecture for the first freshmen. M., 1999 (2 auth. sheet)
• Kostomarov V.G. Linguistic views of A.S. Pushkin and the modern socio-linguistic situation//A.S. Pushkin and modernity. M., 1999. S. 34-43
• Kostomarov V.G. Pushkin and modern Russian// Russian language abroad.1999. No. 2. pp. 30-36
• Kostomarov V.G. Without the Russian language, we have no future // Meeting with a representative of the CIS and Baltic countries. M., 1999. S. 8-23
• Kostomarov V.G. The space of modern Russian discourse and units of its description / Co-authors. with N.D. Burvina//Russian language in the center of Europe. 1999. No. 2. pp. 65-76
• Kostomarov V.G. Vereshchagin E.M. In search of new ways of development of linguistic and regional studies: the concept of speech-behavioral tactics. M., 1999 (4.5 avt.l.)
• Kostomarov V.G. Symbols of precedent texts in communication//Studying and teaching the Russian word from Pushkin to the present day. Volgograd. 1999. S. 7-14
• Kostomarov V.G. Language and "language of culture" in intercultural communication / Co-author. with E.M. Vereshchagin//Russia-East-West. M., 1999. S. 349-356
• Kostomarov V.G. language information Units as Mirror images of language and Culture//Foreign languages ​​and Their Teaching. 1999. No. 10. pp. 5-9
• Kostomarov V.G. From Calvary to Calvary // Journalist. 1996. No. 8. pp. 32-36 (Interview)
• Kostomarov V.G. 30th anniversary of MAPRYAL//Russian language abroad. 1998. No. 1. pp. 8-14
• Kostomarov V.G. The role and place of the Russian language in our days//ELTE Idegennyelvi Tovabbkepao. Budapest, 1998. No. 2. pp. 8-14
• Kostomarov V.G. The Russian language is needed for this world//Russian speech. 1998. No. 2. S. 5-14
• Kostomarov V.G. Russische Sprachkultur im Uberblick//Europaische Sprachkultur und Sprachflege. Tubingen, 1998, pp. 145-152
• Kostomarov V.G. National-cultural specificity of speech communication and its role in the dialogue of cultures//Russian language and literature in Azerbaijan. 1998. No. 2. pp. 6-12
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language//Image of Russia. Russian culture in the global context. M., 1998. S. 170-176
• Kostomarov V.G. Reading and honoring Griboedov. Winged words and expressions / Co-author. with N.D. Burvikova. M., 1998. (4 auth. sheets)
• Kostomarov V.G. In the dialogue of modern cultures//People's education. 1998. No. 5. P.63-67
• Kostomarov V.G. Features of understanding the modern Russian text// Russian Studies: Linguistic Paradigm of the End of the 20th Century. SPb., 1998. S.23-28
• Kostomarov V.G. Das bildungswesen in den Nachfolgestaaten der Sowjetunion und die russische Sprache//Vergleichende Erzihaungswissen schaft. Festschrift fur W. Mitter zum 7.Geburtstag. frankfurt am main, 1997. No. 1. Band 2 .C. 502-511
• Kostomarov V.G. The way to 30 years//Russian speech. 1997. No. 1. pp. 3-8
• Kostomarov V.G. Rigid structure texts and the creative nature of the language act// Mastering the semantic space of the Russian language by foreigners. Nizhny Novgorod, 1997. P 10
• Kostomarov V.G. Anthropological principle as a perspective in the development of linguistic and regional studies / Co-author. with N.D. Burvikova // Russian as a foreign language: linguistic problems. M., 1997. S. 8-12
• Kostomarov V.G. Carnivalization as a characteristic of the current state of the Russian language: a linguo-methodological aspect / Co-authors. with N.D. Burvikova//Functional semantics of language, semiotics of sign systems and methods of their study. Part 1. M., 1997. S. 23-24
• Kostomarov V.G. Without language, a common educational space is an illusion // Language. culture and education: the status of the Russian language in the countries of the world. Moscow; Washington, 1997, pp. 7-9
• Kostomarov V.G. Language taste of the era. From observations on the speech practice of the mass media. M., 1996 - 2nd ed. - Moscow; Athens (19 avt.l.)
