The main directions in the study of the language of the city. The language of the city of Ufa: the functioning of various linguistic subsystems and bilingualism Ismagilova Nuriya Vinerovna The role of studying the language of the city

PHILOLOGY

Vestn. Ohm. university 2011. No. 3. S. 193-197.

A.A. Yunakovskaya

"LANGUAGE OF THE CITY"

AS A LINGUISTIC PROBLEM*

Methodological approaches to the study of the concepts of "city", "language of the city" are considered. The emphasis is on the development of this issue in modern Russian studies. The main linguistic approaches to the study of urban speech material are highlighted. The features of colloquial word formation are described.

Key words: city, "language of the city", urban studies, urban varieties of speech, colloquial word formation.

At the end of the XIX - the beginning of the XX century. the city as a way of organizing people's lives becomes the subject of study of various sciences. Methodological approaches to the study of the city in our country in the 20s. 20th century were formed by historians I.M. Grevs and N.P. Antsiferov. They are considered the founders of urban studies (urban studies), urban local history. When studying the city, they used the excursion (so-called expeditionary) method.

The question of the linguistic study of the "language of the city" was one of the first to be raised by A.A. Chess. According to the scientist, the basis of the scientific description of linguistic phenomena should be the principle of historicism (although he does not deny the auxiliary value of the synchronous description of linguistic phenomena).

In the 20s. 20th century B.A. Larin set the task of studying the "language of the city" as the third main part of linguistic phenomena, occupying a place between the literary language (hereinafter - LA) and peasant dialects. He believed that the linguistic life of the city underlies the LA, i.e., the evolution of the LA cannot be understood without referring to the "language of the city".

In the future, the issues of studying the language of the city were developed in scientific-theoretical and concrete-historical terms. Apart from

A.A. Shakhmatova, B.A. Larin, the linguistic study of the city was carried out by E.D. Polivanov, R.O. Shore, L.P. Yakubinsky, A.M. Selishchev,

B.M. Zhirmunsky, M.N. Peterson, N.M. Karinsky and other researchers who founded a new linguistic direction - social dialectology. This direction was based on the thesis of the social conditionality of linguistic phenomena, and the term social dialect (later - sociolect), interpreted as a collective or group language, a certain archetype, was introduced into scientific circulation. This is everyday speech, which is the implementation of certain linguistic means. However, then the issue of the "language of the city" did not develop for a number of reasons.

Interest in the linguistic life of the city began to revive in Russian studies in the late 50s - early 60s. 20th century in connection with the study of LA. In the wake of sociolinguistic research, interest arose in the study of literary colloquial speech (hereinafter - LRR). In the future, LRR

* With the support of the grant of the Russian State Humanitarian Foundation No. 11-14-55004a / t, Federal State Scientific Institution "Center for Information Technologies and Systems of Executive Authorities" No. 01201157519.

© A.A. Yunakovskaya, 2011

began to be regarded as an oral variety of the language of the modern city. In the early 80s. urban vernacular (hereinafter - GPR) begins to be studied as an integral part of urban colloquial speech.

Since the last third of the twentieth century. In Russian studies, the topic “the language of the modern city” becomes very relevant. It is understood as a historically established set of types of urban speech used within the boundaries of the city by various social groups, united by the knowledge of the “city code”. In other words, within the boundaries of the city, a “speech collective” is formed, uniting all its inhabitants. They are characterized by knowledge of the "general jargon" of the city ("citywide jargon") and the informal names of urban objects that form the "city code". As a result of their study, a special direction is formed - urban studies (except for Moscow, urban studies are developing in Veliky Novgorod, Saratov, Perm, Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Omsk, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk and other cities). At the same time, it is noted that local elements are manifested in the speech of speakers of LRR, GPR, semi-dialect, and jargons. The study of the speech of the inhabitants of a number of cities forms local urbanism.

An analysis of scientific literature and practical material suggests that the selection of clear indicators of "urban subsystems" (speech environments) is not the only approach. It can be very productive to identify the general patterns of their functioning. So, carriers of colloquial and medium literary varieties of speech culture can and do find common topics for conversation. The latter, if necessary, combines various speech resources, moves from one speech code to another. On the other hand, this is also typical for “partial vernaculars” who find a “common language” with the inhabitants of “small towns” and “dialect speakers” who speak the local semi-dialect (the so-called rural vernacular).

During verbal interaction, background knowledge is common to city residents; if they do not match, communicative failures are possible. It should also take into account the fact that “at each stage of linguistic evolution, the interaction of these subsystems is peculiar and reflects - not directly, through complex definitions -

environments - social processes taking place in society ". In modern conditions, there is a penetration of “non-literary” elements into the LA zone due to changes in the class hierarchy, the media, the style of films, etc., which creates a “blurring” of the boundaries of the subsystems that are in contact with the LA.

Citizens are also united by the features of communicative behavior: sociability, collectivity of communication, appraisal, thematic diversity, dominance in conversation, uncompromisingness in a dispute, everyday unsmilingness (these parameters for characterizing Russians were proposed by I.A. Sternin). Therefore, one of the areas of urban research is “a rhetorical approach, consideration of the speech of citizens from the point of view of the technology of speech communications. Between the speaking residents of the city, it is possible as a “consent” (“communicative unison”,

"communicative balance", "non-con-

conflict interaction”, etc.) and “disagreement” (“communicative failure”, “communicative failure”, “communicative conflict”, etc.).

Positive speech acts arise in case of installation on "successful" interaction, speech "solidarity", although misunderstanding is possible in case of mismatch of meanings and connotations of language units from different layers of the Russian language.

With the loss of such an indicator characteristic of rural residents as “interpersonal rivalry”, as well as in the conditions of the formation of “communication without a face”, urban residents are characterized by the creation of a situation of speech aggression according to a certain plan (the so-called urban stereotype of a conflict type). A “non-fraternal state of society” is being formed (N.F. Fedorov’s term), for which there is a model of conflict behavior. Both motivated stimuli of a given situation (direct stimuli) and unmotivated ones (indirect incentive reactions) are possible, which leads to verbalization of the emotional state. With a dual-conflict perception of the world, the so-called triad of hostility (K.E. Izard) is most often represented: anger, disgust, contempt. In the everyday conversational sphere, they most often appear together. The degree of "severity" of the means used depends on the characteristics of the conflict scenario, age,

gender and type of linguistic personality (degree of courtesy / invectivity) and her knowledge of the norms of etiquette communication. The effect of the impact depends on the nature of the units used: individual expressive "blotches" in the text, coarse units and constructions, the fund of expressive and coarse vernacular, argotized units, vulgar jargon, invective (from Latin tuesIo 'attacks', 'abuse'), including number and obscene units. To characterize this communicative situation, the concepts of "anticulture", "antibehavior", "negative template" are used. The corresponding phenomena arise as a result of a reassessment of the surrounding world, most of which is "lowered" and "parodied" .

In scientific literature, vernacular, jargon, slang, sublanguages, etc. have a number of common features; the idea of ​​integrating urban colloquial speech as a living and unfinished process is being carried out (V.V. Khimik, A.A. Yunakovskaya, etc.). First of all, those varieties of speech are integrated that create their own "world" (most often protest). This approach is justified by the fact that colloquial varieties of speech are based on a dual-conflict perception of the surrounding world by a person. "Own" most often has a weak reflection, is guarded in various ways, including rude-swearing formations. “Alien” (“not one's own”, hostile, unfamiliar, etc.) has multiple reflections. It is the characteristic of "alien" that has general patterns and means of reflection. A series of words, phraseological units, mini-texts are created, which eventually form semantic fields.

The common features of various varieties of the common Russian language are the use of a number of units of a reduced and rough nature, forming a common "low" inter-dialect type of speech, which has a peculiar style. It occupies the lowest level in the structure of the national language and is a "parallel" means of communication for speakers of different varieties of the common Russian language. This is a non-normative subtype of speech (the so-called familiar-areal speech (the term of M.M. Bakhtin)), when used, the speaker can interpret existing concepts in his own way by means of the language. However, you can

talk about certain regularities of its functioning. This subtype is characterized by the emotional attitude of the speaker to the “other” using a “rough form of dialogism” (term by M.M. Bakhtin). It is based on a “self-developing type of culture”, which is characterized by a type of thinking based on the following features: a complex hierarchy of subordination, a stereotypical or close attitude to the world around, a collective idea of ​​the “norms” of behavior, the emotional attitude of the speaker to the “other ”, based on the psychology of abuse (most often), sexually directed, the permissibility of physical aggression, etc. There is a predominance of negative nominations. Even C. G. Jung noted that “we carry our past, namely, a primitive, low person with his desires and emotions” . And it is the human principle, in his opinion, that has an eternal character, it is always alive in the collective subconscious.

No less indicative is the presence of a number of common word-formation means that form the “uniformity of word formation” ( D.S. Likhachev’s term) in sociolects, as well as in colloquial varieties of the common Russian language. So, we can distinguish several rows of units formed according to the same type of models. In linguistics, a similar approach has already been proposed by V.N. Vinogradova, who considers derivational means as related phenomena characteristic of various forms of the Russian national language (for example, colloquial affixes). Despite the interest shown in science in the study of general Russian derivational tendencies, the word formation of social varieties of the language is poorly covered.

The collected material - colloquial speech of the city of Omsk - allows us to make some observations on the implementation of the all-Russian word-formation system. Considering “typical” and “non-typical” (“unique”) word-building structures, the peculiarities of using word-building affixes and models, it is necessary to take into account the ratio of regularity, degree of segmentation, repetition of word-building elements. It is known that the Russian language is the language of an inflectional system, which is characterized by the accumulation of formal indicators at the end of a word, therefore

The development of a new lexical unit ends with the creation of the “end of the word”, the formal expression of the most general qualifying and categorical components of the verbal meaning (E.S. Kubryakova, M.N. Yantsenetskaya, etc.). The process of semantization occurs in the reverse order - to a single lexical meaning from the general categorical form. The stages of formalization and semantization correlate quite clearly, having the same “parts” of the derived word (main / main and affixal components) as a linguistic expression.

The connection between word formation and vocabulary is manifested in the fact that it is with the help of new units that it is possible to design emerging concepts on the basis of existing ones. At the same time, word formation is not indifferent to the systemic organization of the lexical fund and has a number of serial formations that contribute to the “facilitation” of understanding these units.

Using the example of creating nouns, you can see that they can be formed in a suffix way:

1) from verbs using suffixes

Yves (o), -ev (o), -iv (o) / and (l) ov (o) (a) driven

‘lie, deceit’ (mol.) (from the pier. to drive ‘to deceive’), tochivo ‘food’ (mol.) (from the mol. to sharpen ‘to eat’), etc.; b) lechevo 'lie, deceit' (mol.) (from the pier. to treat 'to deceive'), fawn 'ambush' (corner), palevo 'failure' (mol.), (from ug. to sleep 'get caught'), shirevo 'drug administered intravenously' (vorov., mol.) (from expand 'take the drug intravenously'), etc. c) vintilovo 'mass detention' (mol.) fight '(mol.) (from extinguish 'strongly beat, kill'), glukalovo 'hallucinations' (mol.) (from glitch 'to see hallucinations'), gorbilovo 'work' (thieves) (from the common hunchback 'to deal with heavy labour'), ​​mochilovo 'mass murder' (mol.) (from mochit 'to kill'), stremalov 'feeling of danger' (mol.) (from striving 'to be afraid'), shiryalovo 'drug' (mol.) (from spreading ' take drugs). Units formed from nouns are also noted (fire flint ‘alcohol’ (mol.), reading matter (simple), etc.);

2) from verbs using the suffix -

l (o) (woken up 'alarm clock' (mol.) (from wake up), hammered 'dialer program' (comp.) (from simple hammer), fed 'power supply unit' (comp.) (from power), pihl 'car engine' (auto jargon) (from colloquial pih-

nut), pivchilo ‘beer’ (mol.), etc.). BUT

units are also marked dreyflo ‘a cowardly person’ (mol.) (from simple drift ‘cowardly’), pyzhlo ‘a person of athletic build’ (mol.) (from colloquial puff up ‘try your best to do something’);

3) from verbs with the help of the suffix -l (a) (carried (simple, auto-arg.) (from drive), taxied 'driver' (auto-arg.) (from steer), rolled 'card sharper' (thieves), threw 'swindler' (thieves. (from throwing), sculpted 'doctor' (thieves.), faggot 'dishonest person' (mol.), etc. (cf. considerations', from singing along));

4) from nouns according to the existing model (a) corefan 'close friend' (thieves) - druzhban, kalifan, bra, -tan 'friend' (mol.), etc., b) hostel 'dormitory' (simple ., they say) - baraga 'dormitory' (they say), profilaga 'dispensary' (they say), located 'residential location' (military), etc.).

Formation from nouns is also carried out with the help of truncation and grammatical design (comp 'computer', liegi 'megabytes' (comp.), whitefish 'cigarette' (mol.), zhiga 'car "Zhiguli"', zaporoga 'car "Zaporozhets" ' (mol.), prog 'software' (mol., comp.), bija 'bijouterie' (designer) (cf. general use m.ag 'tape recorder', layer 'record'), etc.) .

One of the ways to form colloquial units is word formation:

a) compound words (blat-khata ‘place

gathering for certain events ', gop-company 'association of people according to interests', boyfriend 'a young man, a man for a fun pastime' (cf. girl-friend, boy-woman),

uncle-bans ‘negro’ (from the name of a foreign culinary company) (mol.), drape-gull-chik ‘unfashionable coat that does not warm the owner’ (simple), etc.);

b) complex abbreviated words (BICH ‘former intelligent person’, HOME ‘without a fixed place of residence’, etc.)

Elements of a language game are presented (barn, mitten 'mouth' (mol.), bucket 'stomach' (mol.), bathhouse, mausoleum 'public toilet', helicopter 'mosquito' (mol.), m, arten 'gas or electric stove ' etc.).

For various varieties of speech, a sound repetition is characteristic: the creation of a phonetic shell, designed according to

models of the Russian language (vas-vas 'support, help in a reprehensible act' (generally used), figli-migli 'tricks, clever tricks', hocus-pocus 'clever trick, unexpected act', shura-mura 'love adventures' (colloquial .), floundering bay (from floundering bay 'to do something unexpectedly without thinking'), dances-shmantsy 'entertainment' (simple),

shir-myr 'something criminal' (dial.), yurten-kruten 'mobile, nimble person' (dial.), agu-agu 'love relationship', kora-mora 'death' (mol.), excel-m .oxel 'Microsoft Excel', mu-mu 'multimedia' (comp.), etc.

The above list allows us to speak about the existence of a common derivational fund of “primitiveness” in the language of the city. Peripheral elements of the word-formation system are most often used in models for which this formant (suffix) is not typical. As a result, a unit is formed that looks like a random anomaly that opposes the analogy of a "normative" language.

So, the study of the language of the city took shape in a special linguistic direction. At the current stage of its development, it is obvious that the "language of the city" is a multi-level and multi-aspect formation, and its components have both different and common indicators. The latter include a protest mood, the denial by the subject of speech of the world around him, the designation of his own position in the dismemberment of the world and the nomination of its phenomena. These features are reflected in the word-formation system of the city's language. The study revealed a number of word-building means of the common Russian language (most often unproductive), based on ancient impulses - primitive thinking, archetypes - and their linguistic expression.

LITERATURE

Grevs I. M. City as a subject of local history //

Local history. 1924. No. 3. S. 249.

Shakhmatov A. A. Introduction to the course of the history of the Russian language. Ch. 1-2. Pg., 1916. S. 79.

Larin B.A. On the linguistic study of the city // Russian speech: Sat. Art. / ed. L. V. Shcher-by. Issue. 3. L., 1928. S. 61-75; On the linguistic characteristics of the city (several prerequisites) // Izv. State. ped. in-ta im. Herzen. 1928. Issue. 1. S. 175-185). See also: Larin B.A. History of the Russian language and general linguistics. M., 1977. S. 175-189, 189-199.

Skrebnev Yu.S. Research of Russian colloquial speech // VYa. 1987. No. 1.

Varieties of urban oral speech. M., 1988); Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988; The functioning of the literary language in the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1990.

Urban vernacular: Problems of study. M. : Nauka, 1984.

Sirotinina O. B. Speech of the modern city // Speech of the city. Omsk, 1995. Part 1. S. 8-11.

Shalina N.V. Communicative and cultural space: a general view and possibilities of interpretation // Russian language in the context of culture. Yekaterinburg, 1999, p. 61.

Yunakovskaya A. A. Vernacular. "Space-niki". The degree of vernacular utterance // Slavic Readings. Issue. IV. Omsk, 1996.

Krysin L.P. The problem of social and functional differentiation in modern linguistics // Modern Russian language: social and functional differentiation. M., 2003. S. 11.

Prokhorov Yu. E., Sternin I. A. Russians. Communicative behaviour. M. : Nauka, 2006.

Zhelvis V.I. Battlefield. M., 1997; Yunakovskaya A. A. Some features of the picture of the world and speech behavior of carriers of coarse (invective) vocabulary and phraseology // Language. Man. Picture of the world. Linguoanthropological and philosophical essays. Omsk, 2000, pp. 169-181.

Uspensky B. A. Anti-behavior in the culture of Ancient Russia // Selected Works. T. 1. Semiotics of history. Semiotics of culture. M., 1994. S. 320-332.

Khimik V.V. Poetics of the Low, or Vernacular as a Cultural Phenomenon. SPb., 2000.

Bakhtin M. M. Francois Rabelais and the folk culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. M., 1990.

Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1986. S. 317.

Jung K. G. Archetype and symbol. M., 1991. S. 11.

Likhachev D.S. Features of primitive primitivism // Language and thinking. M.; L., 1935. T. 34. S. 47-100.

transcript

1 BV KRASIL'NIKOVA Institute of the Russian Language of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR City Language as a Linguistic Problem In Russian linguistics, two areas of study of the language of the city have been identified, which could be called sociological and linguo-geographic. The theorist of the first direction was B. A. Larin, who drew the attention of linguists to the fact that between the two areas that constantly attracted researchers, written literary language and oral dialects, there remains a gap in which little-studied areas of urban speech are placed: “urban folklore, non-canonized types of written language , colloquial speech of different groups of the urban population. The tasks of a comprehensive study of the language of the city set by B. A. Larin were grouped around two main aspects: 1) to what extent the social division of the urban collective, the nature of social interactions within it are reflected in the linguistic division of the language of the city and the linguistic competence of different groups of citizens (““. Is it possible think that there are so many dialects in the city, how many professions or socio-economic categories? "2); 2) what is the relationship of the literary language with non-literary formations that make up its immediate environment; what are the relationships of different sublanguages ​​(between sublanguages, for example, slang and literary language relations of complete translatability may be absent; sublanguages ​​are subordinated to a hierarchy of prestige; a tendency to integrate different sublanguages ​​of the city that needs to be studied was noted; the role of the city as the basis for the formation of the literary language was emphasized). the national composition of the urban population, but also the variety of social functions inherent in the townspeople, and the fact that each citizen is a member of several social associations and. hence owns more than one sublanguage. A general conclusion was made: “the linguistic diversity of the city is twofold: 1) it is not only in the meeting of multilingual groups (we will call this the multilingualism of the city), but also 2) in the diversity of the language skills of each group ... i.e., in two-dialect and multi-dialect , in the rudimentary and complete polyglotism of the townspeople"3. In recent years, as is known, significant volumes of records of urban colloquial speech have been accumulated, new ideas have been developed about the relationship between the book-written language and oral

2 colloquial speech of the city4, but the language formations coexisting in the city have not yet been fully studied, the question of their interaction has only been raised. The sociological direction was further developed in modern studies in sociolinguistics, as well as in studies of the "functional paradigms" of national languages. The selected concept is used, in particular, in the book “Types of supra-dialectal forms of language” (M., 1981), in which, on the basis of different languages, the task is to study the relationship of the literary language in its written and oral form with dialects, semi-dialects, urban vernacular, inter-dialect Koine . The linguo-geographic direction puts forward the spatial aspect of the existence of a language in the first place. Are there urban (or areal) versions of the literary language? What is the variation at different levels? Two theoretical possibilities are discussed: 1) the literary language is one, literary and non-literary phenomena are contrasted, territorial differences belong to the dialect area and its spheres of influence; 2) the literary language exists in territorial variants, in a certain interaction with supra-dialect and dialect forms. In this aspect, the problem of the interaction of the literary language with the non-literary and foreign language environment receives a new content. In a general form, these problems were formulated in the article by R. R. Gelgardt5, in the collective monograph "The Russian language and Soviet society"6. This topic is also developed in a number of works devoted to the description of the phenomena of individual language levels, to the greatest extent and -pronunciation7. There are works on the peculiarities of the speech of Petersburgers-Leningraders 8. The question of identities and differences in urban nomination is raised in the book “Methods of nomination in modern Russian” 9. Comprehensive studies of the language of the city have begun in a number of cities, in particular in Perm and 10. City can be represented as a space with a center and outskirts, consisting of old and new districts with a special history, with their characteristic territorial, dialect connections.The city itself has a "linguistic landscape", this idea is extremely interestingly developed in the article by S. S. Vysotsky11. There are studies that combine sociological and territorial aspects (for example, "The Russian language and Soviet society"). In Tübingen (FRG), many years of work have been carried out to record speech samples through a continuous survey of small towns located on the same territory. In various communication conditions, a mobile laboratory makes a record from a certain number of informants of different age, gender, social oh accessories. According to linguistic differences, the differential significance of extralinguistic characteristics was established. The materials obtained by the researchers made them give the most pain

3 weight is given to two factors: territorial and gender (an analysis of the speech of women and men showed the following pattern: if there is any definite trend in the speech of men, then in the speech of women there is a tendency that is opposite or indefinite12). At the present stage of scientific research, both of these areas remain very relevant. But the development of the theory of communication, functional linguistics, the theory of speech acts leads to a new look at the language of the city as a complex structured communicative whole. The task of understanding the specifics of the city as an integral object of linguistic study becomes relevant. “The city is a complex unity, including natural factors, material objects created by man, and the people themselves”13. This definition highlights all the material objects that make up the city, so it is the initial base for many specific definitions of the city created in the context of special sciences. They necessarily contain signs associated with the forms of social existence of a person and his activities. The city is a national economic object, a socio-economic complex, an architectural formation. For a sociologist, a city is a special structure of social groups and social relations, a special way of life: “a closed cycle of connections “work, life, rest”, a special structure of mass and individual communication. For a linguist, a special structure of linguistic communication comes to the fore. At the same time, the study of the language of the city is in the general context of the approach, which is determined by the requirement “to always take the language not as an isolated phenomenon, but as a phenomenon operating in a society with a complete extralinguistic context”14, an approach to language as an activity. As part of the study of "linguistic existence"15, Japanese scientists conducted a continuous survey of speaking and listening, reading and writing of many people, and then found out the dependence of the volume and nature of speech practice on the profession, social status and other characteristics. The description of the functioning of the language in the city, obviously, should include this kind of information about different age and social groups of citizens, but cannot be limited to this if its ultimate goal is not a fragmentary, but a systematic description, if the leading one is the attitude towards the city as a “single organism” (the image of K. Marks). The main components of the communication process are: the participants in the communication (the sender to the addressee), the content of the communication, the means of communication. Analyzing different components, we must take into account that the analysis is aimed, firstly, at identifying the specifics of the city as the opposite of the village, and secondly, at identifying the uniqueness of this city. In connection with the last task, a typology of cities becomes necessary: ​​large small; new old (first some

4 the burden and according to the mind of the inhabitants are younger and usually have a sour composition, the latter have a history, hereditary inhabitants of the carriers of the traditions of the city); with economic specialization (single-profile) without it (cf .: cities of science centers (academic campuses), metallurgical, textile, resort, etc. 10). Cities can vary in lifestyle with rich street life (eg resort towns, southern towns, waterfront towns with large parks) or poor; with different time rhythms of life (evening, day); with different pace of life. The linguistic typology of cities, obviously, should be built taking into account all the achievements of modern sociology of the city, but at the same time be focused on linguistic differences than, for example, the linguistic life of large and small cities differs. Even brief reflections on this topic allow us to say that the number of inhabitants, the spatial extent of the city limit the possibilities of contacts. Many modern large cities are characterized by "pendulum migration" from the suburbs and nearby small towns. Finally, the social and economic ties of large cities with other cities, their simultaneous transformation into transport hubs, create a constant influx of people from other cities. All this opens up the collective of the city, makes the composition of the persons participating in communication change, thereby destroying the attitudes of the speakers associated with a stable community. The same reasons lead to the maximum standardization of forms of mass communication, all cities should be in a certain sense “like one city”. A visitor should be able to accurately navigate in any city (therefore, for example, the inscriptions in the city should be standard). A consequence of this are sharper contrasts between the forms of personal and social communication. A big city not only has a complex system of forms of communication, but also extremely specializes the means used in different communication areas. At the same time, it is in the big city that its own means of mass communication appear: radio stations, television studios, newspapers. A visitor can also feel his non-inclusion in the city's collective, reading, for example, slogans with appeals: Leningraders!; Sverdlovites! etc. Let us consider the main forms of communication in the city, which reflect the different ratio of different components of communication. The starting point is division: mass personal communication. In the field of mass communication, a differential sign of mediation / immediacy of contact is essential. Newspapers, radio, television (local and central or only central), inscriptions on the streets of the city, we would attribute to the form

