Our language is still felt by many. Korney Chukovsky live like life stories about the Russian language

There are many problems in the modern world, one of them is the preservation of the purity of our language; it is she who is raised by K.I. Chukovsky in his text.

The author talks about the former "pessimism" in relation to the ability of individuals to control the flow of the "speech river", which carries a lot of "all sorts of rubbish". Indeed, it is not possible for one person to stop the spread of "linguistic garbage", since it is used by huge masses.

As a second example, which reveals this problem well, let's take sentences No. 22-23, in which Korney Ivanovich talks about ways to influence the language.

He mentions newspapers, radio, television, I might add the Internet, these "superpowerful levers of enlightenment" can actually help in the purification of our speech.

Contrasting these examples, we were convinced that language is not an unrestrained element, but something that we can control.

It is impossible not to agree with this point of view: if everyone takes care of the purity of their speech, and the media will help this, then it will not only be beautiful, but also correct.

This problem is touched upon in George Orwell's dystopian 1984: in Oceania, everyone uses Newspeak, a language that gets simpler every year, its vocabulary is constantly shrinking, making it impossible even to think about political crimes. To support the totalitarian regime, all texts, including fiction, are remade and adjusted to the norms of the new language.

Summing up, I would like to note the importance of preserving, purifying and expanding the language, because otherwise we will face the fate of the inhabitants of Oceania, unable to describe the world around them.

Updated: 2019-07-27

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

Useful material on the topic

• “Our language is still felt by many as a kind of blind element that cannot be controlled...” Based on the text by K. Chukovsky

Collection of I.P. Tsybulko "36 options. USE-2019". The essay was written in strict accordance with the new assessment criteria for task 27.

Our language is still felt by many as a kind of blind element that cannot be controlled.

One of the first to approve this idea was the brilliant scientist W. Humboldt. “Language,” he wrote, “is completely independent of the individual subject...

The writing 528 words

The Russian language is our national heritage, which has gone through many centuries of formation and contains the experience of previous generations. The language resource of our people is extraordinarily rich, beautiful, and has no limits. In modern conditions, in the era of the Internet and the exchange of cultures, new words get into the language, which do not always decorate it, often clog and spoil it. How can we fight for the purity of the Russian language? This question is covered by K.I. Chukovsky in his text.

The writer is convinced that it is necessary to interfere in the language processes. He categorically disagrees that this sphere cannot be controlled. K.I. Chukovsky notes: "... our largest linguists constantly pointed out that the will of individual people, unfortunately, is powerless to consciously control the processes of formation of our speech." But society has the necessary weapons to fight for the native language! These are the media, which the writer imagines as "... super-powerful levers of enlightenment ...". Since newspapers, radio, television have a certain audience, they are able to educate people, you just need to put such a task before them. The author believes that with the help of the well-coordinated educational work of the media, the negative phenomena occurring in speech culture will become isolated or disappear altogether. So, an ally in the war for the purity of the language has been found.

K.I. Chukovsky also draws attention to the fact that a person should not escape from his personal responsibility, shifting duties to the means of general education. Individual work on oneself is necessary for each member of society: "To improve the quality of your language, you need to improve the quality of your heart, your intellect." A person, developing knowledge, expanding vocabulary, makes a feasible contribution to the people's struggle for the purity of their native language.

The author's reflections on the role of the media in society and on the personal responsibility of each person for their speech literacy are interconnected, as they help the writer show his readers options for saving the purity of the Russian language. Pointing out the serious educational opportunities of newspapers and television, K.I. Chukovsky emphasizes the importance of the individual work of each on his speech.

The writer encourages us not only to fight for the purity of our native language, involving the media in this battle, but also to actively participate in this process for every person through self-development. The penetration of unnecessary elements into our language can be controlled, you just need to be aware of personal responsibility for the heritage that our ancestors gave us.