• Kostomarov V.G. V.V. Vinogradov about the Russian language as a phenomenon of world culture//Bulgarian Russian Studies. 1996. No. 1. pp. 163-168
• Kostomarov V.G. Not only the language must be saved, but also us! // Gudok. January 27, 1996 (Interview)
• Kostomarov V.G. Philologists are mastering grant funding // Bulletin of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation. 1996. No. 15. P. 6
• Kostomarov V.G. Philologists are mastering grant funding // Bulletin of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation. 1996. No. 3. S.20-22
• Kostomarov V.G. The great Russian language is given to us forever. Truth-5. 1996. No. 16 (Interview)
• Kostomarov V.G. The language of the market//Capital. April 10-16, 1996 (interview)
• Kostomarov V.G. Linguistic and cultural valuable units in the Russian text as "foreign" speech (in relation to their recognition by foreigners) / Co-author. with N.D. Burvikova // Studies in foreign languages. Harbin. 1996. No. 4. pp. 1-6
• Kostomarov V.G. N.N. Tolstoy. Obituary // Bulletin of the Russian Humanitarian Foundation. 1996. No. 3. pp. 325-327
• Kostomarov V.G. "Izafet" in the Russian syntax of the phrase? // Dictionary. Grammar. text. M., 1996. pp. 212-217
• Kostomarov V.G. Precedent text as a reduced discourse // Language as creativity. M., 1996. S. 297-302
• Kostomarov V.G. Intertextuality in the aspect of teaching the Russian language to foreigners / Co-author. with N.D. Burvikova // Theory and practice of teaching Slavic languages. Pecz., 1996, pp. 5-11
• Kostomarov V.G. The Russian Language in a fast Changing World//l 2 and Beyond/ Teaching and Learning modern Languages/ Ottawa. 1995 (7 auth. sheet)
• Kostomarov V.G. My Genius, my Language. (Reflection on language in Society)/ Traranslated from the Russian by J. Woodsworth. Ottawa. 1995. (7 auth sheets)
• Kostomarov V.G. Acad. V.V. Vinogradov about the Russian language as a phenomenon of world culture // Acad. V.V. Vinogradov and modern philology. Sat. theses M., 1995. S.1-2
• Kostomarov V.G. On the language and style of dissertations // Bulletin of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation. 1995. No. 2. pp. 6-8
• Kostomarov V.G. VV Vinogradov about the Russian language as a phenomenon of world culture//Izvestiya AN. Literature and Language Series. 1995. V.54. pp. 49-54
• Kostomarov V.G. Lexico-semantic innovations in the Russian language//Text i slownik w nauczaniu jezyka i literatury rosyjskiej. Opole. 1995. S. 89-91
• Kostomarov V.G. Die Perspektiven der russischen Sprache nach dem Zusammen bruch der Sowjetunion. Frankfurt am Main. 1995 (1 auth sheet)
• Kostomarov V.G. Subjective modality as the beginning of discourse / Co-authors. with N.D. Burvikova//Acad. V.V. Vinogradov and modern philology: Sat. theses. M., 1995. S.238
• Kostomarov V.G. We became bold and fell in love with the mat? // Teacher's newspaper. 1995.No. 129.S.9
• Kostomarov V.G. The word lawlessness and the activation of other non-suffix nouns//Philological collection. To the 100th anniversary of Acad. V.V. Vinogradov. M., 1995. S. 254-261
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language for all: Educational complex / Pod. ed. V.G. Kostomarova, 1994
• Kostomarov V.G. Language taste of the era. From observations on the speech practice of the mass media. M., 1994 (19 avt.l.)