5 mediated communication (no contact), distinguishing this type of communication from rallies, meetings, solemn holidays (for example, parades, demonstrations, annual poetry festivals). It may be advisable to join those sociologists who refer only forms of mediated communication to mass communication, while other forms are called public communication. In public communication, more regulated and freer forms are possible. Mass (citywide, etc.) official meetings are usually held according to an established program and prepared texts. But in narrow groups at public and industrial meetings, meetings, planning meetings, at scientific conferences and symposiums, various kinds of meetings (with a writer, scientist, hero of the day), at discussions of books, oral journals, during ceremonial events (associated, for example, with the beginning or end of school, university, with a significant labor victory) the degree of preparedness / spontaneity, formality / unofficial fluctuates, apparently, very widely. We have in mind, first of all, the speech behavior of the "chairman" and "speakers". Non-standard, unregulated can also be the reactions of the audience, singling out speakers from its composition, showing other “activity from the ground” (for example, shouting). At the same time, the boundary between an organized meeting with the leader following its progress and an unorganized polylogue (let us recall the characteristic reaction: Stop the market!), After which the leader has to return the meeting to a strict course, can be crossed. Sociologists note such an important difference between television and radio audiences and the audience in public communication as contact / non-contact. The disunity of radio listeners and the closeness of TV viewers sitting in the same room determines profound differences in their behavior. In the first case, forms of communication complication of contamination of various forms are possible: while listening to the radio, one can exchange with home words, others on a topic related to radio information, and on completely extraneous current everyday topics. Talking at the TV, loud remarks about what is seen and heard (impossible in the cinema hall) also represent a form of crossing of different communicative spheres. The contact of those in the same audience also has special external, including linguistic, forms of expression. The speaker in a certain way affects the atmosphere of perception, the audience can be electrified, merged into a single whole, but it can be split and not unanimous. There are specific mass reactions, for example, a buzz in the audience. Where does it come from? From microcontacts with neighbors, from breaking through the reactions of people "particles" of the audience. Thus, the interaction of different forms of communication is also observed here. An extremely peculiar place of public com

6 munications are sports competitions, primarily football and hockey. Speech behavior in the stands is full of emotions, often imperative in nature. We know only the work of Yu. M. Kostinsky, which contains observations on the characteristic types of cries from fans. Mass and personal communications can be carried out in written and oral form. The choice of linguistic means of expression in each form is influenced by the totality of other characteristics of communication. For example, a word on a sign is a form of written mass communication. This is the most concise and economical form of information transfer, which wraps a situation (or a set of situations) into a nomination. Consider, for example, the names of consumer service establishments. These are places where service providers and customers interact. Typical service situations are as follows: the subject of the action performs an action on an object that usually belongs to the client (Shoe repair; Glasses repair; Dry cleaning; Inserting snakes into bags; inscription in Odessa); the subject of the action performs actions on the client (the client is the object of the action in a hairdressing salon, clinic, atelier). The initiator (causator) of these situations is the client, who is looking for, choosing the place of service. How are the relevant institutions identified? There are a number of specialized names such as "deli", "clinic", "hairdresser", "studio", "laundry"; in other cases, the name includes either only the name of the item-object, or the name of the action-f-item-name. The following regularity is observed. Naming by the object is characteristic mainly of trading enterprises (Bread; Juices; Footwear; Books); this type of curtailment distinguishes commercial enterprises in the modern city from others belonging to the service sector, in which the action itself is usually named (see examples above: repair, laundry, cleaning, etc.). The words "sale" and "trade" appear on signboards for seasonal and specialized forms of trade (sales at discounted prices). Perhaps these cases reflect a new trend in the nomination of commercial enterprises - a trend towards "unmarked" names. In parallel to modern names, one can put, for example, an inscription preserved for memory on the wall (there is no store) along Novoslobodskaya Street in Moscow: “Fish and meat trade”. In the post-revolutionary period, drastic changes took place in this area of ​​the nomination. Before the revolution, the name of the subject of action (the owner of the enterprise) was often on the signs of private enterprises: “Shoemaker Ivanov”. Modern service (understood broadly here) is usually anonymous. The surname of the client is reported in a number of cases not in order to create an acquaintance, but to identify things (cf. the role of a receipt) or to distinguish clients (for example, when calling for a doctor's appointment). And the name of the performer serving the person (for example, the receiver in

7 atelier, hairdresser) is also often unknown, although recently signs with the name of the seller, employee of the savings bank, cashier are becoming more and more widespread, the name, patronymic and surname of the taxi driver are always reported (note that in the summer in stores there are signs like: “You are served by a student UPI construction team). But this information is rarely activated. The names of doctors, cutters, on the contrary, are important in communication, although only a few have personal acquaintanceships with them (there are interesting differences in the “style” of relationships established by regular customers with hairdressers, doctors, as well as parents with kindergarten teachers, teachers, associated with the official scale). An important grammatical aspect of studying the structure of written communication is the relationship of nomination and predication, nomination and texts (business genres). The anonymous-impersonal style of communication is manifested in the preference for nomination: the participants in silent communication are not named, they are reduced; some degree of detection is possible in predication. Compare: “Shoes” and “We invite you to visit a new shoe store.” To what extent is such actualization possible outside of advertising? Lately, there has been a tendency to strengthen the "human presence". Wed: "Don't smoke!" and "We do not smoke"; "Please don't smoke." Observations are needed as to how common such Forms are, and in what social spheres they are preferred; whether they appear on the facades of houses in advertisements and signboards, or whether they are kept only in the outer premises. Signboards and in the reception halls of the respective institutions usually contain other information relating to the relationship between the enterprise and the client: about working hours, lunch breaks, and about individual operations. These inscriptions turn into lengthy texts concerning the rules and working conditions, which are usually posted inside the enterprise. So, we touched upon the question of the possible actualization in the written word of the sender of the speech of the subject of the action (usually generalized). Note that in oral mass communication, for example, in announcements on the radio, there are usually no direct appeals to an unknown person. Wed initial accusative: “If you have lost your documents in our shop, please come...” The second aspect of updating refers to the description of the situation of the enterprise and the relationship between the enterprise and the client. The sign indicates the constant specialization of the institution, the rhythm of its work. A specific momentary situation can be indicated on the plates in special formulas: Closed for lunch: Accounting; Repair; Closed for technical reasons; There is no performance today: Tickets are sold out today; Sanitary day. Non-standard situations are usually described in a more detailed proposal, often with a direct appeal to customers.

8 In non-standard situations, the oral communication channel is more often turned on, interested parties are more likely to seek contact with the administrator. Thus, one can observe a variety of transitions from one form of communication to another. In written and oral form of communication, a complex interaction of verbal (linguistic) means of communication and non-verbal (visual image; gestural; auditory sound signals in the house and on the street) can occur. As you know, in a modern city there has been a sharp reduction in sound signals: factory, car horns have been canceled, the number of clocks with ringing has decreased, but the Kremlin chimes have been preserved in Moscow, in Leningrad the midday shot of a cannon in the Peter and Paul Fortress; Of the innovations in Moscow, only sounding traffic lights can be noted: when the light is green, bird trills are heard. Let us give just one simple example of the interaction of different communication channels. The verbal sign “Crossing” is combined with the street line, traffic lights, a policeman can stand at the intersection, regulating traffic with gestures or a baton; crossroads is the place and more active gesticulation of drivers. Sound signals in the city, for example, issued by an ambulance and fire engines, have a distinctive character. On the whole, the semiotics of urban communication undoubtedly differs from that of rural communication in its complexity. In the modern city, there is also such a special problem as the interaction of a person and an automaton. In large cities today there are many different types of machines: newspaper, soda, cash on the railway, gambling, etc. The machines are usually equipped with instruction texts explaining how to communicate with them. These texts are interesting to study from the point of view of how the situation of impersonal communication is curtailed in them. Since the machines are produced industrially and delivered to different cities, standards have already arisen in writing instructions for them. In the field of personal communication, one can single out, following sociologists, the constant and variable roles of the speaker. Permanent roles are associated with social status, profession, age, gender, position in the family. At the same time, a city dweller is a person with many regularly recurring variable roles: he is a passenger, a buyer, a client of a workshop, a dry cleaner, a savings bank, etc. One person must go through many roles; their choice is stable for the city team, since there is a stable set of corresponding situations. Variable roles and frequent situations are served primarily by urban stereotypes18. A very interesting and complex issue is the distribution of roles and situations, their assessment by speakers from different social groups in terms of the sign of officiality/informality. Perhaps a more general sign of the social / personal nature of communication should be introduced. At home and in

In the circle of friends, the city dweller enters precisely into personal contacts, these are the main areas of using everyday colloquial speech, the areas of a person’s linguistic self-disclosure, free for speech expression. The modern city sets severe restrictions for "personal" speech behavior. It closes in the apartment, goes out of town. The street, previously famous for its free "language", in a modern developed city falls silent. Emotions are consciously restrained as much as possible; "scandal in the street" is rare; the change in the structure of service led to the disappearance of all incoming suppliers and specialists: peddlers, grinders, rat-catchers, who had their own signals and cries, with whom one could also talk loudly. In large cities, the role of the court changed, which also became more empty and silent. Even the yard life of children was reduced. Where does spoken language sound in the city? On a walk together and in a company (usually youth), go to a meeting on the go. In a queue, a long haul in transport. What does the modern word "trap" apply to? We know that everyday conversations often take place during working hours. Since people are usually associated for many years with one place of work, it becomes a second home and a place of deep human contact. Colloquialists have already noted that the same statements are evaluated differently by different speakers. In different ways (officially and unofficially) there is communication in the library, with a doctor, with a lawyer. Different cities may differ in which situations the official/informal attitudes of the speakers apply to. A special issue is the preponderance of impersonal automatism or personal inclusion in different situations of communication. Here is what the sociologist writes: “The emergence of functional-role rules of communication in the city stems from three reasons. First, the abundance of contacts between strangers makes it necessary to protect the person's personality by reducing the depth of contacts. Secondly, cultural differences among people make it difficult to understand and communicate, while the establishment of universal rules is designed to facilitate communication, eliminating differences. Thirdly, the division and cooperation of labor require a precise determination of the share of participation of each in joint activities, regardless of his abilities and mood. The functioning of the organization is possible only with a clear regulation of the behavior of its members. The personality of a city dweller, as it were, “stratifies” into a role shell and a deep foundation, into a person acting in a particular situation and the cultural basis of the personality. The content of the role is subjected to formalization, while the cultural basis is found in personal communication and in the way of “playing” roles. Further, the author notes that the need for psychological, uh

10 rational contact is satisfied with a city dweller in a family, in a circle of friends. So, on the one hand, anonymity, impersonality, superficiality. automatism of contacts, splitting the speaker into roles, on the other hand, individuality, depth (often stability) of contacts, allowing a person to fully and openly express himself in his speech. These are characteristic features of the speech existence of a modern city dweller. The automatism of communication in the city, however, is not a universal feature. One can hear the appeal “dear girl” slowing down the movement of the queue in the mouth of an old intellectual. Someone sews, someone expresses sympathy for the seller. The city dweller gets tired of the impersonality and automatism of contacts, in cases where the pace of communication does not suffer, he is looking for<Ъормы личностного контакта. Это и создает человеческою атмосферу города, ощущение вежливости, доброжелательности, сердечности или противоположных качеств. Что такое личностная окраска в стереотипном поведении? Возможно, это особое использование средств интонации, темпа речи, тембра голоса. определенные формы пластического поведения, характер использования жестов и мимики, соответствующий ситуации выбор реакции словом или молчанием. В структуре реплик существенную роль играют включение слов контакта, обращений или отсутствие их при установке на самую сухѵю и экономную информативность (в вопросе и о т в е т е)к р а т к о с т ь / полнота высказывания степень эллиптизации. И так, социологи указали на диалектическую сложность психологии говорящего в городе. Среди перспективных задач лингвистов можно назвать и задачу воссоздания «языковой личности* горожанина. Сегодня мы еще мало знаем об объеме речевой деятельности горожан и ее составе, о соотношении активных (говорение и писание) и пассивных (слушание, чтение), устных и письменных форм. Очевидно лить, что во внутригородском общении телефон потеснил обмен письмами, телевизор у части горожан вступает в конкуренцию с книгой и газетой. Интересно понаблюдать, в к а ких ситуациях происходит обмен записками: в зале на многолюдном собрании, на рабочих местах (при временном отсутствии одного из работников), дома (в случае, если члены семьи не могут увидеться друг с другом). Горожанин как типовое лицо полифункционален, он входит в состав нескольких коллективов, по-разному воздействующих на него: он житель города, работник в составе трудового коллектива, член семьи, член какого-то дружеского круга, компании, объединения по интересам (хобби, спорт, туризм, друзья детства). Социологи отмечают возрастание р о л и малой группы в коммуникации. уменьшение роли еоседских контактов в пользу родственных, служебных, дружеских20 (в своем доме обычно знают немногих, усилению домовых контактов способствуют особые причины, н а пример, взрослых часто объединяют во дворе дети или любовь к 14

11 dogs). A city dweller has large out-of-town contacts: business contacts, including on business trips, during vacations (many rest in rest houses, sanatoriums and other places); in different cities, contacts with the villagers among the townspeople, apparently, are not uniform. A city dweller must be proficient in several linguistic subsystems; an educated city dweller usually knows several styles of speech, or at least clearly differentiates them. Those groups of citizens who do not actively master the forms of the literary language, but constantly focus on it in their speech, evaluate it as a prestigious form, assimilate individual elements. The level of proficiency in different styles, the volume of stylistic competence of citizens of different social groups, however, has not yet been studied at all. High rates of communication, its stereotyping also have a negative impact on the culture of speech of a modern city dweller. Forms of business speech often come down to filling out forms, copying off samples (autobiography, characteristics, personnel records, numerous references). Oral speech in public form is also owned not by all this mandatory requirement only for administrators and public workers (everyone knows the status of written speakers), although, of course, the genre of speaking at a meeting is accessible to many. Is the “content of communications” component significant for describing the language of the city? This question is new for linguists. Let's start with the simplest answers. When compiling a questionnaire for studying vocabulary and nominations in the city, we must select thematic areas that are relevant specifically for the city. These questionnaires will no doubt be very different from those addressed to rural residents. It is obvious that there are specifically urban objects of the nomination, there are areas of content that have a special structure and deeper internal differentiation in the city. For example, the division of space in the city is more complex than in the countryside (streets, alleys, highways, dead ends, squares, quarters, districts, microdistricts, etc.), the relations of the “urban environment” with the natural environment, landscape are of a qualitatively different nature ( often also largely man-made). The complexity of the socio-economic life of the city, which assumes and supra-city functions (of state, republican, regional significance), is reflected in the development of this sphere of content. The language forms that are chosen as means of expressing the relevant topics are to a large extent predetermined by the forms of communication. Thus, there is no doubt that mass communication stimulates the development of proper naming systems (cf. system of urban toponymy, names on signs). And my own economically combines the ability to individualize an object and its systemic classification and, most importantly, it has an imperative obligation for the whole circle of people who need

12 to identify the object. This is how the success of communication is created in an indefinite number, a circle of people that changes in composition. The choice of language forms in the city is greatly influenced by the social significance, frequency, and standardity of situations that require designation. In the conditions of mass communication, such situations acquire stereotypical means of expression. So, the content area includes questions: what they say, what they call, how often they say, and, finally, what is the communicative orientation of speech (message, question, motivation), what function of the language (for example, according to R.O. Jacobson) language: reflection of reality (reference), addressing the addressee (contact), expression of the speaker's self-expression (evaluation), aesthetic goal. Consider, for example, city inscriptions. Their main function is referential (informative), aesthetic can accompany it. Advertising on the street, posters, warning signs, many handwritten announcements serve the purpose of influencing and often have an imperative form: Do not walk on lawns!; Carefully!; All to the polls!; Fly with Aeroflot planes!; “I'll rent a room...” Slogans with the word “glory”, cries of “Bravo!” perform an expressive function. in the theatre. The content of the life of a city dweller, the way of life, the complex world of his communication form a certain psychology, a view of the world, a system of values. The cited article by A. V. Baranov contains interesting observations on the peculiarities of the perception of time and space by a city dweller, which distinguish him from a peasant. “The world began to seem closer, distances shorter due to the fact that the path became easier and shorter in time”21. The city dweller speaks about the distance not “3 kilometers”, but “10 minutes by bus”. The language of the city reflects this particular view of the world. Let's sum up some results. The study of the language of the city as a whole belongs to the field of sociolinguistics, since the original concept of "city" is social in nature. The linguistic study of the city must therefore be based on the totality of the sociological characteristics of the city as a whole and the characteristics of the components of its complex structure. Strictly speaking, the description of the language of the city must be preceded by its sociological description with elements of its history. The composition and structure of the population, the way of life and occupations of people, the structure of communication should be taken into account. An important area of ​​research is the complete study of all forms of the functioning of the language in the city: mass and personal communication; its oral and written means in interaction with non-verbal means and, in connection with this, the division of the language of the city as a socio-communicative system (the ratio of the components of the city's language to the main components of the national language).

13 The linguo-geographical approach expands the tasks of analysis by introducing a new sign of comparison (in this case, more attention is paid to the importance of cities in the territorial division of the Russian language, i.e., the relationship of the language of the city to its environment, to its region). The study of territorial differences will expand knowledge about the territorial diversity of linguistic forms (in particular, one of the goals of collective work should be the collection of Russian vocabulary). What should the fund of materials about the language of the city consist of? Obviously, one of its main parts should be a music library with samples of the speech of city residents of different age and social groups, in which different genres and situations of speech will be presented. First of all, you need to strive to record the speech of hereditary residents of the city, make efforts to find brightly gifted people in speech terms in the midst of speakers, preserve samples of local eloquence (public, for example, judicial, and domestic). Another part of the fund is a card index, reflecting stereotypes, city nomination, dictionary, materials for grammatical and phonetic description. The structure of the dictionary card index and the form of fixing examples are still to be worked out:1. It should take into account different social, territorial, stylistic characteristics. It is obvious that all local words that are not recorded in the 17-volume academic dictionary of the Russian literary language should be highlighted and given marks related to the area of ​​their functioning (common, professional, jargon, obsolete-rare, reduced, etc.) 22 It is necessary to trace the influence of the time factor: the use of words in different age groups, the emergence of new words, the forgetting of old ones (recall the words "cowboy", "batnik", which were on everyone's lips and are fading into use and memory; at one time in Moscow they called barred gardens for watermelons with the word "menagerie", now this word is not heard). It is worth observing what the “words of the season” are, what area they belong to: subject, evaluative or otherwise, what are the walking jokes and ways to joke, “pungent words”. What is common and peculiar in different cities in this respect? It turns out that there is a fashion even for word-formation models. Linguistic works reflected the abundance of formations according to the “suggestible” type model in the colloquial speech of intellectuals; according to our observations, their number has now declined sharply. Temporal boundaries must be especially carefully considered when studying rapidly changing forms of speech, such as student jargon. We have already drawn attention to the importance of studying the preservation of historicisms and archaisms in the speech of the older generation, in special areas, for example, in toponymy.

14 The fund of materials, obviously, should also include various written sources related to mass and personal communication, works of writers and poets native to the city. NOTE 1 Larin B.A. On the linguistic study of the language of the city // Russian speech. A., Issue. 3. S. 62. (New series). 2 Ibid. With Larin B. A. To the linguistic characteristics of the city: (several prerequisites) Izv. Leningrad. state ped. in-ta im. A. I. Herzen. L., Issue. 1. C See the well-known series of works "Russian colloquial speech", as well as: Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M., 1984; Barannikova L. I. On the problem of the correlation of the Russian literary language and the national koine // Types of supra-dialect forms of language. M., See: Gelgardt R. R. Literary language in the geographical projection / / Vopr. Linguistics See: Russian language and Soviet society: Phonetics of the modern Russian literary language. M., See: Almukhamedova 3. M. Vocalism of Russian dialects Suggestions on some experimental data: Abstract of the thesis. dis.... cand. philol. Sciences. Kazan, 1963; Tulina T. A. Features of the pronunciation of Russian consonants among persons who speak Russian and Ukrainian languages ​​// Development of the phonetics of the modern Russian language. M., 1966; Parikova N. B. On the South Russian version of literary speech // Ibid.; Churkina K. I. The evolution of pronunciation norms in the speech of the intelligentsia: Abstract .... cand. philol. Sciences. Novosibirsk, See, for example: Chernyshev V. I. As they say in St. Petersburg / / Voice and speech JVffi 1, 2. 9 See: Methods of nomination in modern Russian. M., See, for example: Erofeeva T. I. Local coloring of literary colloquial speech. Perm, See: Vysoktsy S.S. About the Moscow folk dialect // Urban vernacular See: R u o ff A. Grundlagen und Methoden der Untersuchung gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Max Nimeier Verlag, Gutnov A. E. The City as an Object of System Research // System Research, M., S. Neverov S. V. On the Origins of the Theory of Linguistic Existence/ / Historical and Philological Studies. M., S. About this, see: Neverov S. V. “Language existence” and methods of its study / / Peoples of Asia and Africa JST “6; Konrad N. I. On linguistic existence II Japanese Linguistic Sat. M., On the typology of new cities, see: Smolyar I. M. New cities. M., See: Kostinsky Yu. M. Jericho football stands / / Rus. speech On urban stereotypes, see: Russian colloquial speech: Texts. M., Baranov A. V. Man in the city / / Spiritual formation of man. L., S See: Socio-cultural functions of the city and the spatial environment. M., S * Baranov A. V. Man in the city. From Wed. the experience of analyzing Permian vocabulary in the above-mentioned book by T. I. Erofeeva.

Annotation of the program of the discipline "Russian language and culture of speech" Direction of training 38.03.02 "MANAGEMENT" Orientation (profile) of the program Project management Goals and objectives of mastering the discipline (module)

Russian literary language, its main features Abstract Basic morphological norms of the Russian language. Noun Functional styles of the Russian literary language. Key Features Annotation. Abstract.

Functional styles of speech Among the variety of varieties of language use, two main ones stand out: spoken language and literary language (bookish). Spoken language (colloquial style of speech) is used

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE AS A RESULT OF THE UPDATED CONTENT OF EDUCATION DOCTOR OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES, PROFESSOR A.R. BEYSEMBAYEV COMMUNICATION PROCESS COMMUNICATION PROCESS 1. Participants (who participates

Russian Language and Literature The purpose of studying the subject area "Russian Language and Literature" at the final stage is the formation of philological competence: the culture of reader perception and understanding

B3.V.15 Sociolinguistics Fund of assessment tools for conducting intermediate certification of students in the discipline (module): General information 1. Department of Social Sciences 2. Direction of training 040100.62

Annotation to the work program "Russian language" The work program in the Russian language for grades 5-11 in St.