I agree with the position of the author. The purity of the native language is not only an indicator of the level of education of the society, but also a reflection of the identity of the people. Our language is great, powerful and beautiful. Now the Russian language is under the influence of Western cultures, trying to come to terms with the dominance of Americanisms. Words such as “hype”, “high”, “fresh”, “easy” and many others have firmly entered our lives. Because of fashion trends, people prefer their foreign variants to Russian words. By such behavior we impoverish our speech, deprive it of its national uniqueness. One gets the feeling that a foreign culture penetrates our language and thereby poisons the native source. We note, however, that the language did not give up its position even under the onslaught of the interventionists, because it began to create words similar to the word “google”, and this cannot but rejoice. The task of society is to support him.

In conclusion, I want to note that in society since the time of K.I. Chukovsky, there have been certain changes that have weakened our position in the battle for the purity of the language. We have lost an important ally in this war - the media. From TV screens, people not only absorb a huge stream of elements that disfigure our language, but also learn to pronounce their native words incorrectly. It is noticeable that the leading programs have a low speech culture. Therefore, we now personally bear responsibility for the purity of our speech. In such conditions, it is especially important to preserve the beauty and richness of the Russian language.

Many books have been written about language. It is amazing where the language comes from, how it develops, why it is made this way, and not some other. Why are there so many languages ​​in the world? How do they appear and disappear? There are many answers to all these questions, but not all of them are indisputable and ambiguous.

Korney Chukovsky dedicated his text to one of these ambiguous problems. The writer reflects on whether we can influence the development of our native language and rid it of some undesirable phenomena, make it more beautiful and cultured. The author of the text argues that in the past this issue was decided unambiguously in the negative. Many writers and language researchers have stated that the efforts of individuals cannot in any way affect the development of a language. This is a kind of element that does not lend itself to any influence. However, the author seeks to challenge this point of view. He believes that pessimism is inappropriate here, because the situation has now changed. A large number of books, magazines, newspapers, as well as radio and television have appeared, which can influence the development of the language and act in the direction of increasing its normativity and literacy of different people. In sentences 21 to 24, the author expresses confidence that if all these means (press, radio, television) are directed to the fight against rude, illiterate expressions, then it will be possible to achieve that the language will become more literate and beautiful.

The author understands at the same time that this is not enough. It is not enough to teach people standard pronunciation, standard grammar. It will not make the speech more beautiful, informative and expressive. In order to really teach many people to speak their native language, you need a lot of effort, you need to work hard and teach people in schools, at institutes, you need the active work of libraries, the popularization of reading.

The author believes that in this way it is possible to achieve that people will begin to express their thoughts not only competently, but also beautifully, expressively, they will begin to avoid rude, colloquial expressions, and learn an accurate and elegant language.

I would very much like to agree with the author. Although a lot of time has passed since the text was written, and it would seem that all these means have been used. But the effect is not as great as the writer hoped. Indeed, radio, television, the press have influenced the language of the people. Throughout our country, people's speech has become much more literary and consistent with the norms of the grammar of their native language. However, rude expressions, curses, illiterate pronunciation of words (for example, “go” or “put”), which can be heard everywhere, have not disappeared anywhere. Perhaps all the efforts that have been made so far are not enough? Now various events are being held that are designed to increase people's interest in their native language. These are different competitions, festivals, olympiads.

For example, I have already twice taken part in such an interesting event as the Total Dictation. It is designed to unite lovers of the Russian language. This is not just a way to test your literacy, but also an opportunity to communicate with like-minded people. After all, only those people who really love the Russian language come to the Total Dictation.

When you perceive yourself as a slightly crazy loner among people who do not understand what difference it makes to say “go” or “go”, such events help to understand that in fact there are a lot of people who are not indifferent to their language. And these are not only school teachers and librarians, editors, writers. I think that in our time quite a lot is being done to make the Russian language better, but still we need to do even more. And this is within the power of each of us.

Or more recent weeds:

True, our language is still felt by many as a kind of blind element that cannot be controlled.

One of the first to approve this idea was the brilliant scientist W. Humboldt.