• Kostomarov V.G. They have already ceased to be afraid of us, but have not yet had time to fall in love // ​​Stavropolskaya Pravda. March 29, 1994
• Kostomarov V.G. Language life. From Vyatichi to Muscovites. M., 1994. (25.38 avt.l.)
• Kostomarov V.G. Reflections on the Russian language//Forum. 1994. No. 3. pp. 105-109
• Kostomarov V.G. How texts become precedent / In et al. with N.D. Burvikova//Russian language abroad. 1994. No. 1. pp. 73-76
• Kostomarov V.G. About language taste//Russian language and literature in schools of Kyrgyzstan. 1994. No. 1/2. pp. 67-78
• Kostomarov V.G. The role of the Russian language in the dialogue of cultures//Russian language abroad. 1994. No. 5/6. pp. 9-11
• Kostomarov V.G. Living processes of the modern Russian language//Theory and practice of teaching Slavic languages. 1994. S. 129-135
• Kostomarov V.G. On the language and style of dissertations// Working book of the chairman of the dissertation council. Krasnodar. 1994. S. 69-73
• Kostomarov V.G. Language and culture. New in the theory and practice of linguistic and regional studies / Co-author. with E.M. Vereshchagin. M., 1994. (2.5 avt.l.)
• Kostomarov V.G. New in the theory and practice of linguistic and regional studies / Co-author. with E.M. Vereshchagin// Russian language and literature in the modern dialogue of cultures. M., 1994. S. 56-57
• Kostomarov V.G. Linguistic and cultural aspect of the methodology of teaching Russian as a foreign language. Course program. M., 1993 (2 auth. sheet)
• Kostomarov V.G. "Human dimension" as a promising direction in the development of linguistic and regional studies. 1993. S.552-556
• Kostomarov V.G. Do we need a philological militia?//Teacher's newspaper. March 23. 1993
• Kostomarov V.G. Language without fetters and ideology//Russian news. 2 September. 1993
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language in a foreign flood//Russian language abroad. 1993. No. 2. pp. 58-64
• Kostomarov V.G. MEDACTA 95 in Nitra//Pedagogy. 1993. No. 6. pp. 37-94
• Kostomarov V.G. "Pebbles in the palm of your hand" (reflections after lessons): Quickly means quickly, but how to translate In a stagnant way? // Russian language abroad. 1993. No. 4. pp. 57-61
• Kostomarov V.G. The Hungarian Russianists.//Russian Language Abroad. 1993. No. 4. pp. 101-104
• Kostomarov V.G. In the land of morning calm//Russian language abroad. 1992. No. 2. pp. 124-126
• Kostomarov V.G. Shrimp among whales (South Korean impressions)//Pedagogy. 1992. No. 4. pp. 96-101
• Kostomarov V.G. The Russian language must be loved, cherished...//Radio broadcast. Moscow program, June 19, 1992
• Kostomarov V.G. Pedagogical concept and Russian language//Russian language abroad. 1992. No. 4. pp. 92-110
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language in the "European home": yesterday and tomorrow//La Eslavistica Europea: Problemas y Perspectivas. Granada, 1992, pp. 60-62
• Kostomarov V.G. "Pebbles in the palm of your hand" (Reflections after school): Russian non-Russian words steep, collapse, collapse and others. Scoop, lump and other shameful words of our days//Russian language abroad. 1992. No. 5/6. pp. 59-63
• Kostomarov V.G. Participants of the festival speak//Russian foreigner. 1992. No. 2. C.5
• Kostomarov V.G. Once again about the concept of "native language". Russian language in the USSR. 1991. No. 1. pp. 9-15
• Kostomarov V.G. Pedagogy in the mirror of social changes. Pedagogy. 1991. No. 2. S. 3-13
• Kostomarov V.G. My genius, my language. Reflections of a linguist in connection with public discussions about language. M., 1991. (3.5 aut. sheets). (Translated into English and French in Canada).