MUNICIPAL BUDGET GENERAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION Panfilov secondary school 2016-2017 TRAINING

State budgetary educational institution of the city of Moscow "School with in-depth study of English 1354" of the Department of Education of the city of Moscow Work program Russian language for students

Annotation to the work programs of the discipline "Russian language" I. EXPLANATORY NOTE The place of the discipline in the structure of the educational program. Work programs in the Russian language for grades 10-11 were developed in

Ministry of General and Vocational Education of the Sverdlovsk Region Department of Education of the Yekaterinburg City Administration

IN AND. Shestopalova, T.I. Petrova, M.A. Bolgov REGIONAL VERSION OF LIVING RUSSIAN SPEECH AS AN OBJECT OF CORRAL LINGUISTICS 1 Introduction

Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation State University Higher School of Economics Nizhny Novgorod Branch Department of Social Sciences and Humanities Course Program RUSSIAN

Work program on the subject "Russian language" at the level of secondary general education (grades 10-11) 1. Planned results of studying the subject "Russian language" at the level of COO. As a result of studying

PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION "ACADEMY OF SOCIAL EDUCATION" Fund of Evaluation Funds "Rhetoric" Level of higher education Undergraduate Direction of study 40.03.01 Jurisprudence

Work program on the subject "Mother tongue (Russian)" Personal, meta-subject and subject results of studying the subject "Mother tongue (Russian)"

Rhetoric School 2100 1. Explanatory note The work program on rhetoric was developed in accordance with the requirements of the Standard, the Decree of the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation

Non-state educational institution of higher professional education "Russian New University" APPROVED by Rector V.A.Zernov 2012 RUSSIAN LANGUAGE ENTRANCE TEST PROGRAM

PLANNED OUTCOMES OF MASTERING THE SUBJECT A graduate at an advanced level will learn A graduate at an advanced level will have the opportunity to learn the Language. General information about the language. Main sections of science

Municipal budgetary educational institution "Perovskaya school-gymnasium" "Reviewed" "Agreed" "I approve" at a meeting of the methodological Deputy Director Director of the MBOU teachers' association

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION SEI HPE "Slavyansky-on-Kuban State Pedagogical Institute" Faculty of Philology "APPROVED" acting Rector of SSPI Yatsenko A.I. 011r. Working

Private educational institution of higher education "Rostov Institute for Entrepreneur Protection" (RIZP) REVIEWED AND AGREED at the meeting of the Department "Accounting and Economics" 5/1 dated 12/10/2015

NA Podobedova LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN THE CONTEXT OF A NEW INTERCULTURAL PARADIGMA At the present stage of development of society, the higher professional school is undergoing significant transformations. Of particular importance

Integration of educational areas Cognitive development is numerous questions-answers, explanations, problem setting, clarification, reading. Physical development - rules, commands and explanations. Artistic and aesthetic

Contact-establishing function of language and the sphere of its manifestation S. L. Nistratova (Italy), 2001 In recent years, in modern linguistics, characterized by anthropocentrism, attention is focused not

Sheet 1 WORKING PROGRAM OF THE DISCIPLINE (SPO) OP.06 PSYCHOLOGY OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION of the main educational program of secondary vocational education of the training program for mid-level specialists in

SUBJECT CYCLE "LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE" 1. Language and literary competence A graduate of the basic school: 1) realizes the importance of the Russian language as a carrier of national culture and a means of communication in all areas

NOU HPE "Institute of Management" Ivanovo branch APPROVED Director of the Ivanovo branch of NOU HPE "Institute of Management" 20 WORK PROGRAM OF THE DISCIPLINE "Russian language and culture of speech" for specialty 03050

Ancient languages ​​and cultures The objectives of mastering the discipline "Ancient languages ​​and cultures" are to form students' ideas about: - ancient civilizations; - stages of their historical and cultural development;

STANDARD OF SECONDARY (FULL) GENERAL EDUCATION IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE Basic level The study of the Russian language at the basic level of secondary (complete) general education is aimed at achieving the following goals:

Municipal autonomous educational institution "Secondary school 40" city of Kamensk-Uralsky Work program on the subject "Russian language" Grade 10-11 STANDARD OF AVERAGE (FULL)

Explanatory note The relevance of the program is to introduce students to the complex and fascinating world of Russian speech, to show the word as if from the inside, to reveal the possibilities lurking in it, to promote

MUNICIPAL BUDGET GENERAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF MURMANSK "SEVERAGE EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL 57" Approved Agreed Reviewed Director MBOU SOSH 57 Deputy. director for water management at a meeting of the Ministry of Defense protocol

Explanatory note. This program is designed for students with severe mental retardation. When compiling it, the following documents were taken as a basis: 1) Adapted educational

Leontieva T. V. Russian State Vocational Pedagogical University, Yekaterinburg USING SCHEMES AS A WAY OF PRESENTING INFORMATION T. V. Leontieva Today, with particular urgency

1Russian language 1. Explanatory note Status of the document The educational program in Russian for grades X-XI was created on the basis of the federal component of the state standard of secondary general

Prystupa NN TO THE QUESTION OF THE STATUS OF A TERM IN MODERN LINGUISTICS Linguistics is a social science from the very beginning. The essential functions of the language, as is known, are manifested in applied language and speech functions,

Municipal state preschool educational institution "Kindergarten 11 "Firefly" Report on the topic: "The relevance of the problem of speech development of preschool children" Prepared by: senior educator

Adapted work program for students with disabilities with mental retardation in English Grade 6 Developer: Prokopenko Yu.V., English teacher 2017 1. Explanatory note This work program

Consultation for educators Topic: “The speech of the educator is an example for the child” Prepared by: educator of the senior group Bespalova T.V. Consultation for educators "Teacher's speech is an example for a child" Children

The work program on the subject "Native language and literature" in grade 9 EXPLANATORY NOTE The work program on the subject "Native language and literature" in grade 9 is based on the Russian

Consultation for parents "Theatrical activities in the lives of children" Author compiler: Muravyeva Elena Gennadievna Educator MBDOU kindergarten 58, Apatity, Murmansk region Objectives of the consultation:

PRESCHOOL PEDAGOGY Privalova Svetlana Evgenievna Ph.D. ped. Sci., Associate Professor Ural State Pedagogical University Ekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region SPEECH ACTIVITY OF CHILDREN

MUNICIPAL AUTONOMOUS GENERAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SECONDARY GENERAL EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL 84 "NEW SCHOOL" ADOPTED by the Pedagogical Council protocol dated 29.08.20.8 Secretary / y ^ J ^ C.B. Scrobot WORKING

Annotation The discipline "Russian language and culture of speech" is included in the basic part of block 1 ("Disciplines (modules)") of the training program in the direction 48.03.01 "Theology" (undergraduate level). The purpose of development

MBOU SOSH 3 groups of preschool education in Tatarsk CONSULTATION FOR PARENTS DEVELOPMENT OF COGNITIVE INTERESTS OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN IN CONSIDERATION OF GEF TO. Senior educator: Permeneva Svetlana Viktorovna

The working program of the Russian language module “Reading. We think. We write ”Grade 7 Compiled by the teacher of Russian language and literature Bystrova L. M. teacher of Russian language and literature Bormotova S. I. 2017-2018 academic

Explanatory note The work program for extracurricular activities was developed on the basis of the main educational program of MBOU "Secondary School 30" and consists of the following sections: planned results of development

G.M. Pikalova, Belarusian State Pedagogical University THE ROLE OF BEHAVIORAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES One of the main applied tasks in management psychology is to increase the efficiency of management activities. Exist

Criterion Normative methodological materials Goals and objectives of the study of the subject Terms of implementation and number of hours Planned result Component Federal Law of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2012 273-FZ

PLANNED RESULTS OF MASTERING THE SUBJECT Personal results: - a sense of pride in their homeland, the Russian people and the history of Russia, awareness of their ethnic and national

Annotation The discipline "Russian language and culture of speech" is included in the basic part of block 1 ("Disciplines (modules)") of the training program in the direction 48.03.01 "Theology" (undergraduate level), profile "Theory

Annotation to the work program on the native (Russian) language and literature grades 5-9 of the FC SES This work program on the native (Russian) language and literature was developed for teaching in grades 5-9 based on:

Section I. Planned results of mastering the subject "Russian language" As a result of studying the subject "Russian language" at the level of secondary general education: Graduate at an advanced level

The main educational program of MADOU "Kindergarten 97 "Pchelka" was developed in accordance with the main regulatory documents on preschool education: - Federal Law of 29.12. 2012 273

Municipal preschool educational institution "Kindergarten 149" city of Yaroslavl Brief presentation of the main educational program The main educational program of MDOU "Kindergarten 149" Program

Chapter I. The language of the city as a linguistic problem 8

1. From the history of learning the language of the city8

2. The concept of the language of the city15

3. The concept of colloquial speech18

4. The concept of vernacular23

5. Correlation of the concepts "jargon", "argo", "slang"30

Chapter P. Language landscape of the city of Ufa43

Brief historical background43

1. Urbanonyms of Ufa46

1.1. Horonyms of Ufa50

1.2. Hodonyms of Ufa60

1.3. Oikodomonyms of Ufa69

2. Names of means of public transport in Ufa75

Chapter III. Functioning of various language subsystems in Ufa84

1. Features of colloquial speech in Ufa85

1.1. Phonetic features of colloquial speech in Ufa85

1.2. Colloquial vocabulary of the city of Ufa87

2. The vernacular of the city of Ufa90

2.1. Phonetic features of the vernacular of Ufa90

2.2. Word-building and morphological features of the vernacular in Ufa94

2.3. Syntactic features of the vernacular in Ufa107

2.4. Colloquial vocabulary of Ufa110

3. Ufa slang119

3.1. The specificity of the Ufa jargon119

3.2. Age, social and professional differentiation of Ufa jargon

Chapter IV. The interaction of the Russian language with the Turkic (Bashkir and Tatar) languages ​​in Ufa142

1. National-Russian bilingualism in Ufa142

2. Consequences of language interaction in Ufa145

2.1. Interference145

2.2. Intercalation153

2.3. Turkisms in the oral speech of the residents of Ufa;159

Recommended list of dissertations

• Non-codified vocabulary of the language of the city of Kirov: On the material of colloquial speech and jargon 1997, Candidate of Philological Sciences Fedyanina, Olga Nikolaevna

• Omsk urban vernacular: Lexico-phraseol. compound. functioning 1994, candidate of philological sciences Yunakovskaya, A. A.

• Colloquial Vocabulary in the System of the Modern Russian Language 2009, candidate of philological sciences Kholodkova, Marina Vladimirovna

• Regional Variant of the Russian Literary Language Functioning on the Territory of Udmurtia: Sociolinguistic Aspect 2005, candidate of philological sciences Torohova, Elena Anatolyevna

• Functional and semantic specificity of non-normative forms of language: vernacular and youth jargon 2009, candidate of philological sciences Kapranova, Natalya Anatolyevna

Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) on the topic "The language of the city of Ufa: the functioning of various language subsystems and bilingualism"

In connection with the ongoing process of urbanization, the city continues to be the most important object of study for a number of humanities: philosophy, sociology, ethnography, history, linguistics, etc. Therefore, an integrated approach to the study of the language situation of the city is needed. The linguistic study of the city is only one aspect of this problem.

The language of the city is one of the insufficiently developed issues of domestic linguistics. The study of this problem in our country began relatively recently. For a long time, the predominantly literary variety of the Russian national language was studied, which Yu.N. Moreover, addressing it as a subject of study may not seem like a completely scientific matter: after all, we have always studied the best examples of speech, we are used to focusing on the meters of the language, on the authorities, and tried to avoid “negative” linguistic material. [Karaulov 2001. - P.26]. However, as B.A. Larin noted, “preferential attention to literary languages ​​delayed the study of the language of the city” [Larin 19776. - P. 177].

In the second half of the 20th century, there was a new surge of interest in the study of the language of the city. At present, the study of certain forms of urban oral speech is being conducted in Moscow, St. cities.

The object of this study is the functioning of the language of a multinational city, and the subject of the study is the various subsystems of the language of the city of Ufa: colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon, as well as the process and results of the interaction of the languages ​​of the peoples living in this city.

The relevance of the dissertation research is related to the importance of studying the language of a large multi-ethnic city, which makes it possible to analyze the dynamics of the development of the modern Russian language, its territorial and social variation in the conditions of bilingualism and multilingualism, as well as the need for a comprehensive study of the linguistic features of the language of at least all large Russian cities.

The purpose of this work is to identify the specifics of the language of the city of Ufa, a comprehensive description and analysis of the subsystems of the language functioning in the city, and to study the consequences of language contacts within one large administrative-territorial unit.

To achieve the goal of the study, it was necessary to solve the following tasks:

To identify the main historical, social and linguistic factors that influenced the formation of the language of Ufa;

To study the composition of the names of urban objects and their functioning in the city;

Consider the structure of the language of the city of Ufa from the linguistic and sociolinguistic positions;

Identify and describe the main subsystems of the language that operate in the city;

To study the results of the interaction of Russian and Turkic languages ​​in the city.

All the identified problems and tasks are set and solved taking into account the results and achievements in the field of the theory of general linguistics, Russian studies, domestic and foreign sociolinguistics.

In accordance with the purpose and objectives, the following research methods were applied: descriptive analysis using classification and comparison techniques, contextual analysis, interpretive analysis, and observation.

The theoretical basis of the dissertation is the works of famous Russian scientists B.A. Larin, L.P. Yakubinsky, V.M. Zhirmunsky, L.I. Barannikova, V.A. Avrorin, Yu.D. F. L. Filin, V. V. Kolesova, L. L. Krysina, N. A. Baskakova, L. A. Kapanadze, E. V. Krasilnikova, E. A. Zemskoy, O. A. Lapteva, L. I. Skvortsova, O. B. Sirotinina, O. P. Ermakova, T. I. Erofeeva, L. A. Shkatova, Z. S. Sanji-Garyaeva, B. I. Osipova, N. A. Prokurovskaya, M. M. Mikhailova, A.E. Karlinsky, L.L. Ayupova, E.A. Yakovleva, K.Z. Zakiryanov and others, as well as foreign researchers B. Baichev, MVidenov, J. Gamperts, U. Weinreich, C. Ferposson, E .Haugen, R. Bell, J. Fishman, W. Labov, R.I. McDavid and others.

The material for our study was, first of all, the records of the oral speech of the residents of Ufa, contained in the card file of the Department of General and Comparative Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University, our own observations on the speech of Ufa residents, materials from various linguistic dictionaries, local history sources containing information on the history of various places in the city. Ufa, statistics data and results of sociological research, maps of Ufa, city guides. In total, about 3,000 lexical units and 5,000 contexts were considered (mostly statements that contained the lexemes necessary for analysis). When analyzing the speech material, the nationality, gender, age, and education of the informants were taken into account.

The scientific novelty of the research is as follows:

For the first time, a comprehensive study and description of the current state of the language of Ufa, a large multinational city, is being carried out;

The system of official and unofficial names of urban objects of the given city is analyzed;

The features of various language subsystems of Ufa and the specifics of their functioning are studied;

The results of the interaction of the three most common languages ​​in the city (interference, intercalation, borrowings) are considered.

The theoretical significance of this work is determined by the fact that the observations and conclusions made during the study allow a deeper understanding of the functioning of various language subsystems in a large multi-ethnic city and can be useful in similar studies on the language material of other cities. The study of the functioning of various subsystems of the language of urban residents, the results of the interaction of different languages ​​in a given city, should contribute to the study of the language of other Russian cities.

The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the results of our research can be used in training courses and special courses in general linguistics, the course “Sociolinguistics. Psycholinguistics”, when creating textbooks for the special course “Language of the City”, compiling a dictionary of the language of the city (based on the language of the city of Ufa).

The following provisions are put forward for defense:

1. Various subsystems of the language of Ufa: colloquial speech, vernacular, semi-dialect, jargon - territorial variation is characteristic, which is especially pronounced at the level of vocabulary, due to the remoteness of this city from the capital, the influence of a multinational urban environment and is characterized by the presence of various specific lexemes, a large number of borrowings at the level of language and speech, in particular, from the Turkic languages.

2. Of all the subsystems of the language of the city, the most common means of communication for people born in Ufa is Russian everyday colloquial speech interspersed with colloquial and slang elements.

3. Ordinary (everyday) colloquial speech of the inhabitants of Ufa is not strongly influenced by dialects, as, for example, colloquial speech in various cities of the Ural region (Perm, Chelyabinsk, etc.). It is generally focused on the metropolitan language sample at the phonetic, lexical, grammatical levels, although its variation in a multilingual environment is inevitable.

4. Mass national contact heterogeneous bilingualism functions in Ufa.

Approbation of the results and practical implementation of the work. The main provisions of the dissertation and the results of the research were presented in reports and messages at various conferences, namely: at the international scientific conference "Sentence and Word" (Saratov, September 2005), All-Russian scientific conferences "Ural-Altai: through the centuries into the future" (Ufa , June 2005) and "Science and Education-2005" (Neftekamsk, October 2005), interregional scientific and theoretical conference "Literature, language and artistic culture in modern processes of sociocultural communication" (Ufa, October 2005), interregional scientific and practical conference " Language policy and language building in the Republic of Bashkortostan (Ufa, November 2005), the republican conference of young scientists "Actual problems of philology" (Ufa, April 2005) - as well as at 3 meetings of the interuniversity postgraduate seminar on topical problems of modern linguistics at the philological Faculty of BashSU in 2005, 2006 The main content of the dissertation is reflected in eight publications.

Some materials and theoretical aspects of our work were used during seminars and practical classes on the course “Sociolinguistics. Psycholinguistics” at the Faculty of Philology of Bashkir State University (2004-2005 academic year).

The dissertation was discussed at a meeting of the Department of General and Comparative-Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University.

The structure and scope of the dissertation. The dissertation consists of an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion. At the end of the dissertation there is a bibliography and an appendix. The first chapter contains an overview of the scientific literature on the issue under study, gives an idea of ​​the language of the city and its main components: colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon. The second chapter is devoted to the analysis of the urbanonymic

Similar theses in the specialty "Theory of Language", 10.02.19 VAK code

• Dialectisms as an integral part of the colloquial speech of a modern city: On the material of the speech of the inhabitants of Omsk 2003, candidate of philological sciences Gaydamak, Natalia Alekseevna

• The vernacular of the Amur region: lexicological and lexicographical aspects 2007, candidate of philological sciences Pirko, Vera Veniaminovna

• Social and linguistic properties of modern Russian youth jargon 2005, candidate of philological sciences Nikitina, Yulia Nikolaevna

• Problems of Substandard Lexicography of English and Russian Languages: Theoretical and Applied Aspects 2009, Doctor of Philology Ryabichkina, Galina Vladimirovna

• Lexicological and lexicographic problems of the study of the Russian substandard 2001, doctor of philological sciences Bykov, Vladimir Borisovich

Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Theory of language", Ismagilova, Nuria Vinerovna

The Russian population in Ufa, exerting a huge influence on the language of the indigenous population, is itself to a certain extent influenced by the Turkic environment. The influence of the Bashkir and Tatar languages ​​on colloquial Russian is one of the little-studied aspects of language contact in the conditions of the Republic of Bashkortostan.

The results of the interaction of the Russian, Bashkir, Tatar languages ​​are reflected in Russian colloquial speech, Russian dialects, works of local writers, poets, and in the media in Russian. The most striking and significant consequences of the interaction of the Russian and Turkic languages ​​include bilingualism, interference, interlingual wedging, various kinds of borrowings, regionalisms (local words and expressions that exist in a certain territory).

Bilinguals play an important role in the penetration of Turkisms into Russian speech. Bilingual speech may be characterized by interference at different levels of the language structure and interlingual inclusions. A number of interference phenomena and interlingual wedging that appear in bilingual speech in Russian due to difficulties in choosing the means of a non-native language may indicate a low level of bilingual proficiency in Russian. With fluency in languages, interlingual inclusions may indicate the choice of a more convenient option in a given language situation.

The most significant consequence of language contact in the city is borrowing at the level of language and at the level of speech. Many borrowings at the level of speech are not mastered by the Russian literary language. G

In the Ufa Russian colloquial speech, there are more Turkisms than in the Russian literary language. The presence of such a number of words of Turkic origin in the language of Ufa distinguishes it from the language of other cities, gives the oral Russian speech of the townspeople a specific Ufa coloring.

Conclusion

The language of the city continues to be an insufficiently studied problem of Russian linguistics. In this paper, an attempt was made to comprehensively describe the language of such a large multinational city as Ufa. An integral part of the language of the city are the official and unofficial names of urban objects that make up the linguistic landscape of the city. Therefore, the composition of the official and unofficial names of various city objects and the features of their functioning were studied in the work. Some of the city's official and unofficial nominations, principles, methods of naming objects are identical to the names, principles and methods of nomination that exist in other cities, and the other part constitutes a group of formations specific to Ufa. Informal (colloquial, colloquial and slang) names may arise as a means of language economy, as well as to distinguish between objects that have the same official name or location, or only for the purpose of a language game, in order to create an expressive nomination. Official and unofficial names, inherent only in the language of the city of Ufa, constitute the specifics of the language of this city.

In this study, an attempt was also made to comprehensively describe and analyze primarily non-codified subsystems of the language that function in Ufa. In this work, in addition to the analysis of some phonetic, word-formation, grammatical phenomena in different subsystems of the language of the city of Ufa, attention was paid to the consideration of lexemes that function in the speech of the inhabitants of this city. Among these nominations are words and phrases that have different parts of speech, connotative and stylistic coloring and related to different thematic groups.

In the speech of Ufa residents, lexemes from different subsystems of the language are used: literary language, everyday colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon, semi-dialect, which allows us to say that these subsystems are represented in the language of this city in constant interaction. The choice of certain phonetic, lexical, grammatical means from different language subsystems by a city dweller is influenced by various factors: his age, education, profession, place of work, social status, communication situation. Citizens may be proficient in various subsystems of the Russian language (literary and everyday colloquial speech, everyday colloquial speech and jargon, etc.), i.e. the phenomenon of diglossia, in which switching codes can be observed.

In general, it can be argued that there are not so many people who speak the literary norm of the Russian language in Ufa: they constitute a linguistic minority, since they are predominantly persons with a higher philological or other humanitarian, less often non-humanitarian, education. Therefore, the most common means of communication in the city is everyday colloquial speech interspersed with colloquial and slang elements. The ordinary (everyday) speech of the indigenous population of the city of Ufa is not strongly influenced by dialects, as, for example, colloquial speech in various cities of the Ural region (Perm, Chelyabinsk, Izhevsk). Ordinary colloquial speech in Ufa is focused on the Moscow and partly St. Petersburg language norm at the phonetic, lexical, grammatical levels, which can be considered one of the features of the language of the city of Ufa, which distinguishes it from the language of other Ural cities.

In the language of the city of Ufa, vernacular also functions, influencing Russian colloquial speech, since vernacular elemes are found in it. In this paper, a description of the phonetic, word-formation, lexical and grammatical levels of the Ufa vernacular was given, which showed that the Ufa vernacular has no significant differences from the general Russian vernacular. Some differences are manifested at the lexical level, since the Ufa vernacular lexicon includes dialect vocabulary of different origin (from the Russian dialects of Bashkortostan and dialects of other regions of Russia), borrowings from Turkic languages, and more, although a significant part of the vernacular lexicon is made up of all-Russian vernacular nominations. Thus, the thesis about the supra-dialectal nature of Russian vernacular is also confirmed by the material of Ufa vernacular.

Jargon, unlike vernacular, has a wider scope, since slang vocabulary from the general jargon (interjargon) is found in everyday colloquial speech of people of different ages (from children, adolescents, young people to the older generation). Therefore, we can raise the question of jargonization of everyday colloquial speech. Ufa jargon is heterogeneous and breaks up into a number of micro jargons: children's, teenage, youth, school, student, professional (computer, military, sports, jargon of musicians, tourists, etc.), criminal, etc.

In jargon, the speaker's desire for word creation is very clearly manifested, in order to express their thoughts, feelings brightly, unusually, witty.

The lexicon of the Ufa interjargon has much in common with the lexicon of the all-Russian jargon, although not to the full extent: in the Ufa interjargon there are differences in the structure of the lexical meanings of jargonisms, original jargonisms, jargon lexemes of Turkic origin function. This allows us to talk about the territorial variation of the all-Russian jargon.

Replenishment of colloquial, colloquial, slang vocabulary occurs in different ways. Many expressive jargon nominations are formed in a semantic way. The most common word-building methods for creating non-codified vocabulary are methods used both in literary speech (prefixation, suffixation, word formation, etc.), and in colloquial and slang speech (various types of semantic contraction, truncation, suffixation of a truncated stem, etc.). The most common in the language of the city are full one-word and incomplete nominations.

When studying the language of the city of Ufa, it is also necessary to take into account the multi-ethnicity of the population living in the city. Therefore, when studying the language of such a large multinational city as Ufa, the problem of the interaction of the Russian language with the languages ​​of other nationalities was raised. One of the promising directions in the study of the language situation of a given city is also the study of urban bi- and trilingualism.

The most significant consequences of the interaction of the Russian and Turkic languages ​​in the city are bilingualism, interference, interlingual wedging, various kinds of borrowings, regionalisms (local words and expressions that exist in a certain territory). The functioning of a large number of borrowings from the Turkic languages ​​in the Russian speech of Ufa distinguishes the language of the city of Ufa from the language of other Russian cities, gives the oral Russian speech of the townspeople a specific Ufa coloring.

The prospect of further study of the language of Ufa is associated with the continuation of work on collecting, systematizing, analyzing materials on the language of Ufa, as well as their comparison, comparison with data on the language of other Russian cities, which should eventually lead to the compilation of a dictionary of the language of this city, which would contain vocabulary that functions in the speech of Ufimians.

List of references for dissertation research candidate of philological sciences Ismagilova, Nuria Vinerovna, 2007

1. Avrorin V.A. Bilingualism and school // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-p.49-62,

2. Avrorin V.A. Problems of studying the functional side of the language. L.: Nauka, 1975.- 275p.

3. Almukhsshedova E.M. Vocalism of circumferential dialects with reduction compared with literary pronunciation in some of its territorial variants / Issues of grammar and lexicology of the Russian language. Kazan, 1964.

4. Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969.- 508 p.