“Language,” he wrote, “is completely independent of an individual subject ... Before an individual, language stands as a product of the activity of many generations and the property of an entire nation, therefore the strength of an individual is insignificant compared to the strength of a language.”

This view has survived to the present day.

“No matter how much you say reasonable words against stupid and impudent words, how boyfriend or dancer, they - we know this - will not disappear from that, and if they disappear, it will not be because aesthetes or linguists were indignant, ”one gifted scientist wrote back in the 1920s.

“The trouble is,” he said with anguish, “that no one wants to hear the zealots of the purity and correctness of their native speech, as well as the zealots of good morals ... Grammar and logic, common sense and good taste, euphony and decency speak for them, but nothing comes out of all this onslaught of grammar, rhetoric and stylistics on reckless, ugly, reckless living speech.

Having cited samples of all kinds of speech "ugliness", the scientist embodied his sadness in a bleak and hopeless aphorism:

"Arguments from reason, science, and good manners have no more effect on the existence of such words than geology courses on an earthquake."

In the past, such pessimism was completely justified. There was no point even thinking about how to intervene in unison, systematically, with united forces in the ongoing linguistic processes and direct them along the desired channel.

Old Karamzin very accurately expressed this general feeling of humble submission to the elemental forces of the language:

"Words enter our language autocratically."

Since then, our leading linguists have constantly pointed out that the will of individual people, unfortunately, is powerless to consciously control the processes of formation of our speech.

Everyone imagined that: as if a mighty river of speech flows past them, and they stand on the shore and, with impotent indignation, watch how much rubbish and rubbish its waves carry on them.

There is no need, they said, to boil and fight. Until now, there has not yet been a case when the attempt of the guardians of the purity of the language to correct the linguistic errors of any significant mass of people was crowned with even the slightest success.

But can we agree with such a philosophy of inaction and non-resistance to evil?

Can it be that we, writers, teachers, linguists, can only mourn, be indignant, horrified, watching how the Russian language is deteriorating, but do not even dare to think about subordinating it to the collective mind with powerful efforts of the will?

Let the philosophy of inaction have its meaning in the past eras, when the creative will of people was so often powerless in the fight against the elements - including the element of language. But in the era of the conquest of space, in the era of artificial rivers and seas, do we really not have the slightest opportunity to at least partially influence the elements of our language?

It is clear to everyone that we have this power, and one should only be surprised that we use it so little.

After all, there are in our country such super-powerful levers of education as radio, cinema, television, ideally coordinated with each other in all their tasks and actions.

I'm not talking about the multitude of newspapers and magazines - district, regional, city - subordinated to a single ideological plan, completely owning the minds of millions of readers.

All this purposeful complex of forces has only to unite, systematically, resolutely rise up against the deformities of our current speech, loudly stigmatize them with national disgrace - and there is no doubt that many of these deformities, if they do not disappear completely, then, in any case, will lose their mass mass forever. , epidemic character.

“In the history of literary languages,” recalls the scientist V. M. Zhirmunsky, “the role of grammar-normalizers, the conscious efforts of language theorists who advocated a certain language policy and fought for its implementation, were repeatedly noted. The struggle of Tredyakovsky and Lomonosov, Shishkovites and Karamzinists in the history of the Russian literary language and Russian grammar ... and many more. etc. testifies to the repeated influence of the creators of language policy on language practice.

Back in 1925, Professor L. Yakubinsky wrote:

“It is hardly necessary to sit back and wait for the weather by the sea, relying on the “natural” course of things. Necessary lead unfolding process, taking into account all its features ... The task of the state in this regard is to provide real support for the research work of linguists”, etc.

Such was the opinion of another scientist in the 1920s, Professor G. Vinokur.

“In the possibility of a conscious active attitude to the linguistic tradition,” he wrote, “in the possibility household style- in the broadest sense of this term, - and therefore, the writer of these lines does not doubt the possibility of language policy ...

Language policy is nothing more than the guidance of social linguistic needs based on an accurate, scientific understanding of the matter.