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language in a foreign language environment: functioning-state-study-teaching / Co-author. with O.D. Mitrofanova. M. 1991. (2 ed. sheets)
• Kostomarov V.G. Problems of learning and methodological pluralism / Co-author. with O.D. Mitrofanova//Festshrift fur Erwin Wedel zum 65. Geburtstag. Munchen. 1991 S. 241-250
• Kostomarov V.G. Returning to the original meaning ... Public education. 1991. No. 5. S. 18-22
• Kostomarov V.G. Sprachen and Culturen in der Sowjetunion. Frankfurt am Main. 1991 (1.5 avt.l.)
• Kostomarov V.G. The problem of the culture of language and speech in modern Russian society//Russian language and literature in Azerbaijan. 1997. No. 1. pp. 29-34
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language for all: Educational complex / Pod. ed. V.G. Kostomarova, 1990
• Vereshchagin E.M., Kostomarov V.G. Language and culture: linguistic and regional studies in teaching Russian as a foreign language. Moscow, 1990 (4th edition)
• Kostomarov V.G. Methods of teaching Russian as a foreign language / Co-author. with O.D. Mitrofanova and with the participation of M.N. Vyatyutneva, E.Yu. Sosenko, E.M. Stepanova. M., 1990. (24.7 aut. sheets)
• Kostomarov V.G. The functioning of the Russian language: results, state, prospects / Co-author. with L.N. Grigorieva and G.V. Khruslov. M., 1990 (1.1 aut. sheets)
• Kostomarov V.G. Mitrofanova O.D. mother tongue and other languages. Native language. 1990. No. 9. S. 3-8
• Kostomarov V.G. The world today and the Russian language//Russian language in the national school. 1990. No. 11. pp. 3-7
• Felitsyna, V.P. Russian phraseological units: Linguistic and regional studies dictionary / Felitsyna V.P. Mokienko V.M; Ed. Vereshchagina E.M., Kostomarova V.G. - M.: Russian language, 1990. - 222 p.
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language for all: Educational complex / Pod. ed. V.G. Kostomarova, 1989
• Kostomarov V.G. American version of linguistic and regional studies (review of the concept of "literary literacy"). Russian language abroad. 1989. No. 6. pp. 72-80
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language for all: Educational complex / Pod. ed. V.G. Kostomarova, 1988
• Kostomarov V.G. Signs of time and place in the idioms of speech and thought activity / Co-author. with E.M. Vereshchagin//Language: system and functioning. M., 1988
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language for all: Educational complex / Pod. ed. V.G. Kostomarova, 1987
• .Kostomarov V.G. International functions of the Russian language// Bulgarian Russian Studies. 1987. No. 3. pp. 3-12
• Kostomarov V.G. Perestroika and the Russian language. Russian speech. 1987. No. 6. S. 3-11
• Linguistics and text: Sat. articles / Comp. EAT. Vereshchagin, V.G. Kostomarov. - M.: Russian language, 1987. - 179 p.
• Kostomarov V.G. Methodical theory and practice of teaching the Russian language in various countries. Results and prospects / In et al. L. Gorokhovsky, A. Mustajoki. Budapest, 1986. (1 auth sheet). (The work was reprinted abroad).
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language and American concepts of the world language// Russian language in the national school. 1986. No. 7. pp. 9-17
• Kostomarov V.G. Dictionary of grammatical difficulties of the Russian language. M., 1986.
• Efremova T.F., Kostomarov V.G. Dictionary of grammatical difficulties of the Russian language. M., 1986.
• Kostomarov V.G. General and special development of languages//Literature. Language. Culture. M., 1986. S. 267-278
• Kostomarov V.G. Peculiarities of linguistic thinking as a methodological problem / In et al. with A. Ahuja and S.G. Minasova//Bulletin of Moscow State University. Series IX-Philology. 1986. No. 3. pp. 72-81
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language for all: Educational complex / Pod. ed. V.G. Kostomarova, 1985
• Kostomarov V.G. Methodological guide for teachers of the Russian language to foreigners / Co-author. with O.D. Mitrofanova. M., 1984 (3rd ed.)