5. Akhmanova O.S. Dichotomy "language-dialect" in the light of the problems of modern bilingualism//Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.- P. 98-102.

6. Akhunzyanov E.M. Bilingualism and lexical-semantic interference. - Kazan: Kazan, state. un.-t, 1978. 190 p.

7. Ayupova JI.JI. Russian-Bashkir language interaction//RR. 1976. - No. 1.-S. 89-92.

8. Ayupova L.L. Questions of sociolinguistics: types of bilingualism in Bashkiria. - Sverdlovsk: Uralsk, state. un.-t, 1988. 70 p.

9. Ayupova JI.JI. Vocabulary of the peoples of Bashkortostan in Russian speech (Glossary): Textbook. Ufa: BSU Publishing House, 1994. - 146 p.

10. Ayupova JI.JI. The language of the city as a sociolinguistic problem // Ayupova L.L. Sociolinguistics: actual problems. Ufa: Eastern University, 1999. - S. 56-64.

11. Ayupova JI.JI. Language situation: sociolinguistic aspect. Ufa: Eastern University, 2000. - 156 p.

12. Bankova T.B. Vocabulary of urban vernacular (typology of description): Dissertation for the academic step. Candidate of Philology, Tomsk, 1987. - 18 p.

13. Bankova T.B. Expressive-emotional vocabulary of the Tomsk urban vernacular (Features of semantics) // Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipov. - Omsk, 1995. -4.1.-S.75-77.

14. Barannikova L.I. To the problem of social and structural variability of the dialect//Questions of social linguistics. L .: Nauka, 1969. - S. 314 - 343.

15. Barannikova L.I. The essence of interference and the specifics of its manifestation // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.- M.: Nauka, 1972.- P. 88-98.

16. Barannikova JI.K Vernacular as a special social component of the language//Language and society. Saratov: Publishing House of the Saratov University, 1974. - Issue. III. -WITH. 3-22.

17. Barannikova JIM Vernacular and literary colloquial speech//Language and society. Saratov: Publishing House of the Saratov University, 1977. - Issue. IV. - S. 59-77.

18. Barannikova L.I. On the problem of the correlation of the Russian literary language and the national Koine // Types of supradialectal forms of language. M.: Nauka, 1981. -S. 97-119.

19. Beglova EZH, Dudareva Z.M. Jargonisms in Russian. Sterlitamak: SGPU, 1994-49 p.

20. Belikov V.I. Comparison of St. Petersburg with Moscow and other considerations on social lexicography//Russian language today. Issue. 3 - Moscow: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004.-S. 23-37.

21. Bell R. Sociolinguistics. Goals, methods and problems. M.: Intern. Relative, 1980. - 320 p.

22. Belchikov Yu.A. Literary vernacular and norm//Literary norm in vocabulary and phraseology. M.: Nauka, 1983. - S. 37-46.

23. Beregovskaya E.M. Youth slang: formation and functioning//VYa. 1996. - No. 3

24. Bertagaev T.A. Bilingualism and its varieties in the system of use // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism, - M .: Nauka, 1972. - P. 82-88.

25. Bobrova G.A., Nikitina E.A. Colloquial urbanonyms of Omsk: structure and functioning // Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the interuniversity scientific conference / Ed. B.I. Osipov. - Omsk, 1995. 4.1 - S. 31-34.

26. Baudouin de Courtenay I.A., "Thieves' Music" // Baudouin de Courtenay I.A. Selected works on general linguistics. T.2 - M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1963. -S.161-162.

27. Bondaletov DB. Borrowings from the Germanic languages ​​in the vocabulary of Russian conditionally professional slang// Language and Society. Saratov: Publishing House of Saratov University, 1967a. - S. 226-234.

28. Bondaletov DB. Gypsyisms as a part of conditional languages//Language and society. Saratov: Publishing House of the Saratov University, 19676. - S. 235 - 242.

29. Bondaletov DB. Socio-economic prerequisites for the death of conditionally professional languages ​​and the main patterns of this process//Issues of social linguistics. L .: Nauka, 1969. - S. 398 - 415 p.

30. Bondaletov V.D. Conditional languages ​​of Russian artisans and merchants. - Ryazan: RGPU, 1974 110 p.

31. Bondaletov V. D. Social Linguistics.-M.: Enlightenment, 1987. -160 p.

32. Borisova E.G. About some features of the modern jargon of youth//Rus. language at school. -1981. No. 3. - P.83-87.

33. Borisova E.G. Modern youth jargon//Rus. speech. 1980. -№5. -WITH. 51-54.

34. Borisova Lukaishnets E.G. On the vocabulary of modern youth jargon (English borrowings in slang of the 60-70s) / / Literary norm in vocabulary and phraseology. - M.: Nauka, 1983. -S. 104-120.

35. Bulls V. Russian Fenya. Smolensk: Trust-Imakom, 1994. - 222 p.

36. Bykov V.B. On the translation of the Russian substandard into German // Semantics of language units: Reports of the VI Intern. conf. T.1. - M.: SportAcademPress, 1998.-p. 103-107.

37. Weinreich U. Language contacts. State and problems of research. - Kyiv: Vitsa School, 1970. - 264 p.

38. Weinreich U. Monolingualism and multilingualism//New in linguistics. Language contacts.- M.: Progress, 1972.- Issue. 6. S. 25-60.

39. Vasiliev L. M. General problems of linguistics: Uchebn. allowance - Ufa, 1998.149 p.

40. Vakhitov C.B. About Russian slang. Characteristics of the material // Vakhitov S.V. Dictionary of Ufa slang. Ufa: Publishing house of BGGGU, 2001. - S. 5 - 22.

41. Vakhitov C.B. Dictionary of Ufa slang. Ufa: Vagant, 2004. - 236 p.

42. Vepreva I.T. Conversational norm: in search of new criteria//Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. Yekaterinburg: "Argo", 1996.-S. 136-153.

43. Verbitskaya L.A. Pronunciation norm today // Language: history and modernity of St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 1996. - P. 52 - 60.

44. Vereshchagin E.M. Psychological and methodological characteristics of bilingualism (bilingualism). M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1969. - 160 p.

45. Vinokur TT. On elliptical word usage in modern colloquial speech // Development of the vocabulary of the modern Russian language. Moscow: Nauka, 1965.

46. ​​Vinokur T.G. Stylistic development of modern Russian colloquial speech / / Development of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language / Ed. T.G. Vinokur and D.N. Shmelev. M: Nauka, 1968. -S.12-101.

47. Volkova H.A. Modern youth jargon as a linguo-ecological problem U / Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipov. Omsk, 1995. - 4.1. - S. 42-44.

48. Voloshchenko O.V. Features of vernacular semantics (on the example of verbs of motion) // Problems of studying the living Russian word at the turn of the millennium: Materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical. conf. Voronezh: Publishing house of VGPU, 2001. -S. 172-177.

49. Questions of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - 418 p.

50. Vysotsky S.S. About the Moscow folk dialect//Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 22-37.

51. Gabinskaya O.A. Neoplasms in colloquial speech and language certification//Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988.

52. Gavranek B.O. On the functional stratification of the literary language / The Prague Linguistic Circle. M: Progress, 1967. - S. 432-443.

53. Gavranek B. On the problem of mixing languages ​​/ / New in linguistics. Language contacts.- M.: Progress, 1972.- Issue. 6. S. 94-111.

54. Gak V.G. Comparative lexicology. (Based on the French and Russian languages) M .: "International Relations", 1977. - 264 p.

55. Galimyanova V.R. The language situation of the Krasnokamsky district of the Republic of Bashkortostan: Sociolinguistic aspect: Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. -Ufa, 2003.-21 p.

56. Gak V.G. About French vernacular // FN 1993. - No. 5-6. - S. 116 - 121.

57. Galin P.A. The population of the city of Ufa: past, present, future. Ufa: RIO BAGSU, 2001. - 96 p.

58. Gallyamov P.P. Multinational city: ethnosociological essays. - Ufa: Gilem, 1996.-2000 p.

59. Galperin I.R. On the term "slang" // Questions of linguistics, 1956. No. 6. -S. 107-114.

60. Gamperz J. On the ethnographic aspect of language changes / / New in linguistics. Issue. VII - M.: Progress, 1975. - S. 299 - 319.

61. Garipov T.M. Regarding the determinism of the nomination (to the history of one urbonym)//Problems of communication and nomination in the concept of general humanitarian knowledge. Chelyabinsk: Publishing House of ChGU, 1999. - S. 20 - 26.

62. Garipov T.M. Concerning the language model of Bashkortostan//Materials of the interregional scientific-practical conference "Interethnic relations in a multi-ethnic region: problems and ways of optimization". Ufa, 2005. -S. 123-125.

63. Gelhardt R.R. On the literary language in the geographical projection / Questions of linguistics. 1959. - No. 3. - S. 95-101.

64. Gerd A.C. Russian literary language and Russian colloquial speech in the cities of the Arctic / / Literary language and folk speech. Perm, 1986. - P.3-11.65. 74. Gin Ya.I. The inevitable tyranny of material // RR. 1992. - N6.

66. Golovin B.N. Questions of social differentiation of language//Questions of social linguistics. L .: Nauka, 1969. - S. 343-355.

67. Gorbacheva E.F. Vernacular as a socio-stylistic language category//Language and society. Sociolinguistic problems of lexicology. -Issue. 6. Saratov, 1982.

68. Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. -183 p.

69. Urban vernacular. Problems of study / Ed. E.A. Zemskoy and D.N. Shmelev. M: Nauka, 1984. -189 p.

70. Graudina J1.K. Colloquial and vernacular forms in grammar // Literary norm and vernacular. M.: Nauka, 1977. - S. 77-111.

71. Grachev M.A. “I’ll get a prison for a hair dryer” / / Rus. speech. - 1993. -№4.-S. 51-56.

72. Grachev M.A. Where do the words hang out and hang out?//Rus. lang. at school. -1995a. -No. 3. -p.84-86.

73. Grachev M.A. Blatnaya music//Russian speech. 19956. - No. 5. - S. 113-117.

74. Grachev M.A. On the conspiratorial function of slang//Speech of the city. Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipov. Omsk, 1995c. - 4.2. - S. 33 - 36.

75. Grachev M.A. Argotisms in youth jargon//Rus. lang. at school. -1996a.-No. 1.-S.78-85.

76. Grachev M.A. How argotisms appear in our speech // Russian speech. -19966.-№4.-S. 67-71

77. Grachev M.A. The mechanism of the transition of argotisms into the national language//Rus. lang. at school. -1996v.-No.5 .-S.87-90.

78. Grachev M.A. Russian slang. N.-Novgorod, 1997. - 245 p.

79. Grachev M.A., Kozhevnikov A.Yu. To the question of the social dialectology of the Russian language//FN. 1996. - No. 5. - S. 111 - 116.

80. Grishina O.A. Prosodic parameters of local speech (on the material of Krasnoyarsk): Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Omsk, 2003 - 20 p.

81. Gruzberg JI.A. What is the real speech of a modern city dweller? // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. - S. 8 - 15.

82. Gruzberg JI.A., Pigina PL. On the differentiation of the speech of the city (on the material of comparison) / / Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm: PGU, 1982. - S. 40-47.

83. Grumadene L.A. The problem of social conditioning of speech variation (on the material of the Lithuanian language): Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Moscow: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1982 - 16 p.

84. Guseva L.G., Manion Ya.G. Local social and age jargon / Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1988. - S. 96-103.

85. Guts E.H. The place of the slang word in the language model of the world//Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference/Edited by B.I. Osipov. Omsk, 1995. - 4.1. - P.73-75.

86. Dal V.I. The conventional language of St. Petersburg swindlers, known under the name of music, or fable language//Problems of Linguistics. 1990. -№1. -WITH. 134137.

87. Devkin V.D. On the types of non-literary speech//Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 12-21.

88. Dedova O.V. Phonetic features of modern Moscow vernacular: Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Moscow, 1988. - 18 p.

89. Desheriev Yu.D. Patterns of development of the literary languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR in the Soviet era. M., 1976.

90. Desheriev Yu.D. Social Linguistics: Toward the Foundations of a General Theory. -M, Nauka, 1977. 382 p.

91. Desheriev Yu.D., Protchenko I.F. The main aspects of the study of bilingualism and multilingualism // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.- M.: Nauka, 1972.-p. 26-42.

92. Desherieva Yu.Yu. The problem of linguistic interference in modern linguistics / Theoretical problems of social linguistics.- M.: Nauka, 1981.-p. 240-255.

93. Dobrodomov KG. On the historiography of the study of Turkisms in the Russian language//Soviet Turkology. 1974. - No. 5. - S. 72 - 76.

94. Dubrovina KN. Student jargon//Philological sciences 1980. -№1. - P.78-81.

95. Dyakova V.I. Observations on the vocabulary of the Voronezh urban vernacular//Folklore and literature: problems of study. Voronezh: Publishing house of VSU, 2001.-p.174-178

96. Elistratov A.A. Lexical means of displaying the corporate culture of athletes: Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Chelyabinsk: CTU Publishing House, 2005.-22 p.

97. Elistratov B.C. Observations on modern urban slang//Vestn. Moscow. university Ser. 9. Philology. 1993. - No. 1

98. Elistratov B.C. Dictionary of Moscow Argo. M: Russian dictionaries, 2000-p. 574 - 692.

99. Elistratov B.C. Argo and culture// Elistratov B.C. Dictionary of Moscow Argo. -M.: Russian dictionaries, 2000 S. 574 - 692.

100. Eremin A.N. Pronouns in common speech (semantics and formal features). Kaluga: Publishing House of the KSPU, 1997a. - 28 s.

101. Eremin A.N. Phraseologically related meanings in the literary language and vernacular // Russk. lang. at school. 19976. - No. 5. - S. 71 - 76.

102. Eremin A.N. Figurative meanings in common parlance. Kaluga: Publishing house of KSPU, 1998. - 104 p.

103. Eremin A.N. Word-formation systems of vernacular and literary language//Russk. lang. in school -1999. No. 1. - S. 74 - 77.

104. Eremin A.N. Vernacular Normative-explanatory dictionary - Speech of a native speaker of a literary language / / Semantics. Functioning. Text. - Kirov, 2001.-p. 11-19.

105. Ermakova O.I. Ethics in computer jargon // Logical analysis of language. Ethical languages. Moscow, 2000. - S. 246-253.

106. Ermakova O.E. Nominations in vernacular // Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M., Nauka, 1984. -S. 130-140.

107. Erofeeva E.V. Experimental study of the phonetics of the regional variant of the literary language. Perm: Publishing House Perm. un-ta, 1997. - 140 p.

108. Erofeeva E.V. Dependence of speech behavior on some sociolinguistic factors// Problems of communication and nomination in the concept of general humanitarian knowledge. Chelyabinsk: CTU Publishing House, 1999. - S. 99 -105.

109. Erofeeva E.B. The dual nature of the language of the city and methods of its study// Literature and modernity. Part 2. - Perm: Publishing House of Perm. un-ta, 2000. - 154-163 p.

110. Erofeeva T.I. On the social differentiation of the speech of citizens (to the question of the interaction of colloquial literary and dialect speech) / / Literary language and folk speech. Perm: PGU, 1984a. - S. 10-17.

111. Erofeeva T.I. On the everyday meaning of the literary word in live colloquial speech//Literary language and folk speech: Interuniversity collection of scientific papers. Perm, 1986. - S. 11-27.

112. Erofeeva T.I. "Speech portrait" of the speaker // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990.

113. Erofeeva T.I. Social stratification of the speech of a city dweller // Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. Perm: Publishing House of PGU, 1993. -S. 83 - 92.

114. Erofeeva T.I. Stratification conditionality of possession of professionalism//Anthropocentric approach to the language of Perm: Publishing House of PSU, 1998.-p. 149-160.

115. Erofeeva T.I. Sociolect in stratification performance//Russian language today. Issue. 1.: Sat. articles / Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. -S. 85-91.

116. Erofeeva T.I., Gruzberg JI.A. Once again about vernacular // Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm: PGU, 1989. - S. 2-10.

117. Erofeeva T.N., Skitova F.L. Local elements in the literary speech of the townspeople // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. -S. 15-22.

118. Erofeeva T.N., Skitova F.L. Localisms in the literary speech of citizens. -Perm: Publishing House of Perm. un-ta, 1992. 92 p.

119. Erofeeva T.N. Local coloring of literary colloquial speech: A textbook for a special course. Perm, 1979. - 92p.

120. Zhdanova O.P. Evaluative vocabulary in urban colloquial speech//Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - S. 71-79.

121. Live speech of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr-in. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1988.- 136 p.

122. Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. - Perm: Publishing House of PGU, 1992. 142 p.

123. Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. - Perm: Publishing House of PGU, 1993. 213 p.

124. Zhirmunsky V.M. Professional vocabulary, jargons, slang//National language and social dialects. D., 1936. - S. 105-167.

125. Zhirmunsky V.M. The problem of social differentiation of languages//Language and society. M.: Nauka, 1968. - S.22-39.

126. Zhluktenko Yu.A. Linguistic aspects of bilingualism. - Kyiv: Vitsa school, 1974. 176 p.

127. Zhuravlev A.F. Foreign borrowings in Russian vernacular (phonetics, morphology, vocabulary, semantics) // Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 102-124.

128. Zaikovskaya T.V. Can you brainstorm? Sabo herself!//Rus. speech. 1993. -№6. - S. 40-43.

129. Zakiryanov K.Z. Bilingualism and interference: Textbook. allowance Ufa: Bash. state un.-t, 1984.- 80 p.

130. Zakiryanov K.Z. Bilingualism: linguoculturological aspect // Bulletin of VEGU. 2000. - No. 11. - S. 44-50.

131. Zemskaya E.A. Russian colloquial speech//Issues of linguistics. 1971.5.

132. Zemskaya E.A. On the concept of "colloquial speech" / / Russian colloquial speech: Collection of scientific papers: Publishing House of Saratov University, 1970. -S. 3-10.

133. Zemskaya E.A. Russian colloquial speech: linguistic analysis and learning problems. M.: Russian language, 1987.

134. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaygorodskaya M.V., Shiryaev E.H. Russian colloquial speech: General questions. Syntax. Word formation. M.: Nauka, 1981. - 275 p.

135. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaygorodskaya M.V., Shiryaev E.H. Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Moscow: Nauka, 1983.

136. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaygorodskaya M.V. Observations on colloquial morphology//Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 66-102.

137. Zemskaya E.A. Urban oral speech and the tasks of its study// Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - S. 5 - 44.

138. Ilminskaya N.I. Nominations of modes of transport//Colloquial speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Vocabulary. Saratov, 1983. - S. 245-252.

139. Nifontova G.G. On the issue of elite speech culture / Principles and methods of research in philology: the end of the 20th century. Issue. 6. - St. Petersburg - Stavropol: Stavrop Publishing House. gosun-ta, 2001. - S.389 - 391.

140. History of Ufa. Brief essay. Ufa, 1981.

141. Iskhakova Z.A. Bilingualism in the cities of Tatarstan (80-90s). Kazan: Fiker, 2001. - 192 p.

142. Itskovich V.A., Schwarzkopf B.S. Passive bilingualism and the culture of speech // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M.: Nauka, 1972. P. 127-129.

144. Kapanadze JI.A. Vocabulary of everyday use (names of household appliances and machines)//Methods of nomination in modern Russian. M.: Nauka, 1982. S.271-281.

145. Kapanadze JI.A. Lexico-semantic features of colloquial speech // Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture/Ed. E.A. Zemskaya. M.: Nauka, 1983. - S. 142-172.

146. Kapanadze JI.A. Modern urban vernacular and literary language.//Urban vernacular: Problems of study.- M.: Nauka, 1984a. pp. 5-12.

147. Kapanadze JI.A. Modern vernacular vocabulary (Moscow vernacular) // Urban vernacular: Problems of study. -M: Nauka, 19846. -S. 125-129.

148. Kapanadze JI.A. Ways of expressing evaluation in oral speech // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - S. 151-156.

149. Kapanadze JI.A., Krasilnikova E.V. Vocabulary of the city (to the formulation of the problem)//Methods of nomination in modern Russian. M.: Nauka, 1982.-S. 282-294.

150. Karaulov Yu.N. On the state of the modern Russian language//RR. 2001. -№3. -p.25-30.

151. Karlinsky A.E. Fundamentals of the theory of interaction of languages. Alma-Ata: Gylym, 1990.-181 p.

152. Karmyzova O.A. Computer vocabulary: structure and development: Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Voronezh: VGU, 2003. - 24 p.

153. Katagoshchina H.A. The problem of bilingualism and multilingualism abroad / / Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M .: Nauka, 1972. P. 62-74.

154. Katasheva A.Ya. Turkisms in the language of the city: (on the material of the speech of the Russian population of the mining zone of the Chelyabinsk region) // Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - S. 104 - 110.

155. Kitaigorodskaya T.S., Rozanova H.H. Muscovites speech. Communicative and cultural aspect. M., 1999. - 253 p.

156. Kogotkova T.S. On some features of the development of literary vocabulary in the conditions of dialectal bilingualism//Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-S. 250-257.

157. Kogotkova T.S. The role of vernacular in the processes of mastering the vocabulary of a literary language by dialects // Literary norm and vernacular. M.: Nauka, 1977. - S.58-71.

158. Kogotkova T.S. Russian Dialect Lexicology: Status and Prospects. M.: Nauka, 1979. - 335 p.

159. Kolesnikova U.E. Features of modern urbanonyms (on the example of the cities of the Volga region and France) // Onomastics of the Volga region. Moscow: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. - S. 50-54.

160. Kolesov V.V. City language. M.: Higher school, 1991. - 192 p.

161. Koltunova M.V. What does jargon bring with it?//PP. 2003. - No. 1. - S. 48 - 50.

162. Konovalova D.A. The Status of the Names of Modern Commercial Enterprises in the Proper Name System: Features of Functioning and Typology // Urban Colloquial Speech and Problems of its Study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.-S. 96-110.

163. Kopylenko M.M. On the semantic nature of youth jargon / / Socio-linguistic research / Ed. L.P. Krysin and D.N. Shmelev. M.: Nauka, 1976. - S.79-86.

164. Krasilnikova E.V. Inventory of morphemes//Methods of nomination in modern Russian. M., Nauka, 1982a. - S. 133-158.

165. Krasilnikova E.V. On the Correlation of Language Levels in the System of Russian Colloquial Speech // Problems of Structural Linguistics. M., 19826. - S. 37 - 49.

166. Krasilnikova E.V. The language of the city as a linguistic problem // Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - S. 5-18.

167. Krasilnikova E.V. On various phenomena in the language of residents of different cities//Functioning of the literary language in the Ural city. - Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. pp. 4-12.

168. Krasilnikova E.V. Language and culture: (to the study of the language of the city) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1990 - P. 4-8.

169. Kocherenkova S.D. Informal names of spatial objects of Sverdlovsk: (methods of nomination) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. - Sverdlovsk: Ural State University, 1990 P. 79 - 89.

170. Krivozubova G. A. Urbanonyms of the city of Omsk: (composition and functioning): Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Barnaul, 1993 - 19 p.

171. Krivozubova G. A. On the inventory of urbonymic units//Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 125 - 30.

172. Krysin L.P. Possession of different language subsystems as a phenomenon of diglossia // Socio-linguistic research. M., 1976. - 232 p.

173. Krysin L.P. The relationship of the modern literary language and vernacular / / Rus. lang. at school. 1988. - No. 2. - S. 81-88.

174. Krysin L.P. Foreign language term in Russian vernacular//Philological collection. M.: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1995a. - S. 262 - 268.

175. Krysin L.P. Foreign term in Russian vernacular // Philological collection (on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Academician V.V. Vinogradov) / Ed. dokg. philol. n. MV.Lapon. M.: Institute of the Russian Language. V.V. Vinogradov RAN, 19956. - S. 262-268.

176. Krysin L.P. Foreign word in the context of modern social life//Russian language of the end of the XX century (1985-1995). M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 1996.- S. 142-159.

177. Krysin L.P. Russian literary language at the turn of the century//RR. 2000c. -#1. - S. 28-40.

178. Krysin L.P. Social marking of language units//VYa 2000 - No. 4. S. 26-41.

179. Krysin L.P. Modern literary norm and its codification//РЯШ. -2002.-№1.-S. 82-87.

180. Kupchik E.V. Pronunciation features of the speech of the townspeople, due to dialectal influence (based on the recording of the speech of the inhabitants of Sverdlovsk and Nizhny Tagil) / / Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. - Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. S. 22 - 30.

181. Labov U. The study of language in its social context / / New in linguistics.-Vyp. VII-M.: Progress, 1975.-S. 96-181.

182. Lapteva O.A. On non-codified spheres of the modern Russian literary language//Problems of Linguistics. 1966. - No. 2. - P. 40 - 56.

183. Lapteva O.A. The study of Russian colloquial speech in Russian linguistics in recent years: a review//Issues of linguistics. 1967. - No. 1. - S. 129-139.