Many years have passed since then. The “linguistic policy” of the state first of all expressed itself in the fact that its two hundred million people learned to read and write in an amazingly short time.

The main thing is done. And now, I repeat, our public faces another task - it would seem easier: to raise by all possible means the culture of our everyday and writer's speech.

It cannot be said that our society has not shown proper activity in the struggle for the purity of the language: as we have seen, many books and pamphlets, as well as newspaper and magazine articles, are being published that attempt to fulfill this task. Countless schools in our country are working especially hard and persistently to fulfill it. But there is still a lot of work, and it is so hard that even the best of our teachers sometimes become discouraged.

“Hands drop,” writes me the village teacher F. A. Sharabanova. - No matter how I interpret the guys that you can’t say what time is it, my name, ten chickens, he came from school, I undressed my boots, they stubbornly refuse to part with these terrible words. Are there really no ways to make the speech of the younger generation cultural?

There are ways, and quite good ones. There is a serious magazine "Russian Language at School", where many ways are offered. In the journal, for all its shortcomings, which we have already spoken about, the ardent attempts of advanced teachers to improve the speech culture of children were very well reflected.

But can the school - alone - exterminate the remnants of lack of culture?

No, what is needed here is the united efforts of all the disparate fighters for the purity of the language, and can there be any doubt that if we all together and passionately set to work together and passionately, we will succeed in the near future, if not completely, but to a large extent, to cleanse our language of this filth?

About eight years ago I published a short article in Izvestia, which outlined several practical measures for the public struggle against perversions and ugliness of speech. In this article, I proposed, among other things, to hold annually on an all-Union scale a "Week (or Month) of Struggle for the Purity of the Language" under the auspices of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Writers' Union.

This project evoked lively responses that struck me with their extraordinary passion. Letters from readers poured out to me in an avalanche from Leningrad, from Moscow, from Kyiv, from Ufa, from Perm, from Pereslavl-Zalessky, from Novorossiysk, from Dzhambul, from Gus-Khrustalny - and only then did I truly understand how tenderly and the Soviet people devoutly love their great language, and what an aching pain those distortions inflict on them that disfigure and spoil it.

In almost every one of these letters (and there are more than eight hundred of them) some specific means of eradicating this evil are indicated.

A resident of the city of Riga, K. Barantsev, advises, for example, to print lists of incorrect and correct words on the covers of penny school notebooks that are distributed among millions of children.

The problem of people's attitude to the fate of their native language. According to K. I. Chukovsky

Native language ... "Great and mighty" - these are the definitions given to him by I. S. Turgenev. Should we worry about the fate of the Russian language? These questions are posed in the text of K. I. Chukovsky, taken from his book “Alive as Life”, dedicated to the problems of the culture of the Russian language.

Revealing the problem of people's attitude to the fate of the Russian language, the author draws historical parallels, with the help of citation refers to the authority of prominent cultural figures, linguists and writers. Chukovsky contrasts two types of attitudes towards changes taking place in the language. In the past, language was felt like a blind element that could not be controlled. The linguist Humboldt wrote about this, arguing that language is completely independent of the individual subject. To be more convincing and figurative, the author uses the metaphor, “a mighty speech river”, depicting powerless linguists and teachers who only look from the shore, “how much rubbish its waves carry”. But today is a different time - "the era of the conquest of space, the era of artificial rivers and seas." One cannot be indifferent to one's native language, one must purposefully, systematically, resolutely rise up "against the ugliness of our current speech." In the struggle for the purity of the native language, not only the media, but also every native speaker should take an active part.

In the work of Ilf and Petrov “The Twelve Chairs”, Elochka Lyudoyedova is ridiculed, whose vocabulary is miserable and miserable and consists of only three dozen words, such as “lad”, “brilliance”, “horror”. This limited vocabulary reflects the soulless, petty-bourgeois world of the heroine.

Summing up, I emphasize that the culture of the language, its purity and development depend on the general culture, on moral development. Take care of our language, our beautiful Russian language!