• Kostomarov V.G. Language life. M., 1984. (6 auth sheets)
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language for all: Educational complex / Pod. ed. V.G. Kostomarova, 1983
• Kostomarov V. G., Mitrofanova O. D. Educational principle of active communication in teaching Russian to foreigners. Reports of the delegation at the III Congress of MAPRYAL. M., 1982. S. 3-20 (The work was reprinted in the USSR and abroad)
• Interview with the director of the Institute of the Russian Language. A.S. Pushkin V.G. Kostomarov and head. Sector of Linguistic and Regional Studies of the Institute of the Russian Language. A.S. Pushkina E.M. Vereshchagin // Russian Language Abroad.- 1982.- No. 1.- P. 56-58
• Kostomarov V.G. at the Institute of the Russian Language. A.S. Pushkin (September-October 1981) // Russian Language Abroad.- 1982.- No. 1.- P. 119-120
• Kostomarov V.G., Mitrofanova O.D. "... until he forgets his native" // Russian language abroad. - 1982. - No. 3. - P. 60-64
• Activities of the International Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature in 1979-1982. Report of the General Secretary of MAPRYAL prof. V.G. Kostomarov at the V session of the General Assembly MAPRYAL August 22, 1982 / / Russian language abroad. - 1982. - No. 6. - P. 47-52
• Kostomarov V.G., Smirnova G.A. OK. Graudina Issues of normalization of the Russian language. Grammar and variants.- M., 1980//Russian language abroad.- 1982.- No. 6.- P. 115-116
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language for all: Educational complex / Pod. ed. V.G. Kostomarova, 1981
• Kostomarov V.G. Linguistic and regional theory of the word / Co-author. with E.M. Vereshchagin. M., 1980 (17 auth sheets)
• Kostomarov V.G. The culture of speech and the ways of its education//Russian language and literature in the schools of the Ukrainian SSR. 1980. No. 4. pp. 51-56
• Kostomarov V.G., Mitrofanova O.D. To the results of the discussion "Textbook of the Russian language and problems of accounting for specialty" / / Russian language abroad. - 1980. - No. 6. - P. 50-54
• Methodology as a science. Article 1. Kostomarov V.G., Mitrofanova O.D. Russian language abroad. 1979. No. 2. S. 56-61
• Methodology as a science. Article 2. Kostomarov V.G., Mitrofanova O.D. Russian language abroad. 1979. No. 6. S. 67-73
• Kostomarov V.G. Textbook of the Russian language for foreigners: typification and completeness / Co-author. O.D. Mitrofanova // Bulletin of Higher School. 1979. No. 3. pp. 74-78
• Kostomarov V.G. Several considerations in connection with the idea of ​​a "standard educational complex"//Russian language at school. 1979. No. 5. pp. 8-14
• Kostomarov V.G. Activities of the International Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature in 1977-1979//Russian Language Abroad.- 1979.- No. 6.- P. 36-40
• Linguistic and regional studies in teaching Russian as a foreign language: Collection of scientific and methodological articles / Ed. Vereshchagina E.M., Kostomarova V.G. - M.: Russian language, 1979. - 216 p.
• Kostomarov V.G. Methodological guide for teachers of the Russian language to foreigners / Co-author. with O.D. Mitrofanova. M., 1978 (2nd ed.)
• Kostomarov V.G. Causes and nature of the progress of the Russian language in our days // Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1978. No. 10. pp.85-100
• Kostomarov V.G. Russian language for tourists. In col. with A.A. Leontiev; English. German, French, Italian, Japanese editions. M., 1978-1990 (8 auth. sheets).
• Kostomarov V.G., Mitrofanova O.D. Textbook of the Russian language and the problem of accounting for the specialty / / Russian language abroad. - 1978. - No. 4. - P. 49-53