184. Lapteva O.A. Russian colloquial syntax. Moscow: Nauka, 1976.

185. Larin B.A. To the linguistic characteristics of the city (several prerequisites) / / History of the Russian language and general linguistics. M .: Education, 1977a.-S.189-199.

186. Larin B.A. On the linguistic study of the city / History of the Russian language and general linguistics. M .: Education, 19776. - S. 175-189.

187. Levashov E.A. Toponymy of Moscow and Leningrad yesterday and today//RR. -1990.-№3.-S. 122-128.

188. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / Ch. ed V.N. Yartsev. - 2nd ed. M: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998.- 686 p.

189. Literary language and folk speech. Perm: PGU, 1977-1986.

190. Likhachev D.S. Argotic words of professional speech//Development of grammar and vocabulary of the modern Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1964. - S.311-359.

191. Likhachev D.S. Features of the primitive primitivism of thieves' speech // Dictionary of prison-camp-thieves jargon. M.: Kraya Moskvy, 1992. - S. 354-398.

192. Likhachev D.S. Psychology of Argo// Russia-East-West. M.: Heritage, 1998.-p. 60 - 84.

193. Likholitov P.V. This is what the border guards say // Russian speech. 1997. - no. -WITH. 63-70.

194. Mayorov A.P. Social aspects of the interaction of languages ​​in a bilingual communicative space. - Ufa, 1997. 138 p.

196. McDavid R.M. Dialect and social differences in urban society//New in linguistics. Issue. VII - M.: Progress, 1975. - S. 363 - 381.

197. Makovsky M.M. On the way to creating a dictionary of the Russian substandard//FN. -1997.-№4.-S. 103-109.

198. Maksimova L.I. About Ishim vernacular // Sociocultural problems of development of small towns in Western Siberia: Abstracts of reports and reports of a scientific conference. Ishim: Izd-vo IGPI, 2000. - S. 95 - 97.

199. Malysheva V.A. Vernacular in urban microtoponymy // Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm, 1989. - S.54-58.

200. Marsheva L.I. Justified variability in the names of persons at the place of residence//РЯШ. 2004. - No. 4. - S. 78 - 81.

201. Milekhina T.A. On some features of the colloquial speech of the youth of the city / / Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995. Part 1. - P. 44-46.

202. Mintslov S.R. Ufa. From the book "The Wilds of Life". Ufa: Bashk. book. publishing house, 1992. -176 p.

203. Miralaeva O.D. Modern Russian youth jargon (sociolinguistic research): Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. - Moscow, 1994. -19 p.

204. Mironov S.A. Semi-dialect and everyday colloquial language as varieties of supra-dialect forms of speech // Types of supra-dialect forms of language. Moscow: Nauka, 1981.

205. Mikhailov M.M. Bilingualism (principles and problems). - Cheboksary: ​​Chuvashki, state. un.-t, 1969. 136 p.

206. Mikhailova OA The life of someone else's word in the colloquial speech of citizens//Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. - Yekaterinburg: Argo, 1996. S. 153 - 167.

207. Mikhalap K.P., Shmeleva T.V. The Word of the Urban Environment // Philological Sciences. 1987.-N4.-S. 81-84.

208. Mikhalchenko V.Yu. Problems of functioning and interaction of the Lithuanian and Russian languages. - Vilnius: Makslas, 1984. - 224 p.

209. Mokienko V.M., Nikitina T.G. Big dictionary of Russian jargon. - St. Petersburg: "Norint". 2001. - 720 p.

210. Morozova M.N. Names of cultural institutions//RR. 1973. -№6.-S. 54-59.

211. Morozova O.E. Oral speech and linguistic personality of the speaker // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: Publishing House of PGU, 1998. - S. 56 - 64.

212. Morozova T.S. Some features of the construction of statements in common speech // Urban common speech. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 141-162.

213. Moskvin V.P. Conversational style as a system//Rus. speech. 2005. - No. 4. - S. 37-48.

214. Nikitina T.G. Explanatory dictionary of youth slang: Words incomprehensible to adults. OK. 2000. M.: "Astrel", "ACT", 2003. - 736 p.

215. Nikitina T.G. So say the youth: Dictionary of slang. Based on materials from the 7090s. St. Petersburg: Folio-Press, 1998. - 592 p.

216. Nozhkina E. M. Adverbs / T Conversational speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian language. Saratov, 1983. - S.94-124.

217. Norm and social differentiation of language. M.: Nauka, 1969.- 173 p.

218. Ozhegov S.I. On vernacular (to the question of the language of the city) / / VYa. 2000. - No. 5.-S. 93-110.

219. Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language.- M.: Azbukovnik, 1999.-944 p.

220. Orlov G.A. To the problem of the boundaries of everyday and modern literary colloquial speech//Problems of Linguistics. No. 5.-1981.-S. 119-128.

221. Osipov B.I. On the term "folk colloquial speech of the city" // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 5 - 11.

222. Osipov B. I., Bobrova G. A., Imedadze N. A., Krivozubova G. A., Odintsova M. L., Yunakovskaya A. A. Lexicographic description of the colloquial speech of a modern city: theoretical aspects. Omsk, 1994.-144 p.

223. Osipov B.I., Sukhotskaya E.B. Notes on the urban dialectisms of modern St. Petersburg and Omsk//Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 92 - 96.

224. Panov V.M. Russian phonetics. M., 1967.

225. Parikova N.V. On the South Russian variant of literary speech//Development of the phonetics of the modern Russian literary language. M., 1996.

226. Pekshieva T.A. Phonetic originality of the colloquial speech of the inhabitants of Arkhangelsk // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PGU Publishing House, 1998.-S. 68-81.

227. Pervukhina E.V. Youth jargon of the 90s (strokes to a speech portrait) // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PGU Publishing House, 1998.-S. 88-93.

228. Pestereva N.Sh., Ruth M.E. Nominativity and expressiveness in the semantics of a figurative word (Naming people in the speech of schoolchildren) // Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988.

229. Petrishcheva E.F. Non-literary vocabulary as a stylistic category//VYa. -1981. N3. - S. 63 - 69.

230. Petrova NA. Notes on teenage slang // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: Publishing House of PGU, 1998. - S. 81 - 87.

231. Pleshkova T.N. Dialectal features of the colloquial speech of the townspeople // Living word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: Publishing House of PGU, 1998. - S. 64 -68.

232. Podolskaya N.V. Dictionary of Russian onomastic terminology. Moscow: Nauka, 1988.

233. Podolskaya N.V. Urbanonymy of the central regions of the RSFSR//Vopr. geography. 1974, - No. 94.

234. Podyukov I.A. On the origin of phraseological units of urban oral speech: (according to observations on the living speech of Perm) / / Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. - S. 163 - 176.

235. Polishchuk G.G. Nominations of colloquial speech//Conversational speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Lexis / Ed. O. B. Sirotinina. Saratov, 1983. - S. 195-212.

236. Pomykalova T.E., Shishkina T.Ya., Shkatova L.A. Observations on the speech of the inhabitants of Chelyabinsk (On the problem of the "language of the city") // Urban vernacular: Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 162-167.

237. Popova A.V. The system of unofficial toponyms of the city of Moscow//Rusisgika at the present stage. M.: Publishing House of MSLU, 1999. - S. 85 - 88.

238. Pospelova G.M. Innovations in the territorial and administrative dictionary of the city//RR. 1997. - No. 4. - S. 64 - 72.

239. Righteous S.P. A few words about modern vernacular // Linguistic and didactic bases of work on the text. Kursk: Publishing house of KSPU, 1997. -p.23 - 25

240. Principles and methods of sociolinguistic research. Moscow: Nauka, 1989.

241. Priyatkina A.F. Colloquial neoplasms: their basis and fate (to determine the internal properties of colloquial speech) / / Russian language today. Issue. Sat. articles / Ed. LL. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - S. 231 - 239.

242. Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-S. 98-102.

243. Prokurovskaya H.A. Colloquial speech of the city of Izhevsk in comparison with the colloquial speech of the cities of the Ural region// Actual problems of regional linguistics and history of Siberia. Kemerovo: KGU, 1992. - S. 69 - 71.

244. Prokurovskaya H.A. City in the mirror of its language: On the linguistic material of Izhevsk. Izhevsk: Udm. un-ta, 1996. - 228 p.

245. Prokurovskaya H.A. The system of colloquial predication and the mentality of the modern city dweller reflected in it. Basic styles of communication// Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.

246. Varieties of urban oral speech / Ed. D.N. Shmeleva and E.A. Zemskoy. Moscow: Nauka, 1988.

247. Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian interuniversity scientific conference. / Ed. B. I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995.

248. Rozanova H.H. Modern Moscow vernacular and literary language (based on phonetics) // Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 37-66.

249. Rosenthal D.E., Teleshova M.A. Dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms. -M.: Enlightenment, 1976.

250. Rosenzveig V.B. Language contacts.- L.: Nauka, 1972.- 80 p.

251. Rozina R.I. From incidents to actions (semantic derivation as a way to replenish the common jargon) / / Russian language today: Sat. articles / Ed. L.P. Krysina. M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - S. 418 - 432.

252. Russian colloquial speech / Collection of scientific works. - Saratov, 1970.-251 p.

253. Russian colloquial speech / Ed. E.A. Zemskaya. M.: Nauka, 1973. -485 p.

254. Russian colloquial speech: Texts / Ed. E.A. Zemskaya, L.A. Kapanadze. -M: Nauka, 1978. S. 3-27.

255. Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture. -M.: Nauka, 1983.- 238 p.

256. Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. - Ekaterinburg: Argo, 1996. 193 p.

257. Ryzhksha O.A., Resnyanskaya JI.H. Psycho- and sociolinguistic analysis of the language portrait of a city dweller (Expressives of women and men) // Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1988. - S. 39 - 47.

258. Salnikova T.A. New phenomena in the emporonymy of Krasnoyarsk // Philology Journalism. - Krasnoyarsk: Publishing House of KGU - S. 63 - 65

259. Salyaev V.A. On the social dialects of the Russian language//Rus. language at school. -1996a.-№1.-S. 78 84.

260. Salyaev V.A. On the main stages of the evolution of the slang word / / Rus. language at school. 1996b.-№5.-S. 90-93.

261. Salyaev V.A. On the normative-stylistic evolution of colloquial vocabulary of slang and jargon origin and its reflection in explanatory dictionaries//Science at the turn of the century: Sat. articles. St. Petersburg: Nestor, 1999. - S. 41 - 45.

262. Sanji Garyaeva Z.S. Colloquial elements in the oral speech of the inhabitants of Elista // Urban vernacular: problems of study. - M.: Nauka, 1984.-S.167-173.

263. Sanji Garyaeva Z.S. Some features of oral speech in Elista // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - S. 235 - 257.

264. Serebrennikov B.A. Social differentiation of language / General linguistics. Forms of existence, functions, history of language / Ed. B.A. Serebrennikov. M.: Nauka, 1970. - S.478 - 498.

265. Sinenko S.G. City on the White River. Brief history of Ufa in essays and sketches. 1574 2000. - Ufa: "Bashkortostan", 2002. - 184 p.

266. Sirotpinina O.B. Colloquial speech (definition, concept, main problems)// Questions of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - 373 - 391 p.

267. Sirotinina O.B. Modern colloquial speech and its features. -M.: Enlightenment, 1974.-144 p.

268. Sirotinina O.B. General characteristics of the vocabulary of colloquial speech//Colloquial speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Lexis / Ed. ABOUT. Sirotinina. Saratov, 1983a. - S. 610.

269. Sirotinina O.B. Russian colloquial speech. A guide for the teacher. -M.: Enlightenment, 19836.-80 p.

270. Sirotinina O.B. Linguistic appearance of the city of Saratov // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - S.247-253.

271. Sirotinina O.B. Speech of the modern city//Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference./Ed. B. I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995. Part 1. - P. 8 - I.

272. Skvortsov L.I. Professional languages, jargons and culture of speech//Rus. speech. 1972. - No. 1. - P.48-59.

273. Skvortsov LI. Literary language, vernacular and jargons in their interaction // Literary norm and vernacular. Moscow: Nauka, 1977.

274. Skvortsov L.I. What threatens literary language? (Reflections on the state of modern speech)//РЯШ. 1994. - No. 5. - S. 99 -105.

275. Skitova F.L. Interchange of lexical synonyms between literary and folk language//Literary language and folk speech. Perm: Publishing House of PGU, 1984. - S. 25 - 31 p.

276. Skrebnev Yu.M. The study of Russian colloquial speech (Review of the works of the Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences) / / Questions of Linguistics. 1987. - No. 1. - S. 144-155.

277. Skrebneva A.A. To the question of general and distinctive phenomena in oral speech (on the basis of grammar) / / Urban vernacular. Problems of study. -M.: Nauka, 1984. S. 173-179.

278. Skrebneva A.A. Some processes of functioning of vernacular vocabulary//Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1988. - S. 2839.

279. Skrebneva A.A. On the status of modern urban vernacular // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990.-S. 30-38.

280. Dictionary of Russian dialects of Bashkiria / Ed. ZL. Zdobnova. Issue. 1-2. -Ufa: "Guilem", 1997.

281. Dictionary of the modern Russian city: Ok. 11,000 words, approx. 1000 idiomatic expressions / Ed. B.I. Osipova. M.: "Russian dictionaries"; "Astrel"; "AST"; "Transit book", 2003. - 564 p.

282. Dictionary of prison-camp-thieves jargon (speech and graphic portrait of a Soviet prison) // Compiled by D.S. Baldaev, V.K. Belko, I.M. Isupov. .

283. Sobinnikova V.I. Dialects and vernacular as part of the national language (according to historical linguistics) Voronezh: Publishing House of VSU, 1992. - 112 p.

284. Socio-economic status of districts and cities of the Republic of Bashkortostan: Statistical collection. Ufa: Bashkortostanstat, 2005. - 256 p.

285. Methods of nomination in modern Russian / Ed. D.N. Shmelev. M.: Science. 1982.-296 p.

286. Sreznevsky II. Remarks on materials for the "geography" of the Russian language // Vestnik imp. geographer. Society. SPb., 1885. part 1, book. 1. S. 1-24

287. Sreznevsky I. Athenian language in Russia//Notes of the Fatherland. 1839.- Vol. 5, Aug., Section VIII.

288. Starodubtseva V.V. Nomination of intracity enterprises and institutions in modern Russian (on the material of Ulyanovsk oikodomonyms): Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Moscow: MGOU Publishing House, 2003 -21s.

289. Persistent Art. Social dialects / Questions of linguistics. 1957. - No. 1. - S. 78 84.

290. Stolyarova E.A. Types of lexico-semantic fields in Russian colloquial speech// Russian language today. Issue. 1: Sat. articles / Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - S. 433 - 443.

291. Sudzilovsky G.A. Slang: what is it?. M., 1973. - P.40

292. Types of supradialectic forms of language. M.: Nauka, 1981. - 309 p.

293. Toshovich B. The semantic structure of slang verbs / / Russian language today. Issue. 1: Sat. articles / Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - S. 444-455.

294. Trosheva T.B. Non-literary vocabulary in students' oral speech // Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm, 1992. -S 111-116.

295. Turbin G.A. On the concepts of "semi-dialect" and "vernacular" in modern dialectology // Word in systemic relations. Sverdlovsk, 1982. - P. 42 - 59.

296. Ustinenko I.A. The phenomenon of condensation in language and speech//Theory of Linguistics and Russian Studies: the legacy of B.N. Golovin. N.Novgorod: NSU Publishing House, 2001.-p. 317-319.

297. Favorin V.K. To the question of the modern pronunciation norm. Izv. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953. -T.12, issue 1. - p.87..

298. Fedyanina O.N. Uncodified vocabulary of the language of the city of Kirov (On the material of colloquial speech and jargon): Diss. .cand. Phil. n. Kaluga: KGU, 1997. -285 p.

299. Filin F.P. On the problem of social conditionality of language//Language and society. M.: Nauka, 1968.- S. 5-21.

300. Filin F.P. Modern social development and the problem of bilingualism // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.- M.: Nauka, 1972.-p. 13-25.

301. Filin F.P. On the structure of the modern Russian literary language//Russian language in the modern world. M.: Nauka, 1974. - S. 107-122.

302. Filin F.P. On the properties and boundaries of the literary language / / Questions of linguistics. 1975.- No. 6. - S. 3-13.

303. Filin F.P. On colloquial and colloquial in the Russian literary language//Philological sciences. Scientific reports of higher school. 1979. -№2. - S. 20-25.

304. Frolov N.K. On the history of the formation of urbanonymy in the city of Tyumen//Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 118 -125.

305. The functioning of the literary language in the Ural city. - Sverdlovsk, 1995.

306. Haugen E. Language contact//New in linguistics. Language contacts. - M .: Progress, 1972, - Issue. 6. S. 61-80.

307. Kharlamova M.A. The origins of urban speech in Omsk//Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 11 - 19.

308. Chemist V.V. Poetics of the Low, or Common Speech as a Cultural Phenomenon. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg, 2000. - 272 p.

309. Khorosheva N.V. Interjargon in the Functional Paradigm of the Russian National Language // Living Word in Russian Speech of the Kama Region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. Perm: Publishing House of PGU, 1993. - S. 122 -128.

310. Tsvetkova ML. The main directions of research in Polish colloquial speech / / VYa 1990. - No. 5. - P. 116 - 123.

311. Churkina K.I. The evolution of pronunciation norms in the speech of the intelligentsia of the city of Krasnoyarsk: Abstract of the thesis. Dis. cand. philol. Sciences. Novosibirsk, 1969

312. Shvedova N.Yu. Essays on the syntax of Russian colloquial speech. -M.: Ed.Acad. Sciences of the USSR, 1960. 377p.

313. Shvedova N.Yu. About some active processes in the modern Russian language//VYa. 1964. - No. 2.

314. Schweitzer A.D. Modern sociolinguistics: theory, problems, methods. -M.: Nauka, 1976. 175 p.

315. Schweitzer A.D. Interaction of the literary language with substandard vocabulary in modern English // Oral forms of the literary language: History and modernity. M.: Editorial URSS, 1999. - S. 29 - 45.

316. Sheigal E.I. Computer jargon as a linguocultural phenomenon//Linguistic personality, cultural concepts. Volgograd-Arkhangelsk: Change, 1996. - S. 204-211.

317. Shkatova JI.A. How the word will respond. Chelyabinsk: CTU Publishing House, 1986. - 60p.

318. Shkatova JI.A. Specificity of urban communication//Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - S. 19-28.

319. Shkatova JI.A. "Language code" of the Ural city // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. - S. 72 - 79.

320. Shkatova H.A. Methods of studying the language of the city / / Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipov. Omsk, 1995.4.1.- S. 15 - 16.

321. Shmelev D.N. Russian language in its functional varieties (On the formulation of the problem). M: Nauka, 1977.-168 p.

322. Shmeleva T.V. Notes on the speech of Novgorodians (in connection with the problem of linguistic portrayal of a modern city)// Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.

323. Shcherba JI.B. On the concept of mixing languages//Selected works on linguistics and phonetics. JL: Publishing house of Leningrad State University, 1958. - v.1. -182 p.

324. Yuganov I., Yuganova F. Russian jargon of the 60-90s. Dictionary Experience / Ed. A. N. Baranova. M., 1994.

325. Yunakovskaya A.A. Omsk urban vernacular (research results)// Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference. / Ed. B.I. Osipov. Omsk, 1995. - Part 1. - S. 66 - 69.

326. Yunakovskaya A.A. Expressive and stylistic differentiation of colloquial vocabulary (on the material of Omsk)//Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 80 - 87.

327. Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. - 184 p.

328. Yakovleva E.A. The rhetorical function of Turkisms in Russian speech in a multi-ethnic environment (for example, Ufa) // Russia and the East: Problems of interaction. Part IV. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk University. 1995. - S. 182-187.

329. Yakovleva E.A. Urbonymics of Ufa: linguo-cultural-semiotic aspect//Bulletin of VEGU. -1996. No. 3: Pedagogy. - S. 16-20.

330. Yakovleva E.A. Rhetoric as a theory of thought-speech activity (as applied to the analysis of literary texts, urban texts and topical nominations): Scientific report on the published works of Dr. Philol. Sciences. -Ufa. 1998.-98 p.

331. Yakovleva E.A. Features of Russian verbal behavior of a city dweller in a multi-ethnic environment // Problems of communication and nominations in the concept of general humanitarian knowledge. Chelyabinsk: Publishing house of the Chelyabinsk state. un-ta, 1999. -S. 188-196.

332. Yakubinsky L.P. About dialogical speech//Yakubinsky L.P. Selected works: Language and its functioning. M.: Nauka, 1986.- S. 17-58.

333. Baichev B., Videnov M. Veliko-Tarnovskiyat ezik: Sociolinguistic study in Veliko Tarnovskaya grad river. Veliko Tarnovo: Abagar, 1999. -388 p.

334. Videnov M., Bancheva M., Sotirov P., Angelov A. Sociolinguistics and student speech. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski, 1996. - 190 p.

335. Krupska-Perek A. Szkic socjolingwistycznego opisu mowy mieszkancow maiego miasta: (Na przykiadzie Praszki w woj. cz?stochowskim)// Rozprawy Komis. j?z./ Lodzkie t-wo science. Lodz, 1995. - V.40. - S. 169-185.

336. Andersson L., Trudgill P. Bad Language Cambridge- Massachusetts: "Basil Blackwell Cambridge Center", 1990.

337. American speech: A Guarterly of Linguistic Usage. Columbia Press, 1975. Vol. fifty.

338. Drake J. A. The Effect of Urbanization on Regional Vocabulary//American speech. -1961. V. 36. - P. 17 - 33.

339. Ferguson Ch. A. Language structure and language use: essays by Ch.A. Ferguson Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971. - 328 p.

340. Ferguson Ch. A. Diglossia/ZLanguage structure and language use: essays by Ch.A. Ferguson Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971. - P. 1-26.

341. Gumperz J.J. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

342. Kloss H. Types of Multilingual Communities: A Discussion of Ten Variables//International Journal of American Linguistics. 1967. - V. 33. - No. 4. - P. 7-17.

343. Labov W. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.

344. Language and social identity/ Ed. by J. J. Gumperz Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

345. Language in culture and society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology/ Ed. by D. Hymes New York, 1964.

346. Language in the British Isles/Ed. by P. Trudgill Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

347. Macaulay R.K.S. Social class and language in Glasgow//Language in Society. -1976,-v. 5.-№2.-P. 173-188.

348. Social dialects and language learning: Proceedings of the Bloomington, Indiana, conference, 1964.

349. The interdisciplinary study of urban bilingualism in Brussels/Ed. by Witte E., Beardsmore H.B. Glevedon; Philadelphia: Multilingual matters, 1987. - 241 p.

350. Thompson R.M. Mexican-American English: Social Correlates of Regional Pronunciation// American speech. 1975. - V. 50. - No. 1-2. - P. 18 - 24.

351. Trudgill P. The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. - 212 p.

352. Variation in the Form and Use of Language. A Sociolinguistics Reader/Ed. By R.W. Fasold. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1983.

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors associated with the imperfection of recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

Full text of the dissertation abstract on the topic "The language of the city of Ufa: the functioning of various language subsystems and bilingualism"

As a manuscript

Ismagilova Nuria Vinerovna 00305 "7E4E

THE LANGUAGE OF THE CITY OF UFA: FUNCTIONING OF VARIOUS LANGUAGE SUBSYSTEMS AND BILINGUALISM

Specialty 10.02.19 - theory of language (in philological sciences)

dissertations for the degree of candidate of philological sciences

The work was carried out at the Department of General and Comparative Historical Linguistics of the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Bashkir State University"

Scientific supervisor doctor of phytological sciences, professor

Ayupova Ludmila Lutfeevna

Official opponents Doctor of Philology, Professor

Yakovleva Evgenia Andreevna,

Candidate of Philology, Senior Lecturer Galimyanova Venera Rinatovna

Lead organization Public educational institution

higher professional education "Ufa State Aviation Technical University", Department of Language Communication and Psycholinguistics

The defense will take place "¿O _" in May 2007 at (G- _hours at a meeting of the dissertation council D 212 013 02 GOU VPO "Bashkir State University" at 450074, Ufa, Frunze st., 32, room ^ ^ Z

The dissertation can be found in the scientific library of the Bashkir State University at 450074, Ufa, Frunze st., 32

Scientific Secretary of the Dissertation Council / Ibragimova VL

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

In connection with the ongoing process of urbanization, the city continues to be the most important object of study for a number of humanities - philosophy, sociology, ethnography, history, linguistics, etc. Therefore, an integrated approach to the study of the language situation of the city is needed.