Text K. I. Chukovsky

(1) Our language is still felt by many as a kind of blind element that cannot be controlled.
(2) One of the first to approve this idea was the brilliant scientist W. Humboldt.
(3) “Language,” he wrote, “is completely independent of the individual subject ... (4) Before the individual, language stands as a product of the activity of many generations and the property of an entire nation, therefore the strength of the individual is insignificant compared to the strength of the language.”
(5) This view has survived to our era. (6) “No matter how you say reasonable words against stupid and arrogant words, they - we know this - will not disappear from that, and if they disappear, it’s not because aesthetes or linguists were indignant,” wrote one gifted scientist. (7) “That’s the trouble,” he said with anguish, “that no one wants to hear the zealots of the purity and correctness of their native speech, as well as the zealots of good morals ... (8) 3 but they are spoken by grammar and logic, common sense and good taste, euphony and decency, but nothing comes out of all this onslaught of grammar, rhetoric and style on reckless, ugly, reckless lively speech. (9) Having cited samples of all kinds of speech “ugliness”, the scientist embodied his sadness in a bleak and hopeless aphorism: “Arguments from reason, science and good taste affect the existence of such words no more than geology courses on an earthquake.”
(10) In the old days, such pessimism was completely justified. (I) There was no point even thinking about how to intervene in unison, systematically, with united forces in the ongoing linguistic processes and direct them along the desired channel. (12) Old Karamzin very accurately expressed this general feeling of humble obedience to the elemental forces of the language: "Words enter our language autocratically."
(13) Since then, our leading linguists have constantly pointed out that the will of individual people, unfortunately, is powerless to consciously control the processes of formation of our speech.
(14) Everyone imagined this: as if a mighty river of speech flows past them, and they stand on the shore and, with impotent indignation, watch how much rubbish its waves carry on them.
- (15) There is no need, - they said, - to boil and fight. (16) Until now, there has not yet been a case where the attempt of the guardians of the purity of the language to correct the linguistic errors of any significant mass of people was crowned with even the slightest success.
(17) But can we agree with such a philosophy of inaction and non-resistance to evil? (18) Can we really, writers, teachers, linguists, can only grieve, be indignant, horrified, watching how the Russian language is deteriorating, but we don’t even dare to think about subordinating it to the collective mind with mighty efforts of the will?
(19) Let the philosophy of inaction have its meaning in the past eras, when the creative will of people was so often powerless in the fight against the elements - including the elements of language. (20) But in the era of the conquest of space, in the era of artificial rivers and seas, do we really not have the slightest opportunity to at least partially influence the elements of our language?
(21) It is clear to everyone that we have this power, and one should only be surprised that we use it so little. (22) After all, in our country there are such super-powerful levers of education as radio, cinema, television, ideally coordinated with each other in all their tasks and actions. (23) I'm not talking about the many newspapers and magazines - district, regional, city - subordinate to a single ideological plan, completely owning the minds of millions of readers.
(24) All this purposeful complex of forces has only to unite, systematically, resolutely rise up against the deformities of our current speech, loudly stigmatize them with national disgrace - and there is no doubt that many of these deformities, if not completely disappear, then, in any case, forever lose their massive, epidemic character...
(25) True, I understand very well that all these measures are not enough.
(26) After all, the culture of speech is inseparable from the general culture. (27) To improve the quality of your language, you need to improve the quality of your heart, your intellect. (28) Another writes and speaks without errors, but what a poor dictionary he has, what moldy phrases! (29) What an anemic spiritual life is reflected in them!
(ZO) Meanwhile, only that speech can truly be called cultural, which has a rich vocabulary and many different intonations. (31) This cannot be achieved by any campaigns for the purity of the language. (32)3 here other, longer, broader methods are needed. (33) For true enlightenment, so many libraries, schools, universities, institutes, etc. have been created. (34) By raising their general culture, the people thereby raise the culture of their language.
(35) But, of course, this does not exempt any of us from all possible participation in the struggle for the purity and beauty of our speech.

(According to K.I. Chukovsky)