The language of the city is one of the insufficiently developed issues of domestic linguistics. The study of this problem in our country began relatively recently. In the second half of the 20th century, there is a new surge of interest in this problem. At present, the study of certain forms of oral urban speech is being conducted in Moscow, St. Ryazan, Voronezh, Saratov, Elista, Nizhny Novgorod, Izhevsk, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Yekaterinburg, Ufa, Kazan, Arkhangelsk, Omsk, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk and other Russian cities

The object of this study is the functioning of the language of a multinational city, and the subject of the study is the various subsystems of the language of the city of Ufa, colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon, as well as the process and results of the interaction of the languages ​​of the peoples living in this city

The relevance of the dissertation research is related to the importance of studying the language of a large multi-ethnic city, which makes it possible to analyze the dynamics of the development of the modern Russian language, its territorial and social variation in conditions of bilingualism and multilingualism, as well as the need for a comprehensive study of the linguistic features of the language of at least all large Russian cities

The purpose of this work is to identify the specifics of the language of the city of Ufa, a comprehensive description and analysis of language subsystems functioning in the city, studying the consequences of language contacts within one large administrative-territorial unit

To achieve the stated goal of the study, it was necessary to solve the following tasks

To identify the main historical, social and linguistic factors that influenced the formation of the language of Ufa,

To study the composition of the names of urban objects and their functioning in the city,

Consider the structure of the language of the city of Ufa from the linguistic and sociolinguistic positions,

Identify and describe the main subsystems of the language that function in the city,

Explore the results of the interaction of Russian and Turkic languages ​​in the city

All identified problems and tasks are set and solved taking into account the results and achievements in the field of the theory of general linguistics, Russian studies, domestic and foreign sociolinguistics

In accordance with the purpose and objectives, the following research methods were applied: descriptive analysis using classification and comparison techniques, contextual analysis, interpretive analysis, observation

The theoretical basis of the thesis is the works of famous Russian scientists B A Larin, L P Yakubinsky, V M Zhirmunsky, L I Barannikova, V A Avrorin, Yu D Desheriev, A D Schweitzer, F P Filin, V V Kolesov, L P Krysin, N A Baskakova, L A Kapanadze, E V Krasilnikova, E A Zemskaya, O A Lapteva, L I Skvortsova, O B Sirotinina, O P Ermakova, T I Erofeeva, L A Shkatova, Z. S. Sanji-Garyaeva, B I. Osipova , N A Prokurovskaya, M M Mikhailov, A E Karlinsky, L L Ayupova, E A Yakovleva, K 3 Zakiryanov, etc. Bell, J. Fishman, W. Labov, R. I. McDavid, et al.

The material for our study was primarily the records of the oral speech of the inhabitants of Ufa, contained in the card file of the Department of General and Comparative Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University, our own observations on the speech of Ufa residents, materials from various linguistic dictionaries, local history sources containing information on the history of various places in Ufa , statistical data and results of sociological research, maps of Ufa, city guides. In total, about 3,000 thousand lexical units and 5,000 contexts were considered (mostly statements that contained lexemes necessary for analysis) When analyzing speech material, nationality, gender, age, education were taken into account informants

The scientific novelty of the study is as follows

For the first time, a comprehensive study and description of the current state of the language of Ufa, a large multinational city, is being carried out.

The system of official and unofficial names of urban objects of a given city is analyzed,

The features of various language subsystems of Ufa and the specifics of their functioning are studied,

The results of the interaction of the three most common languages ​​in the city (interference, intercalation, borrowings) are considered.

The theoretical significance of this work is determined by the fact that the observations and conclusions made during the study allow a deeper understanding of the functioning of various language subsystems in a large multi-ethnic city and can be useful in similar studies on the language material of other cities. Studying the functioning of various subsystems of the language of urban residents, the results interaction of different languages ​​in a given city, should contribute to the study of the language of other Russian cities

The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the results of our research can be used in training courses and special courses in general linguistics, the course "Sociolinguistics Psycholinguistics", when creating

textbooks on the special course "Language of the city", compiling a dictionary of the language of the city (based on the language of the city of Ufa)

1 Various subsystems of the language of Ufa, colloquial speech, vernacular, semi-dialect, zharyun - are characterized by territorial variation, which is especially pronounced at the level of vocabulary, due to the remoteness of the city from the capital, the influence of a multinational urban environment and is characterized by the presence of various specific lexemes, a large number of borrowings at the language level and speech, in particular, from the Turkic languages

2 Of all the subsystems of the language of the city, the most common means of communication for people born in Ufa is Russian everyday colloquial speech interspersed with colloquial and slang elements

3 Ordinary (everyday) colloquial speech of the inhabitants of Ufa is not strongly influenced by dialects, such as, for example, colloquial speech in various cities of the Ural peí ion (Perm, Chelyabinsk, etc.) It is generally focused on the capital's language sample at the phonetic, lexical, grammatical levels , although its variation in a multilingual environment is unavoidable

4 Massive national contact heterogeneous bilingualism operates in Ufa

Approbation of the results and practical implementation of the work. The main provisions of the dissertation and the results of the research were presented in reports and messages at various conferences, namely at the international scientific conference "Sentence and Word" (Saratov, September 2005), All-Russian scientific conferences "Ural-Altai through the centuries into the future" (Ufa, June 2005) and "Science and Education-2005" (Neftekamsk, October 2005), interregional scientific and theoretical conference "Literature, language and artistic culture in modern processes of sociocultural communication" (Ufa, October 2005), interregional scientific and practical conference "Language policy and language construction in the Republic of Bashkortostan (Ufa, November 2005), the republican conference of young scientists "Actual problems of philology" (Ufa, April 2005) - as well as at 3 meetings of the interuniversity postgraduate seminar on topical problems of modern linguistics at the Faculty of Philology of Bashkir State University in 2005, 2006 ir The main content of the dissertation is reflected in eight publications

Some materials and theoretical aspects of our work were used during seminars and practical classes on the course "Sociolinguistics Psycholinguistics" at the Faculty of Philology of Bashkir State University (2004-2005 academic year)

The dissertation was discussed at a meeting of the Department of General and Comparative-Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University

The structure and scope of the dissertation. The dissertation consists of an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion. At the end of the dissertation, there is a biblio! raffia and application

The introduction provides a rationale for the choice of topic, argues its relevance and scientific novelty, defines the object and subject of research, formulates its purpose and objectives, characterizes the studied material and methods of its analysis, reveals the theoretical significance and practical value of the dissertation work, describes its structure.

The first chapter "The language of the city as a linguistic problem" contains an overview of the scientific literature on the issue under study, gives an idea of ​​the language of the city and its main components of colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon

§ 1 “From the history of studying the language of the city” briefly describes the history of the study of this problem

In Russian linguistics, as a rule, there are two main areas of study of the language of the city - linguogeographical and sociological.

Representatives of the linguo-geographic direction point to the need to study the literary language in a spatial projection, raise the question of its territorial variation under the influence of the dialect, supra-dialect and foreign language environment. A I Thomson, V A Bogoroditsky, A A Shakhmatov, N M Karinsky and others A Prokurovskaya, 3 M Almukhamedova, N V Parikova, E A Yakovleva, L L Ayupova, etc.

Representatives of the sociological direction pay attention to the problem of the influence of social factors on the language of the city, the problem of social variation of the language in the city, the linguistic competence of citizens, the study of the language situation of the city, urban bilingualism, the results of language contact in the city, etc. The theorist of this direction was B. A. Larin, who was the first in Russian linguistics (20s of the XX century) put forward the problem of a comprehensive study of the language of the city The problem of the language of the city was also addressed by E. D. Polivanov, A. M. Selishchev, V. V. Vinogradov, L. P. Yakubinsky, etc. finds itself in the works of 3 A Iskhakova on bilingualism in the cities of Tatarstan, L Grumadene on the problem of social conditioning of speech variation in Vilnius, X Paunonen on the social variation of Finnish colloquial speech in the cities of Helsinki, Tampere, Turku and Jyväskylä, B Baichev and V Videnov on the Bulgarian city Veliko Tarnovo, in collective interdisciplinary study of urban bilingualism in Brussels, etc.

In § 2 "The language of the city as a linguistic problem" the essence of the concept of "language of the city" is revealed. The following terms are used in scientific literature, which are synonymous with the concept of "language of the town" ”, “language state of the city”, “language formations existing in the city”, “language of the urban population”, “language of the urban team”, “living speech of the city”, etc.

It should be noted that some of these concepts are either too generalizing (the linguistic state of the city, the linguistic appearance of the modern city), or involve only one aspect of this problem (a common language of everyday communication). diverse phenomena that make up the language of the city

The language of the city is heterogeneous in its structure, in its composition it is possible to distinguish various language subsystems that are in constant interaction with each other. These include literary language, spoken language (reduced language of everyday communication), vernacular, semi-dialect, jargons, slang, various professional languages, etc. Each of the subsystems of the language of the city is characterized by its own set of features and has its own range of speakers, moreover, two varieties of the language and more of them can coexist in the minds of one individual such linguistic contact In addition to approaching the language of the city from the point of view of the subsystems that make it up, other aspects of the study of this object can be outlined. For example, written and oral forms of urban speech can be studied in the form of an analysis of written texts created by the inhabitants of a particular city tape recordings of spontaneous and prepared speech of citizens Various types of communication in the city can also be studied - personal, public, mass, public, etc. The sociolinguistic approach includes the study of the language situation of the city, urban bilingualism,

In the reviewed work, the language of the city is defined as a set of various language subsystems that are in constant interaction, as well as codified and non-codified language means used by the inhabitants of a particular city in oral and written speech, the combined use of which is not assessed as an unacceptable deviation from the norms of the literary language.

In § 3 "The concept of colloquial speech" analyzes various approaches to the definition of colloquial speech

The study of colloquial speech as a special kind of literary language began in the 50s of the 20th century, but the beginning of the study of oral informal, that is, non-codified, speech was laid in the works of dialectologists of the 19th century. Samara, Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Saratov, Taganrage (Voronezka, Astrakhan, etc.

In linguistics, various terms are used to refer to colloquial speech "oral speech", "direct colloquial speech", "oral colloquial language", "oral colloquial style", "conversational style", etc.

Among scientists, there is no unambiguous understanding of the term "colloquial speech" Different meanings are invested in it Understanding colloquial speech as an oral variety of the Russian literary language is typical for the works of OA Lapteva, BM Gasparov and others

One of the functional styles of the literary language is considered colloquial speech by V. G. Kostomarov, A. N. Vasilyeva, M. A. Kormilitsyna, L. K. Pavlova, E. A. Stolyarov (Klochkova), and others.

E A Zemskaya, Yu M Skrebnev separate Russian colloquial speech from the codified literary language and consider it as an independent phenomenon opposed to it

I. R. Galperin considers colloquial speech to be a special type of speech, opposed to all book styles of speech at once, and not to each of them separately.

Other scientists (O B Sirotinina, G G Infantova) interpret the concept of "colloquial speech" broadly. According to O B Sirotinin, one can speak of literary, dialectal and other varieties of colloquial speech. and their speakers is made on the basis of such criteria as the level of education, family relations, age O. B. Sirotinina identifies the following types of speech culture - elite, "medium literary", literary colloquial and familiar colloquial These types unite native speakers of the literary language The dominant type is "medium literary" type

G. A. Orlov also distinguishes between a literary variety of colloquial speech, using the term "colloquial literary speech", and a reduced variety, calling it "everyday speech". Based on the classification of G. A. Orlov, A. N. Eremin distinguishes two forms, two registers of colloquial speech - colloquial literary and everyday colloquial From his point of view, the latter variety in the strict sense of the word cannot be called literary. In our study, we prefer to use the terminology of G. A. Orlov and A. N. Eremin

In § 4 "The concept of vernacular" gives an idea of ​​​​this phenomenon. The scientific study of vernacular began in the works of domestic linguists of the 19th-first third of the 20th centuries A. A. Shakhmatov, A. I. Sobolevsky, S. P. Obnorsky, V. V. Vinogradov, L. P. Yakubinsky, B. A. Larin , G O Vinokura and DR

Many researchers point to the ambiguity of the term "vernacular" Most often, this term is used in two meanings 1) vernacular is one of the forms of the national language, along with dialects, jargons and literary language, which is the speech of a poorly educated urban population and has a supra-dialectal character, that is , unlike dialects and jargons, is generally understandable for native speakers of the national language, 2) vernacular - a set of language means of a reduced, rudely expressive nature that make up a special stylistic layer of the literary language

According to the terminology of FP Filin, vernacular in the first sense is non-library vernacular, and in the second meaning it is literary vernacular. A.E.

Other researchers believe that it is not necessary to distinguish between two types of vernacular, since literary (expressive) vernacular is only "a form of existence of non-literary, natural, vernacular in the language of fiction, journalism, in the colloquial speech of a native speaker of the literary language. But still it is vernacular"1

Sometimes vernacular is interpreted broadly, since it is understood not only as vernacular, but also jargons, slang, professional languages, i.e. various uncodified varieties of the national language

In some cases, the term "vernacular" is identified with the terms "popular koine", "urban koine", "semi-dialect", but most researchers distinguish between these concepts

In addition to the urban vernacular, some researchers speak of the vernacular of the villagers, whose speech differs significantly from the archaic type of dialect.

The place of vernacular in the system of the national language is determined. It occupies an intermediate position between dialects and literary colloquial speech. It is not by chance that it is difficult to distinguish between vernacular elements from dialectal ones, as well as vernacular from colloquial ones. Many researchers (VV Vinogradov, A.N. Rakhmanova and others) draw attention to the fact that even in dictionaries the distinction between colloquial and colloquial, colloquial and dialect words is inconsistent.

If the dialect is usually the same for a certain territory, then the vernacular of a large modern city is heterogeneous. It consists of different dialect elements. Therefore, it has such features as supra-dialect and territorial looseness, that is, “vernacular cannot be attributed to any locality and associated with any specific dialect or a group of dialects"2 Researchers identify other features of vernacular, such as non-normativeness, spontaneity of functioning, low social prestige, etc.

In Russian linguistics, the prevailing opinion is that vernacular is asystematic, non-normative, functionally monotonous, does not know genre divisions (V D Devkin, E A Zemskaya, M V Kitaigorodskaya, etc.) But over the past ten years, works have appeared in Russian science in which researchers prove the existence of regional colloquial norms

As can be seen from the above, the term "colloquial" due to its ambiguity is fuzzy, which is undesirable for the understanding of the apparatus of any scientific discipline. However, despite some vagueness of the concept

1 Eremin A N Colloquialism - Norm! ivno-explanatory dictionary - Speech of a native speaker // Semantics Functioning Text - Kirov, 2001 -С 15

2 Krysin L G1 The relationship of the modern literary language and vernacular / / Rus language at school - 1988 - No. 2 - C 82

"vernacular", it continues to be actively used, obviously due to tradition. We also use this term in our study. The subject of our study is vernacular as one of the forms of the national language, which is the speech of a poorly educated urban population who does not know the norms of the Russian literary language

In § 5. “The relationship between the concepts of “jargon”, “argo”, “slang”, a distinction is made between these terms

The concept of “jargon” has different meanings Traditionally, jargon is interpreted as “a kind of speech used mainly in oral communication by a separate relatively stable social group that unites people on the basis of their profession, position in society, interests or age”3 This term is universal

In some works, the term "slang" is used as a synonym for the term "slang" (O S Akhmanova, D E Rosenthal, M A Telenkova). However, most often researchers usually distinguish between the terms "slang" and "slang". French sociological school of linguistics, where it was understood in the meaning of "special language" As a rule, slang is interpreted as any secret, conditional language groups In the narrow sense, slang denotes the way of communication of declassed elements, primarily criminals (L I Skvortsov, V M Zhirmunsky and others)

The terms "jargon" and "slang" often do not differ (V S Elistratov, S V Vakhitov) In the event that these terms differ, then slang can be understood as youth or professional jargon

Thus, some terminological instability remains in the distinction between the concepts of "jargon", "argo", "slang"

We believe that the terms "jargon", "slang" and "slang" must be distinguished. Under jargon, we mean one of the forms of the national language, which is a means of oral communication of a separate stable social or other group united by common interests and contains a large number of lexical means that are different from common, including artificial, sometimes conditional. By slang we mean youth jargon, and by slang - conditional, or secret, languages

The classification of jargon is not deep enough. At the same time, as a rule, in scientific works, the typology of social dialects is more often considered than tipolo: ia proper jargon One of the most famous typologies of social dialects is the typology of VD Bondaletov. , lexical systems) 2) group or corporate jargons (features of the speech of students, athletes, soldiers, sailors and others,

3 Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / Chief ed. VN Yartseva - 2nd ed. -M Great Russian Encyclopedia 1998 - C 43

predominantly youth, groups), 3) conditional, or secret, languages ​​​​(argo) of artisans-otkhodniks and merchants, 4) thieves' jargon ("thieves' music") - the speech of declassed elements

Vakhitov proposes to distinguish the following types of jargon according to the social stratum of society that has created its own subculture, largely predetermined by the way of life - thieves, metalworkers, drug addicts, rappers, hippies, etc., according to the social stratum of people united by a common activity (study, work, service in the army, politics), - military, political, school, student, professional (railroad, computer, police, etc.), according to the social stratum of people united by a common interest in the field of leisure - card, speleologists, domino players, players on the run, football fans, etc.

There are typologies of jargon on other grounds. Thus, by the age of its speakers, one can distinguish children's, teenage and youth jargons, by location - Moscow, St. Petersburg, Chelyabinsk, Ufa, etc. However, there are no rigid boundaries between the jargon vocabulary of different social or professional groups in one area can move into another, so scientists talk about the existence of the so-called common jargon, or interjargon

The second chapter "Linguistic landscape of the city" contains a study of the system of unofficial nominations of urban objects in Ufa. At the beginning of the chapter, brief historical and demographic information about the city of Ufa is given.

Ufa was founded as a fortress in 1574 In 1586, Ufa received the status of a city In the 17-18 centuries, it gradually turned from a military settlement into a political and economic center of the region Since 1708, the city has been part of the Kazan province, since 1728 it has been the center of the Ufa province, the voivode of which was directly subordinate to the Senate, since 1744 it has been part of the Orenburg province, in December 1781 it becomes the center of the Ufa governorship, in 1796 it again submits to the Orenburg province, in 1802 it receives the status of a provincial city, since 1865 it has been the center of the Ufa province, since June 1922 - the capital of the BASSR, since 1991 - the capital of the Republic of Bashkortostan

The population of Ufa grew relatively quickly, especially in the 19th-20th centuries. If at the beginning of the 17th century there were only 279 inhabitants in the city, in the middle of the same century - already about 1.5 thousand people, and at the end of the 18th century - more than 2 thousand According to the results of the census In 1897, the population of Ufa was 49.3 thousand people, in 1913 - 100.7 thousand people, in 1939 - 250 thousand people. people, 1959 - 546.9 thousand people, In 1981 - 10099.0 thousand people, th 1996 - 1099.4 100 people of which 476205 people (45.7%) were men and 566232 people (54.3%) were women

For a general designation of the realities of the urban structure and life, the following synonymous terms are used: “the lexicon of the fool” (E.V. Krasilnikova, L.A. Kapanadze), “sto in the urban environment” (KP Mikhalap, T.V. Shmeleva), “language code of the city” (L A Shkatova), "semiotics of the city" (N A Prokurovskaya)

It is possible to propose other terms for the general designation of objects of the urban environment, for example, "linguistic landscape of the city", "linguistic space of the city", etc. The presence of a fairly large number of formulations indicates the difficulty of accurately reflecting in one term the totality of those phenomena that terms leave room for their broader interpretation. The terms “city vocabulary”, “urban environment word”, “city language code”, for example, can be understood as the entire set of lexical means that is used by residents of a particular city. In our study, we use the term “ language landscape of the city”, by which we mean a system of nominations that reflect the features of the urban space

The names of the realities of the urban structure include the following onomathemes of the urban linguistic landscape: 1) urbanonyms proper, 2) the so-called "words on signs", 3) the name of urban transport and its varieties

Urbanonyms (urbonyms, urbanisms) - a set of onomathemes naming intracity objects Urbanonyms of a modern city, from the point of view of N.V. or houses, palaces, canals, stadiums"4

Among urbanonyms, urban horonyms (planar urbanonyms), godonyms (linear urbanonyms), oikodomonyms, etc. having any features Godonyms (linear urbanonyms) are the names of urban objects characterized by a linear length, namely the names of streets, boulevards, lanes, driveways, slopes, tracts, lines, highways, embankments, imports, avenues, dead ends own building Usually this is the name of a building in the city, which is known not only as a monument of architecture, but also as an institution, in this case it is a type of ergonym»5

The language landscape of the town of Ufa was formed gradually, as the city developed. The system of city names underwent serious changes at turning points in the history of the country.

4 Podolskaya N.V.

^ Podolskaya I V Dictionary of Russian Onomastic Terminology -M Nauka, 1988 -C

The language landscape of the city of Ufa is made up of official and unofficial nominations that reflect different types of speech culture Official names are given to city objects in the administrative order by local governments Thus, this class of names has a systemic and purposeful character, which makes them closer to terms Unofficial names are secondary nominations

It can be argued that a whole system of unofficial names has developed in the non-codified subsystems of the Ufa language. The reasons for the emergence and functioning of non-codified nominations are different. Some designations appear as a means of language economy, others help to distinguish between objects that have the same official names. language game, in order to create an expressive designation In some cases, city residents may simply not know the full official name of the object and use only its unofficial version

If the creation of official nominations is purposeful, orderly, then in the "informal sphere the name often arises spontaneously and taking into account the mentality, lifestyle and activities of the urban population"6 The official names of the Soviet and post-Soviet period are predominantly complex formations, consisting of two, three or more words (Street General Gorbaty, Bashkir Academic Drama Theater named after M. Gafuri, etc.), while unofficial nominations often have a simple, monosyllabic structure (Zelonka - the Zelyonaya Roshcha microdistrict, Knitwear - Ufa Knitting Factory, etc.)

Unofficial nominations differ in variability, and also often have an emotional-evaluative and expressive coloring. Such nominations are often occasional. ), Broadway - Lenin Street (one of the most beautiful and well-maintained streets in the city), etc. The most common derivational ways of creating unofficial nominations are the following: b) semantic contraction (univerbation) Ordzhonik - the unofficial name of the Ordzhonikidzevsky district, Khlopchatka - the Ufa cotton mill, c) the truncation of Chernya - the unofficial designation of the Kalininsky district of the city (from Chernikovka), Gafur - Gafuri street, etc., d) suffixing the truncated stem "Molodezhka" - the unofficial name of the microdistrict "Molodyozhny", "Belaga" - the microdistrict "Belorechensky", Nekhayka - Nekhaev street, Yubileyka, Yubilyashka Skirt - Yubileyny Palace of Culture

6 Prokurovskaya N A The city in the mirror of its language On the language material of the city of Izhevsk-Izhevsk Publishing House of the Udm.

A comparative study of the official and unofficial urban names of Ufa and other Russian cities makes it possible to say that the system of these nominations, differing in some nuances, demonstrates the commonality of both the principles and methods of naming, indicating the regularity in the formation of these names, although the specific implementation of these principles and ways of nomination in the vocabulary of the language of the city, as a rule, is individual

The third chapter "The functioning of various language subsystems in Ufa" examines the three most common language subsystems in the city - colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon

§ 1 "Features of the colloquial speech of the city of Ufa" describes the phonetic and lexical features of the Ufa colloquial speech

Many features of oral colloquial speech at the phonetic, lexical, grammatical levels are considered in detail in the fundamental works of E. A. Zemskaya, O. A. Lapteva, O. B. Sirotinina and others. The phenomena described in these studies are also characteristic of Ufa colloquial speech.

When considering the phonetic level of Ufa colloquial speech, it can be noted that in its system of vocalism, the aking form of pronunciation (moderate okanye) Okanye prevails, incomplete okanye is found in the speech of semi-dialect speakers and migrants from various Ural regions. Ufa pronunciation is close to literary, requiring articulation [L] after hard consonants in place of the spelling o in the first pre-stressed syllable and the reduced [ъ] in the second pre-stressed and stressed syllables obviously, p[b]m[l]gi Because of this pronunciation, it seems to residents of other Ural cities that the Ufimians are drawing out words. yak, yak

At the level of consonantism in the colloquial speech of the city of Ufa, there is a tendency to harden the consonant before a soft consonant, for example, the hard pronunciation of labial and dental consonants before soft labials [vm"]este, [dv"]er, opol[zn"], etc., pronunciation [f ] instead of [zh "] in the words yeast, squeal, rattle, burn, drive, drive, etc.

Most of the colloquial words in Ufa refer to common vocabulary, known everywhere. A significant number of colloquial lexemes are the names of 1) enterprises, institutions, premises: district - "district hospital"; confectionery - "confectionery factory", etc.; 2) housing, such as the layout of apartments of a five-story building - a “five-story house”, etc., a panel, a concrete block - “a house built from panel blocks”, etc., 3) ambulance vehicles - an “ambulance”, a car - a “car car", a disabled woman - "a car for the disabled", etc., 4) newspapers and magazines "Vecherka" - "Vechernyaya Ufa" newspaper, "Molodezhka" - "Youth newspaper", "Voskresk" - "Sunday newspaper", 5) documents payment - "payment order", offset - "record book", etc., 6) household items

twist - "sealing kchuch", frost - "freezer", etc., 7) leather clothes - leather jacket, jeans - "denim jacket, denim", windbreaker - "windproof jacket", etc., 8) sandals shoes - " light summer shoes with a top that is not completely closed, usually without backs”, wedges - “shoes with soles that thicken towards the heel, as well as such soles themselves”, etc., 9) food products - carrots - “carrots”, potatoes - “potatoes ", etc., 10) money, types of payments cash - "cash, cash", non-cash - "cashless payment, non-cash money", kopeck piece, three-ruble note, five, etc. - "coins or banknotes of various denominations", etc., 11) persons on various grounds traffic cop (outdated) - "traffic police officer", communal worker - "utility worker" and much more

IN 2. "The vernacular of Ufa" analyzes the phonetic, word-formation, grammatical, lexical features of the Ufa vernacular

At the phonetic level of Ufa vernacular, the following phenomena are observed: the transition [e] to [o] after soft consonants under stress in a number of cases, contrary to the literary norm modern [m "o] nny, [d" o] rzhit, etc., the presence of an inserted vowel in the word . ve[r"b]x, four[r"b]g, ku[l"u]turny, etc., assimilation and dissimilation of vowels [kublu]ki, [flour] latura, [an]tiresny (interesting), etc. , loss of vowels in pre-stressed and stressed syllables [cm] nevatsya, ki [pt "] ilnik, etc., vowel contraction [n" and] sockeye (pioneer), [n" and] byazatechno, etc., pronunciation of solid hissing [g], [sh] instead of the pronunciation of long soft hissing [zh "], [sh"] [she] lka (lye), pla [sh] (cloak), vop [she] (in general) and others, weakening consonants, more often the whole affricate, for example [s] llofan (cellophane), know [w "] to (mean), do [w"] ka (daughter), etc., affricatization of the whistling [s] end [ce] moat, [ts] garka assimilation and dissimilation of consonants se [r "] visas, try [n "k" and], [kur] kuchyator (calculator), [karak] ter (character), etc., diaeresis [zba] (hut), [l "ik ] trichka (elektrichka), [sk] study (get bored), etc., prostheses [¡e] that, [v] sharp, etc. n, metathesis ) and others, substitution of vowels or consonants, for example, [su] sed (neighbor), [b] atrushka (cheesecake), [fu] ligan (hooligan), etc. At the accentological level, it is natural for Ufa vernacular to transfer stress from final to non-final syllable (shop, quarter, briefcase), as well as the opposite trend - placing stress on the final syllable case, cold, peasant

At the word-formation level, it should be noted the prevalence of suffixes -ag (a) -ug (a "), -uh (a), -ezh-, -an-, -ai-, -tyai-, -en-, -uy-, - l-, -ih (a), -sh (a) in nouns (poor fellow, thief, hunger, hubbub, golovan, slobber, zchyden stunned, eat, doctor, librarian, etc.), suffixes -usch, -enn, -ast , -oe- -ev-, -in- for adjectives (thin, hefty, handy, engineer (machine), etc.), prefixes s-, y-, po- (instead of -) for verbs of owls of the form (demolish ( bring), think up (think up, think up), keep up (have time), etc.), the suffix -anu- for verbs of the owl type (push, jump), etc. In addition, prefixes are often used that bring additional semantic

shade, but are redundant (lover (nice), forever, cheap, decide, etc.)

At the morphological level, in colloquial nouns, the following features can be distinguished: the presence of correlative generic forms in persons with the meaning of kinship, professional affiliation spouse - spouse, author - author, etc., mismatch of the gender and declension of a noun in common speech with its gender and declension in the Russian literary language surname ( instead of a surname), a kiosk (instead of a kiosk), a bed (instead of a bed), etc., the predominance of inflection -y in the forms genus and predl pad ed h, (no sugar, full of snow, etc.); the use of inflection -е in the form of prepositions fell unit h instead of -у (e forest, in the corner), the dominance of inflection -а in the form im p mn h of nouns of all genders (queue, driver, hair, etc.), the formation of the form im p mn h some nouns from the stem on with the help of inflection -a (teeth, eyes), the predominance of inflection -ov / -ev in the form of gender pad pl numbers of nouns m and cp p (delov, right), etc.

Vernacular adjectives have the following features: the presence of contracted forms (good girl, this thing is serious), the greatest productivity of the suffix -she in the formation of forms of comparative degree compared to the literary language (wider, longer), etc. personal language (one), possessive (evon, eyny, theirs, iha, iho, ihi, nashensky, vashensky), demonstrative (entot, enta, ento, eftot, efta, efto), etc.

In vernacular verbs, the following features can be distinguished: the presence of alternation k / / k \ g / / g "in the forms of verbs with the stem of the infinitive into -ch (burn - burn - burn, bake - bake - bake, etc.), changing some verbs to - ovate in vernacular according to the I productive class with the elimination of alternation (takes pictures, kisses, etc.), correspondence to the literary forms of the verbs of the species with suff -yva- / -iva- vernacular forms with suff -a- (shake off, unbutton), etc., the use of inflection -ut in the form of 3 l mn h of verbs of II conjugation (smoke, ask, wear), etc., pronunciation -si (after consonants) and -sya (after vowels) in the forms of 2 l unit h nast vr (fear, burnt) verb forms, the following features are observed: the widespread use of forms for -lice (-mshi) (not eat, not spam, care.mshi, etc.), the functioning of passive participles with the suffix -t- (torn, cleaned), etc.

The characteristic features of Ufa vernacular at the syntactic level are the following prepositional case disorder (This applies to everyone, He is a native of Bashkiria), the use of full adjectives and passive participles as a predicate instead of a short form (Yes, it is a consonant for everything, Potatoes are cooked separately there), the presence of constructions with the pronoun nobody, in which the verb agrees in number not with the given pronoun, but with the subject, expressed noun or personal pronoun (What, your parents didn’t go to the garden, 9 employees didn’t call you"), the use of a related subordinating construction , consisting of the modal particle never and the union to (He never, to

get drunk, loves sobriety, Masha never, to be rude, scream, always so affectionate), etc.

The lexicon of Ufa vernacular contains both lexemes of common Russian vernacular (perhaps, I suppose - “probably”, it hurts - “very”, very quickly - “quickly, soon, very”, forever - “always”, etc.), and Ural regionalisms (bak and so - “so”, portamonet - “purse”, shorkat and shirkat - “rub to clean it”, etc.), as well as dialectisms (lelya - “godmother”, zahmatny - “crazy”, vehotka, vehot - “washcloth”, trick - "pantry in the house, attic", etc.), borrowings from the Turkic languages ​​(babai - "old man", chumichka - "sloppy, dirty", bobak - "lazy", ayda - "go, let's go", etc.)

§3. "Ufa jargon" is devoted to the study of the lexical features of the Ufa jargon

When studying the Ufa interjargon, we set the task of identifying its distinctive features. The specific coloring of the Ufa jargon is given by jargons of Bashkir and Tatar origin, for example, sabantuy, sabantuychik - 1 “Any holiday” 2 “Party, noisy gathering”, 3 Mess in the house, pogrom, allayar and allayarin - 1 "He who does not know how to behave in society" 2 "Simple" 3 "Village dweller" (from the Turkic name Allayar), etc.

Ufa jargon speakers also use complex formations consisting of Russian and Turkic or only Turkic words, which are the result of a language game, for example, kolotun-babay - 1 "Santa Claus" 2 "Severe frost", strem-babay - "unpleasant, ugly person" , zur chief - iron "big boss" (from Turk zur - "big"), zur hello - "big hello", etc.

In addition, special jargons function in the jargon of Ufa, recorded only in the “Dictionary of Ufa Slang” by SV Vakhitov and not found in other dictionaries of Russian jargon, such as an archaeologist - 1 “An outdated person interested in the past” 2 “A man of old habits”) , pacher - “smell” (verb to smell), phlegm - “phlegmatic”, etc. Such lexemes can be called local jargon

Among the local Ufa jargons, a special group is made up of informal names of districts, microdistricts, streets and other objects of the city (see Chapter I). various dictionaries of Russian jargon. For example, in the dictionary of SV Vakhitov, the lexeme call has the meanings 1 “Disclose secrets” 2 “Chat”, and in the BSRG - the values ​​1 “Scream, raise the alarm” 2 “Lie, deceive” 3 “Dissolve absurd rumors" 4 "Disclose thieves' secrets" 5 "Speak, chat" 6 "Serve your sentence in the ITU

In the Ufa jargon, there are also specific stable expressions (slang phraseological units) noted only in the dictionary of V. S. Vakhitov, for example, take a vipka - “not to believe”, chew paper - “rewrite a lecture”, see a fluffy yushad - “tell a lie”, etc.

The fourth chapter "Interaction of the Russian language with the Turkic (Bashkir and Tatar) languages ​​in Ufa" examines the results of contacting the three most common languages ​​in the city (Russian, Bashkir, Tatar), which manifest themselves in the form of interference, intercalation, borrowings, etc.

The interference phenomena that occur in the speech of bilingual Ufa residents are considered in accordance with the language levels. kamsh] (reeds), lack of vowel reduction in unstressed syllables [beard] (beard), [cow] (cow), mixing of vowels [e] and [and] in a strong and weak position, [p "is" n "a] (song), [khapad "is] (jelly), mixing of vowels [o] and [y] under stress [mikarafun] (microphone), the presence of an intervening vowel when consonants collide in one syllable [fakt] (fact), [t " ekst] (text), etc. In the field of consonantism, interference manifests itself in the form of the replacement of the consonant sound [h] with the sound [sh "], due to the absence of the sound [h] in the Turkic languages ​​[sh "ashka] (cup), the replacement of the affricate [c] with whistling consonant [s] due to the absence of this sound in the system of vocalism of the Tatar and Bashkir languages ​​[syphra ] (number), replacing the combination [st] with the sound [s], for example, turi [s], football [s], replacing the initial [p], [c] with the sound [b] [bion] (peony), replacing the sound (in ] vowels [o] or [u] pra[u]lno (correctly), poverty [u]o (nothing), indistinguishability of hard and soft consonants, arising from the fact that in the Turkic languages ​​the sound composition of words can include or only soft or only hard consonants [b "il" from "n" a] (whiteness), [malshik] (boy), etc. In the Russian speech of Turkic speakers, there are deviations from accentological norms, for example, a torch, a ring, a blade, a root, overlays, period, etc

Lexico-semantic interference manifests itself in the form of a deviation from the norms of word usage as a result of transferring the meanings of the words of the first language and the features of their lexical compatibility into the second language, for example Put you a compote7 (instead of pour). You need to wash your trousers (instead of washing), On the nine-story building, on the roof, a fire burned (instead of a fire there was), etc.

At the grammatical level, the following interference phenomena are most typical - non-distinguishing of generic, numerical and case endings for nouns, adjectives, numerals, pronouns I knit), non-distinguishing between the category of the verb form and the voice: I will hand over the essay tomorrow, He will do it for a long time; Please do not refuse my request, violations in the use of prepositions associated with the absence of prepositions in the Turkic languages ​​I am in the third year, Kuris (chicken) must be eaten with a fork and knife, violation of the agreement of adjectives, ordinal numbers, participles, possessive and demonstrative pronouns, verbs with nouns, personal pronouns in gender, number and case I bathed a beautiful doll for my daughter. She is happy today. Well, V me memory is such a violation of word order

in the sentence At work, a big marriage was noticed, You kill working time for nothing only, the use of unnecessary unions in complex sentences I told him why I am unhappy, We were told at work that how to draw up documents, etc.

In speech in Russian and Turkic languages, interlingual wedges, or tracing papers, may appear. - individual words, words, phrases and even whole phrases can be included in any of the languages, A.E. Karlinsky proposes to distinguish between inventory and phrase. Consider the phenomenon of intercalation on the material of the language of the inhabitants of Ufa, using this classification one language includes such lexical elements of another language that do not have dictionary matches in one of the two languages), for example, “War and Peace” ukydytsmy (bashk) / ukydytsmy (tat) (in the speech of the Bashkirs and Tatars I read “War and Peace”9, ), According to the history of Bashkir literature, one should read the epic "Ural-batyr" (in the speech of Russians), 2) redundant (there is a wedging into speech in one language of such elements of another language that are redundant in the first language), which is divided into a) nominative (wedging in separate foreign nouns expressing, as a rule, specific concepts), for example, Ber cup of vatylda (in the speech of the Tatars, One cup broke), Won we have as kartatay looks good (from Russian speech, Turk kartatay - “grandfather”), b) referential (no longer associated with the name of a phenomenon, but with an expression of attitude to something) Be^ge / bezge, probably st kerek / kirek (in the speech of the Bashkirs and Tatars We probably need this), Uf, Alla "I'm tired like a dog (in the speech of Russians, a Turkic interjection exclamation) Phrasal intercalation (wedging a whole-formed segment of one language into speech in another language) has several subtypes 1) binary inserts Bvgvn / bugsn, my good ones, Ie ^ "sez ber kaschala / kaidada barmaygygyz" barmyysyz (from the speech of the Bashkirs and Tatars Today, my good ones, you will not go anywhere), Good afternoon, ke $ erle / kaderle dusgar / duslar (in the speech of Russians, bashk, tat dear friends, comrades), 2) speech tracing papers, subdivided into a) asymmetric tracing papers (the phrase is partially filled with lexical material of another language) / without matburat / matbugat Yortvna / Yortyna baraby Ubarabyz (bashk, tat We will go to the printing house), 3) foreign language epenthesis (plug-in sentence, drawn up according to the rules of another language), for example, I went to work, ti ​​/ di (from the speech of the Bashkirs and Tatars Na went to work, says), He says that Marat does not know, kaida / kai? and st (in Russian speech, bashk, tat

7 Karlinsky A E Fundamentals of the theory of interaction of languages ​​- Alma-Ata Gylym, 1990 - C

kaida / klyua ul - “where is he”), 4) quotes: TegeneIe / tegese eitte “I don’t want to go to the village again, I’m bored there” (bashk, tat Tot said) Ramich, sing to us “Oh tala, tala, tala "(the name of the Tatar song, from Russian speech) Pure intercalation is a foreign wedging of any type that completely retains its phonetic, grammatical, semantic, graphic features in speech in another language, for example, Iin gech-gsna

¡1 vYloyyesch "svylis of stupidity (bashk, tat You are talking nonsense all the time), Enough, enough of the gifts, bik kup solasyts7 (in the speech of a Russian woman, tat bik kup solasyn, -" you put a lot") was subjected to the interfering influence of another language and, as a result, changed some of its features (phonetic-graphic, derivational, grammatical and / or semantic), for example, Albert, you will put on ashlepe7 (instead of Albert, you will put on a hat7), Nino / nigė Iin / sin gel- gene to be lazy ite/itec (bashk, tat Why are you always lazy with the auxiliary word iteIen/itesei), Birthdayga baralar (tat They go to the birthday), etc.

One of the most important results of the interaction of the Russian and Turkic languages ​​in Ufa is the emergence and functioning of Turkisms in oral Russian speech. Bilinguals play an important role in the transfer of Turkic vocabulary into Russian speech.

The Turkisms used in the oral speech of the residents of Ufa have a different nature. These include Turkisms that have entered the lexical composition of the literary Russian language and are no longer perceived as borrowings, as well as exoticisms that are non-equivalent vocabulary (kurai, koumiss, belyash, sesen, shezhere, kumgan and many others)

Another group is made up of Turkisms, which occupy an intermediate position between borrowings and wedging in the Turkic languages ​​into speech in Russian, or calques. These Turkisms, from our point of view, cannot be attributed to full-fledged borrowings, most of them will never be included in the lexical composition of the Russian literary language due to the fact that they have equivalents in Russian. However, these Turkisms, like borrowings, have a certain stability and regular reproducibility in the speech of some Ufimians, and in oral speech they are often used in meanings different from their meanings in the original language Therefore, they can be called borrowings at the level of speech. These Turkisms are partially or completely assimilated. When mastered, as a rule, the pronunciation and grammatical form of the word changes, it acquires all the grammatical features of the Russian lexeme. Nouns and verbs receive appropriate inflections. There are not so many unmastered elements, for example, rakhmat (Turk "thank you"), khazyr (Turk "now"), tuchaem (tat "wholesale, all at once") Some Turkisms of this kind enter oral speech, changing its part-of-speech affiliation and, accordingly, semantics, for example, aptragan - “bewilderment, confusion, perplexity” (letters in f 3 l ed “he was confused, embarrassed), kildym - “big

a crowd of people somewhere, a noisy company, chaos, disorder ”(literally“ I came ”), etc.

Among borrowings at the level of speech, there are lexemes from different lexical-thematic (LTG) and lexical-semantic (LSG) groups, for example, from LTG lexemes ana (Turkic “older sister, aunt”), istai, Malaika (Turkic “boy , boy") and others, from the LSG nominations containing the estimated characteristics of a person according to various parameters (gender, age, character, social status) - batyr (bashk "hero, strong man"), bai (Turkic "rich man"), etc. , from the LTG names of objects and phenomena of everyday life - baksa, bakcha (Turk "household plot, garden"), shirpak (bashk, tat shyrpy - "matches"), sagat (Turk "clock"), kitap (pork "book") and etc, from LTG names of geographical objects - mav (Turk "mountain"), urman (Turk "forest"), etc.

Thus, when considering lexical! about the composition of the Russian colloquial speech of Ufa, we have revealed the functioning of a greater number of Turkisms in it than in the vocabulary of the Russian literary language. The presence of such a number of words of Turkic origin in the language of Ufa distinguishes it from the language of other cities, gives the oral Russian speech of the townspeople a specific Ufa flavor

In conclusion, the main results of the study are summarized, conclusions are drawn. The language of the city continues to be an insufficiently studied problem of domestic linguistics. In this work, an attempt was made to comprehensively describe the language of such a large multinational city as Ufa , vernacular, jargon), which are in constant interaction The Russian population in Ufa, exerting a huge influence on the language of the indigenous population, and itself to a certain extent is influenced by the Turkic environment aspects of language contact in the conditions of Ufa The prospect of further study of the language of Ufa is associated with the continuation of work on collecting, systematizing, analyzing materials on the language of Ufa, as well as their comparison, comparison with data on the language of other Russians cities, which should eventually lead to the compilation of a dictionary of the language of this city, which would contain vocabulary that functions in the speech of the inhabitants of Ufa.

The application includes a map of the city of Ufa, tables containing information about the quantitative, national composition, age and social stratification of residents of different periods, as well as materials for the language dictionary of the city of Ufa

The main provisions of the dissertation research are reflected in the following publications of the author

1 Ismagilova NV The language of the city of Ufa general characteristics // Ural-Altai through the centuries into the future Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific Conference - Ufa RIO RUNTs MO RB, 2005 -C 456-458

2 Ismagilova NV Phonetic features of the vernacular in Ufa / / Actual problems of philology Materials of the republican conference of young scientists - Ufa RIO BashGU, 2005 - С 67-71

3 Ismagilova NV Grammatical features of vernacular in Ufa // Communicative and functional description of the language Collection of scientific articles P II - Ufa RIO BashSU, 2005 - C 70-84

4 Ismagilova NV The influence of Turkic languages ​​on the Russian colloquial speech of the inhabitants of the city of Ufa // Language policy and language construction in the Republic of Bashkortostan Materials of the interregional scientific and practical conference - Ufa RIO RUNTs MO RB, 2005 -С 149-151

5 Ismagilova NV The specifics of the Ufa jargon // Literature, language and artistic culture in modern processes of sociocultural communication Materials of the interregional scientific and theoretical conference - Ufa RIO BashSU, 2005 -С 141-148

6 Ismagilova NV Functioning of urbanonyms in the speech of residents of Ufa// Communicative-functional description of the language Collection of scientific articles Ch 1 - Ufa RIO BashGU, 2006 - C 101-109

7 Ismagilova NV The language of the city of the problem of studying / / Sentence and word Interuniversity collection of scientific papers / Rep. Red O V Myakisheva - Saratov Publishing House of Saratov University, 2006 - C 455-458

8 Ismagilova NV Turkisms in the oral speech of the inhabitants of Ufa // Scientific journal "Vestnik BashGU" - Ufa RITsBashGU, 2007 - No. 1 -С 88-90

Ismagilova Nuria Binerovna

LANGUAGE OF THE CITY OF UFA- FUNCTIONING OF VARIOUS LANGUAGE SUBSYSTEMS AND BILINGUALISM

Publishing license LR No. 021319 dated 05 01 99

Signed for printing April 09, 2007 Offset paper Format 60x84/16 Typeface Times Printed on a risograph Preprint 1.26 Uch-ed 1.69 Circulation 100 copies Order 163

Editorial and Publishing Center of the Bashkir State University 450074, Republic of Belarus, Ufa, Frunze st., 32

Printed at the reproduction area of ​​the Bashkir State University 450074, Republic of Belarus, Ufa, Frunze st., 32

Chapter I. The language of the city as a linguistic problem 8

1. From the history of learning the language of the city8

2. The concept of the language of the city15

3. The concept of colloquial speech18

4. The concept of vernacular23

5. Correlation of the concepts "jargon", "argo", "slang"30

Chapter P. Language landscape of the city of Ufa43

Brief historical background43

1. Urbanonyms of Ufa46

1.1. Horonyms of Ufa50

1.2. Hodonyms of Ufa60

1.3. Oikodomonyms of Ufa69

2. Names of means of public transport in Ufa75

Chapter III. Functioning of various language subsystems in Ufa84

1. Features of colloquial speech in Ufa85

1.1. Phonetic features of colloquial speech in Ufa85

1.2. Colloquial vocabulary of the city of Ufa87

2. The vernacular of the city of Ufa90

2.1. Phonetic features of the vernacular of Ufa90

2.2. Word-building and morphological features of the vernacular in Ufa94

2.3. Syntactic features of the vernacular in Ufa107

2.4. Colloquial vocabulary of Ufa110

3. Ufa slang119

3.1. The specificity of the Ufa jargon119

3.2. Age, social and professional differentiation of Ufa jargon

Chapter IV. The interaction of the Russian language with the Turkic (Bashkir and Tatar) languages ​​in Ufa142

1. National-Russian bilingualism in Ufa142

2. Consequences of language interaction in Ufa145

2.1. Interference145

2.2. Intercalation153

2.3. Turkisms in the oral speech of the residents of Ufa;159

Dissertation Introduction 2007, abstract on philology, Ismagilova, Nuria Vinerovna

In connection with the ongoing process of urbanization, the city continues to be the most important object of study for a number of humanities: philosophy, sociology, ethnography, history, linguistics, etc. Therefore, an integrated approach to the study of the language situation of the city is needed. The linguistic study of the city is only one aspect of this problem.

The language of the city is one of the insufficiently developed issues of domestic linguistics. The study of this problem in our country began relatively recently. For a long time, the predominantly literary variety of the Russian national language was studied, which Yu.N. Moreover, addressing it as a subject of study may not seem like a completely scientific matter: after all, we have always studied the best examples of speech, we are used to focusing on the meters of the language, on the authorities, and tried to avoid “negative” linguistic material. [Karaulov 2001. - P.26]. However, as B.A. Larin noted, “preferential attention to literary languages ​​delayed the study of the language of the city” [Larin 19776. - P. 177].

In the second half of the 20th century, there was a new surge of interest in the study of the language of the city. At present, the study of certain forms of urban oral speech is being conducted in Moscow, St. cities.

The object of this study is the functioning of the language of a multinational city, and the subject of the study is the various subsystems of the language of the city of Ufa: colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon, as well as the process and results of the interaction of the languages ​​of the peoples living in this city.

The relevance of the dissertation research is related to the importance of studying the language of a large multi-ethnic city, which makes it possible to analyze the dynamics of the development of the modern Russian language, its territorial and social variation in the conditions of bilingualism and multilingualism, as well as the need for a comprehensive study of the linguistic features of the language of at least all large Russian cities.

The purpose of this work is to identify the specifics of the language of the city of Ufa, a comprehensive description and analysis of the subsystems of the language functioning in the city, and to study the consequences of language contacts within one large administrative-territorial unit.

To achieve the goal of the study, it was necessary to solve the following tasks:

To identify the main historical, social and linguistic factors that influenced the formation of the language of Ufa;

To study the composition of the names of urban objects and their functioning in the city;

Consider the structure of the language of the city of Ufa from the linguistic and sociolinguistic positions;

Identify and describe the main subsystems of the language that operate in the city;

To study the results of the interaction of Russian and Turkic languages ​​in the city.

All the identified problems and tasks are set and solved taking into account the results and achievements in the field of the theory of general linguistics, Russian studies, domestic and foreign sociolinguistics.

In accordance with the purpose and objectives, the following research methods were applied: descriptive analysis using classification and comparison techniques, contextual analysis, interpretive analysis, and observation.

The theoretical basis of the dissertation is the works of famous Russian scientists B.A. Larin, L.P. Yakubinsky, V.M. Zhirmunsky, L.I. Barannikova, V.A. Avrorin, Yu.D. F. L. Filin, V. V. Kolesova, L. L. Krysina, N. A. Baskakova, L. A. Kapanadze, E. V. Krasilnikova, E. A. Zemskoy, O. A. Lapteva, L. I. Skvortsova, O. B. Sirotinina, O. P. Ermakova, T. I. Erofeeva, L. A. Shkatova, Z. S. Sanji-Garyaeva, B. I. Osipova, N. A. Prokurovskaya, M. M. Mikhailova, A.E. Karlinsky, L.L. Ayupova, E.A. Yakovleva, K.Z. Zakiryanov and others, as well as foreign researchers B. Baichev, MVidenov, J. Gamperts, U. Weinreich, C. Ferposson, E .Haugen, R. Bell, J. Fishman, W. Labov, R.I. McDavid and others.

The material for our study was, first of all, the records of the oral speech of the residents of Ufa, contained in the card file of the Department of General and Comparative Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University, our own observations on the speech of Ufa residents, materials from various linguistic dictionaries, local history sources containing information on the history of various places in the city. Ufa, statistics data and results of sociological research, maps of Ufa, city guides. In total, about 3,000 lexical units and 5,000 contexts were considered (mostly statements that contained the lexemes necessary for analysis). When analyzing the speech material, the nationality, gender, age, and education of the informants were taken into account.

The scientific novelty of the research is as follows:

For the first time, a comprehensive study and description of the current state of the language of Ufa, a large multinational city, is being carried out;

The system of official and unofficial names of urban objects of the given city is analyzed;

The features of various language subsystems of Ufa and the specifics of their functioning are studied;

The results of the interaction of the three most common languages ​​in the city (interference, intercalation, borrowings) are considered.

The theoretical significance of this work is determined by the fact that the observations and conclusions made during the study allow a deeper understanding of the functioning of various language subsystems in a large multi-ethnic city and can be useful in similar studies on the language material of other cities. The study of the functioning of various subsystems of the language of urban residents, the results of the interaction of different languages ​​in a given city, should contribute to the study of the language of other Russian cities.

The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the results of our research can be used in training courses and special courses in general linguistics, the course “Sociolinguistics. Psycholinguistics”, when creating textbooks for the special course “Language of the City”, compiling a dictionary of the language of the city (based on the language of the city of Ufa).

The following provisions are put forward for defense:

1. Various subsystems of the language of Ufa: colloquial speech, vernacular, semi-dialect, jargon - territorial variation is characteristic, which is especially pronounced at the level of vocabulary, due to the remoteness of this city from the capital, the influence of a multinational urban environment and is characterized by the presence of various specific lexemes, a large number of borrowings at the level of language and speech, in particular, from the Turkic languages.

2. Of all the subsystems of the language of the city, the most common means of communication for people born in Ufa is Russian everyday colloquial speech interspersed with colloquial and slang elements.

3. Ordinary (everyday) colloquial speech of the inhabitants of Ufa is not strongly influenced by dialects, as, for example, colloquial speech in various cities of the Ural region (Perm, Chelyabinsk, etc.). It is generally focused on the metropolitan language sample at the phonetic, lexical, grammatical levels, although its variation in a multilingual environment is inevitable.

4. Mass national contact heterogeneous bilingualism functions in Ufa.

Approbation of the results and practical implementation of the work. The main provisions of the dissertation and the results of the research were presented in reports and messages at various conferences, namely: at the international scientific conference "Sentence and Word" (Saratov, September 2005), All-Russian scientific conferences "Ural-Altai: through the centuries into the future" (Ufa , June 2005) and "Science and Education-2005" (Neftekamsk, October 2005), interregional scientific and theoretical conference "Literature, language and artistic culture in modern processes of sociocultural communication" (Ufa, October 2005), interregional scientific and practical conference " Language policy and language building in the Republic of Bashkortostan (Ufa, November 2005), the republican conference of young scientists "Actual problems of philology" (Ufa, April 2005) - as well as at 3 meetings of the interuniversity postgraduate seminar on topical problems of modern linguistics at the philological Faculty of BashSU in 2005, 2006 The main content of the dissertation is reflected in eight publications.

Some materials and theoretical aspects of our work were used during seminars and practical classes on the course “Sociolinguistics. Psycholinguistics” at the Faculty of Philology of Bashkir State University (2004-2005 academic year).

The dissertation was discussed at a meeting of the Department of General and Comparative-Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University.

The structure and scope of the dissertation. The dissertation consists of an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion. At the end of the dissertation there is a bibliography and an appendix. The first chapter contains an overview of the scientific literature on the issue under study, gives an idea of ​​the language of the city and its main components: colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon. The second chapter is devoted to the analysis of the urbanonymic

Conclusion of scientific work dissertation on the topic "The language of the city of Ufa: the functioning of various language subsystems and bilingualism"

The Russian population in Ufa, exerting a huge influence on the language of the indigenous population, is itself to a certain extent influenced by the Turkic environment. The influence of the Bashkir and Tatar languages ​​on colloquial Russian is one of the little-studied aspects of language contact in the conditions of the Republic of Bashkortostan.

The results of the interaction of the Russian, Bashkir, Tatar languages ​​are reflected in Russian colloquial speech, Russian dialects, works of local writers, poets, and in the media in Russian. The most striking and significant consequences of the interaction of the Russian and Turkic languages ​​include bilingualism, interference, interlingual wedging, various kinds of borrowings, regionalisms (local words and expressions that exist in a certain territory).

Bilinguals play an important role in the penetration of Turkisms into Russian speech. Bilingual speech may be characterized by interference at different levels of the language structure and interlingual inclusions. A number of interference phenomena and interlingual wedging that appear in bilingual speech in Russian due to difficulties in choosing the means of a non-native language may indicate a low level of bilingual proficiency in Russian. With fluency in languages, interlingual inclusions may indicate the choice of a more convenient option in a given language situation.

The most significant consequence of language contact in the city is borrowing at the level of language and at the level of speech. Many borrowings at the level of speech are not mastered by the Russian literary language. G

In the Ufa Russian colloquial speech, there are more Turkisms than in the Russian literary language. The presence of such a number of words of Turkic origin in the language of Ufa distinguishes it from the language of other cities, gives the oral Russian speech of the townspeople a specific Ufa coloring.

Conclusion

The language of the city continues to be an insufficiently studied problem of Russian linguistics. In this paper, an attempt was made to comprehensively describe the language of such a large multinational city as Ufa. An integral part of the language of the city are the official and unofficial names of urban objects that make up the linguistic landscape of the city. Therefore, the composition of the official and unofficial names of various city objects and the features of their functioning were studied in the work. Some of the city's official and unofficial nominations, principles, methods of naming objects are identical to the names, principles and methods of nomination that exist in other cities, and the other part constitutes a group of formations specific to Ufa. Informal (colloquial, colloquial and slang) names may arise as a means of language economy, as well as to distinguish between objects that have the same official name or location, or only for the purpose of a language game, in order to create an expressive nomination. Official and unofficial names, inherent only in the language of the city of Ufa, constitute the specifics of the language of this city.

In this study, an attempt was also made to comprehensively describe and analyze primarily non-codified subsystems of the language that function in Ufa. In this work, in addition to the analysis of some phonetic, word-formation, grammatical phenomena in different subsystems of the language of the city of Ufa, attention was paid to the consideration of lexemes that function in the speech of the inhabitants of this city. Among these nominations are words and phrases that have different parts of speech, connotative and stylistic coloring and related to different thematic groups.

In the speech of Ufa residents, lexemes from different subsystems of the language are used: literary language, everyday colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon, semi-dialect, which allows us to say that these subsystems are represented in the language of this city in constant interaction. The choice of certain phonetic, lexical, grammatical means from different language subsystems by a city dweller is influenced by various factors: his age, education, profession, place of work, social status, communication situation. Citizens may be proficient in various subsystems of the Russian language (literary and everyday colloquial speech, everyday colloquial speech and jargon, etc.), i.e. the phenomenon of diglossia, in which switching codes can be observed.

In general, it can be argued that there are not so many people who speak the literary norm of the Russian language in Ufa: they constitute a linguistic minority, since they are predominantly persons with a higher philological or other humanitarian, less often non-humanitarian, education. Therefore, the most common means of communication in the city is everyday colloquial speech interspersed with colloquial and slang elements. The ordinary (everyday) speech of the indigenous population of the city of Ufa is not strongly influenced by dialects, as, for example, colloquial speech in various cities of the Ural region (Perm, Chelyabinsk, Izhevsk). Ordinary colloquial speech in Ufa is focused on the Moscow and partly St. Petersburg language norm at the phonetic, lexical, grammatical levels, which can be considered one of the features of the language of the city of Ufa, which distinguishes it from the language of other Ural cities.

In the language of the city of Ufa, vernacular also functions, influencing Russian colloquial speech, since vernacular elemes are found in it. In this paper, a description of the phonetic, word-formation, lexical and grammatical levels of the Ufa vernacular was given, which showed that the Ufa vernacular has no significant differences from the general Russian vernacular. Some differences are manifested at the lexical level, since the Ufa vernacular lexicon includes dialect vocabulary of different origin (from the Russian dialects of Bashkortostan and dialects of other regions of Russia), borrowings from Turkic languages, and more, although a significant part of the vernacular lexicon is made up of all-Russian vernacular nominations. Thus, the thesis about the supra-dialectal nature of Russian vernacular is also confirmed by the material of Ufa vernacular.

Jargon, unlike vernacular, has a wider scope, since slang vocabulary from the general jargon (interjargon) is found in everyday colloquial speech of people of different ages (from children, adolescents, young people to the older generation). Therefore, we can raise the question of jargonization of everyday colloquial speech. Ufa jargon is heterogeneous and breaks up into a number of micro jargons: children's, teenage, youth, school, student, professional (computer, military, sports, jargon of musicians, tourists, etc.), criminal, etc.

In jargon, the speaker's desire for word creation is very clearly manifested, in order to express their thoughts, feelings brightly, unusually, witty.

The lexicon of the Ufa interjargon has much in common with the lexicon of the all-Russian jargon, although not to the full extent: in the Ufa interjargon there are differences in the structure of the lexical meanings of jargonisms, original jargonisms, jargon lexemes of Turkic origin function. This allows us to talk about the territorial variation of the all-Russian jargon.

Replenishment of colloquial, colloquial, slang vocabulary occurs in different ways. Many expressive jargon nominations are formed in a semantic way. The most common word-building methods for creating non-codified vocabulary are methods used both in literary speech (prefixation, suffixation, word formation, etc.), and in colloquial and slang speech (various types of semantic contraction, truncation, suffixation of a truncated stem, etc.). The most common in the language of the city are full one-word and incomplete nominations.

When studying the language of the city of Ufa, it is also necessary to take into account the multi-ethnicity of the population living in the city. Therefore, when studying the language of such a large multinational city as Ufa, the problem of the interaction of the Russian language with the languages ​​of other nationalities was raised. One of the promising directions in the study of the language situation of a given city is also the study of urban bi- and trilingualism.

The most significant consequences of the interaction of the Russian and Turkic languages ​​in the city are bilingualism, interference, interlingual wedging, various kinds of borrowings, regionalisms (local words and expressions that exist in a certain territory). The functioning of a large number of borrowings from the Turkic languages ​​in the Russian speech of Ufa distinguishes the language of the city of Ufa from the language of other Russian cities, gives the oral Russian speech of the townspeople a specific Ufa coloring.

The prospect of further study of the language of Ufa is associated with the continuation of work on collecting, systematizing, analyzing materials on the language of Ufa, as well as their comparison, comparison with data on the language of other Russian cities, which should eventually lead to the compilation of a dictionary of the language of this city, which would contain vocabulary that functions in the speech of Ufimians.

List of scientific literature Ismagilova, Nuria Vinerovna, dissertation on "Theory of language"

1. Avrorin V.A. Bilingualism and school // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-p.49-62,

2. Avrorin V.A. Problems of studying the functional side of the language. L.: Nauka, 1975.- 275p.

3. Almukhsshedova E.M. Vocalism of circumferential dialects with reduction compared with literary pronunciation in some of its territorial variants / Issues of grammar and lexicology of the Russian language. Kazan, 1964.

4. Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969.- 508 p.

5. Akhmanova O.S. Dichotomy "language-dialect" in the light of the problems of modern bilingualism//Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.- P. 98-102.

6. Akhunzyanov E.M. Bilingualism and lexical-semantic interference. - Kazan: Kazan, state. un.-t, 1978. 190 p.

7. Ayupova JI.JI. Russian-Bashkir language interaction//RR. 1976. - No. 1.-S. 89-92.

8. Ayupova L.L. Questions of sociolinguistics: types of bilingualism in Bashkiria. - Sverdlovsk: Uralsk, state. un.-t, 1988. 70 p.

9. Ayupova JI.JI. Vocabulary of the peoples of Bashkortostan in Russian speech (Glossary): Textbook. Ufa: BSU Publishing House, 1994. - 146 p.

10. Ayupova JI.JI. The language of the city as a sociolinguistic problem // Ayupova L.L. Sociolinguistics: actual problems. Ufa: Eastern University, 1999. - S. 56-64.

11. Ayupova JI.JI. Language situation: sociolinguistic aspect. Ufa: Eastern University, 2000. - 156 p.

12. Bankova T.B. Vocabulary of urban vernacular (typology of description): Dissertation for the academic step. Candidate of Philology, Tomsk, 1987. - 18 p.

13. Bankova T.B. Expressive-emotional vocabulary of the Tomsk urban vernacular (Features of semantics) // Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipov. - Omsk, 1995. -4.1.-S.75-77.

14. Barannikova L.I. To the problem of social and structural variability of the dialect//Questions of social linguistics. L .: Nauka, 1969. - S. 314 - 343.

15. Barannikova L.I. The essence of interference and the specifics of its manifestation // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.- M.: Nauka, 1972.- P. 88-98.

16. Barannikova JI.K Vernacular as a special social component of the language//Language and society. Saratov: Publishing House of the Saratov University, 1974. - Issue. III. -WITH. 3-22.

17. Barannikova JIM Vernacular and literary colloquial speech//Language and society. Saratov: Publishing House of the Saratov University, 1977. - Issue. IV. - S. 59-77.

18. Barannikova L.I. On the problem of the correlation of the Russian literary language and the national Koine // Types of supradialectal forms of language. M.: Nauka, 1981. -S. 97-119.

19. Beglova EZH, Dudareva Z.M. Jargonisms in Russian. Sterlitamak: SGPU, 1994-49 p.

20. Belikov V.I. Comparison of St. Petersburg with Moscow and other considerations on social lexicography//Russian language today. Issue. 3 - Moscow: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004.-S. 23-37.

21. Bell R. Sociolinguistics. Goals, methods and problems. M.: Intern. Relative, 1980. - 320 p.

22. Belchikov Yu.A. Literary vernacular and norm//Literary norm in vocabulary and phraseology. M.: Nauka, 1983. - S. 37-46.

23. Beregovskaya E.M. Youth slang: formation and functioning//VYa. 1996. - No. 3

24. Bertagaev T.A. Bilingualism and its varieties in the system of use // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism, - M .: Nauka, 1972. - P. 82-88.

25. Bobrova G.A., Nikitina E.A. Colloquial urbanonyms of Omsk: structure and functioning // Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the interuniversity scientific conference / Ed. B.I. Osipov. - Omsk, 1995. 4.1 - S. 31-34.

26. Baudouin de Courtenay I.A., "Thieves' Music" // Baudouin de Courtenay I.A. Selected works on general linguistics. T.2 - M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1963. -S.161-162.

27. Bondaletov DB. Borrowings from the Germanic languages ​​in the vocabulary of Russian conditionally professional slang// Language and Society. Saratov: Publishing House of Saratov University, 1967a. - S. 226-234.

28. Bondaletov DB. Gypsyisms as a part of conditional languages//Language and society. Saratov: Publishing House of the Saratov University, 19676. - S. 235 - 242.

29. Bondaletov DB. Socio-economic prerequisites for the death of conditionally professional languages ​​and the main patterns of this process//Issues of social linguistics. L .: Nauka, 1969. - S. 398 - 415 p.

30. Bondaletov V.D. Conditional languages ​​of Russian artisans and merchants. - Ryazan: RGPU, 1974 110 p.

31. Bondaletov V. D. Social Linguistics.-M.: Enlightenment, 1987. -160 p.

32. Borisova E.G. About some features of the modern jargon of youth//Rus. language at school. -1981. No. 3. - P.83-87.

33. Borisova E.G. Modern youth jargon//Rus. speech. 1980. -№5. -WITH. 51-54.

34. Borisova Lukaishnets E.G. On the vocabulary of modern youth jargon (English borrowings in slang of the 60-70s) / / Literary norm in vocabulary and phraseology. - M.: Nauka, 1983. -S. 104-120.

35. Bulls V. Russian Fenya. Smolensk: Trust-Imakom, 1994. - 222 p.

36. Bykov V.B. On the translation of the Russian substandard into German // Semantics of language units: Reports of the VI Intern. conf. T.1. - M.: SportAcademPress, 1998.-p. 103-107.

37. Weinreich U. Language contacts. State and problems of research. - Kyiv: Vitsa School, 1970. - 264 p.

38. Weinreich U. Monolingualism and multilingualism//New in linguistics. Language contacts.- M.: Progress, 1972.- Issue. 6. S. 25-60.

39. Vasiliev L. M. General problems of linguistics: Uchebn. allowance - Ufa, 1998.149 p.

40. Vakhitov C.B. About Russian slang. Characteristics of the material // Vakhitov S.V. Dictionary of Ufa slang. Ufa: Publishing house of BGGGU, 2001. - S. 5 - 22.

41. Vakhitov C.B. Dictionary of Ufa slang. Ufa: Vagant, 2004. - 236 p.

42. Vepreva I.T. Conversational norm: in search of new criteria//Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. Yekaterinburg: "Argo", 1996.-S. 136-153.

43. Verbitskaya L.A. Pronunciation norm today // Language: history and modernity of St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University, 1996. - P. 52 - 60.

44. Vereshchagin E.M. Psychological and methodological characteristics of bilingualism (bilingualism). M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1969. - 160 p.

45. Vinokur TT. On elliptical word usage in modern colloquial speech // Development of the vocabulary of the modern Russian language. Moscow: Nauka, 1965.

46. ​​Vinokur T.G. Stylistic development of modern Russian colloquial speech / / Development of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language / Ed. T.G. Vinokur and D.N. Shmelev. M: Nauka, 1968. -S.12-101.

47. Volkova H.A. Modern youth jargon as a linguo-ecological problem U / Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipov. Omsk, 1995. - 4.1. - S. 42-44.

48. Voloshchenko O.V. Features of vernacular semantics (on the example of verbs of motion) // Problems of studying the living Russian word at the turn of the millennium: Materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical. conf. Voronezh: Publishing house of VGPU, 2001. -S. 172-177.

49. Questions of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - 418 p.

50. Vysotsky S.S. About the Moscow folk dialect//Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 22-37.

51. Gabinskaya O.A. Neoplasms in colloquial speech and language certification//Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988.

52. Gavranek B.O. On the functional stratification of the literary language / The Prague Linguistic Circle. M: Progress, 1967. - S. 432-443.

53. Gavranek B. On the problem of mixing languages ​​/ / New in linguistics. Language contacts.- M.: Progress, 1972.- Issue. 6. S. 94-111.

54. Gak V.G. Comparative lexicology. (Based on the French and Russian languages) M .: "International Relations", 1977. - 264 p.

55. Galimyanova V.R. The language situation of the Krasnokamsky district of the Republic of Bashkortostan: Sociolinguistic aspect: Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. -Ufa, 2003.-21 p.

56. Gak V.G. About French vernacular // FN 1993. - No. 5-6. - S. 116 - 121.

57. Galin P.A. The population of the city of Ufa: past, present, future. Ufa: RIO BAGSU, 2001. - 96 p.

58. Gallyamov P.P. Multinational city: ethnosociological essays. - Ufa: Gilem, 1996.-2000 p.

59. Galperin I.R. On the term "slang" // Questions of linguistics, 1956. No. 6. -S. 107-114.

60. Gamperz J. On the ethnographic aspect of language changes / / New in linguistics. Issue. VII - M.: Progress, 1975. - S. 299 - 319.

61. Garipov T.M. Regarding the determinism of the nomination (to the history of one urbonym)//Problems of communication and nomination in the concept of general humanitarian knowledge. Chelyabinsk: Publishing House of ChGU, 1999. - S. 20 - 26.

62. Garipov T.M. Concerning the language model of Bashkortostan//Materials of the interregional scientific-practical conference "Interethnic relations in a multi-ethnic region: problems and ways of optimization". Ufa, 2005. -S. 123-125.

63. Gelhardt R.R. On the literary language in the geographical projection / Questions of linguistics. 1959. - No. 3. - S. 95-101.

64. Gerd A.C. Russian literary language and Russian colloquial speech in the cities of the Arctic / / Literary language and folk speech. Perm, 1986. - P.3-11.65. 74. Gin Ya.I. The inevitable tyranny of material // RR. 1992. - N6.

66. Golovin B.N. Questions of social differentiation of language//Questions of social linguistics. L .: Nauka, 1969. - S. 343-355.

67. Gorbacheva E.F. Vernacular as a socio-stylistic language category//Language and society. Sociolinguistic problems of lexicology. -Issue. 6. Saratov, 1982.

68. Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. -183 p.

69. Urban vernacular. Problems of study / Ed. E.A. Zemskoy and D.N. Shmelev. M: Nauka, 1984. -189 p.

70. Graudina J1.K. Colloquial and vernacular forms in grammar // Literary norm and vernacular. M.: Nauka, 1977. - S. 77-111.

71. Grachev M.A. “I’ll get a prison for a hair dryer” / / Rus. speech. - 1993. -№4.-S. 51-56.

72. Grachev M.A. Where do the words hang out and hang out?//Rus. lang. at school. -1995a. -No. 3. -p.84-86.

73. Grachev M.A. Blatnaya music//Russian speech. 19956. - No. 5. - S. 113-117.

74. Grachev M.A. On the conspiratorial function of slang//Speech of the city. Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipov. Omsk, 1995c. - 4.2. - S. 33 - 36.

75. Grachev M.A. Argotisms in youth jargon//Rus. lang. at school. -1996a.-No. 1.-S.78-85.

76. Grachev M.A. How argotisms appear in our speech // Russian speech. -19966.-№4.-S. 67-71

77. Grachev M.A. The mechanism of the transition of argotisms into the national language//Rus. lang. at school. -1996v.-No.5 .-S.87-90.

78. Grachev M.A. Russian slang. N.-Novgorod, 1997. - 245 p.

79. Grachev M.A., Kozhevnikov A.Yu. To the question of the social dialectology of the Russian language//FN. 1996. - No. 5. - S. 111 - 116.

80. Grishina O.A. Prosodic parameters of local speech (on the material of Krasnoyarsk): Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Omsk, 2003 - 20 p.

81. Gruzberg JI.A. What is the real speech of a modern city dweller? // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. - S. 8 - 15.

82. Gruzberg JI.A., Pigina PL. On the differentiation of the speech of the city (on the material of comparison) / / Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm: PGU, 1982. - S. 40-47.

83. Grumadene L.A. The problem of social conditioning of speech variation (on the material of the Lithuanian language): Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Moscow: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1982 - 16 p.

84. Guseva L.G., Manion Ya.G. Local social and age jargon / Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1988. - S. 96-103.

85. Guts E.H. The place of the slang word in the language model of the world//Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference/Edited by B.I. Osipov. Omsk, 1995. - 4.1. - P.73-75.

86. Dal V.I. The conventional language of St. Petersburg swindlers, known under the name of music, or fable language//Problems of Linguistics. 1990. -№1. -WITH. 134137.

87. Devkin V.D. On the types of non-literary speech//Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 12-21.

88. Dedova O.V. Phonetic features of modern Moscow vernacular: Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Moscow, 1988. - 18 p.

89. Desheriev Yu.D. Patterns of development of the literary languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR in the Soviet era. M., 1976.

90. Desheriev Yu.D. Social Linguistics: Toward the Foundations of a General Theory. -M, Nauka, 1977. 382 p.

91. Desheriev Yu.D., Protchenko I.F. The main aspects of the study of bilingualism and multilingualism // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.- M.: Nauka, 1972.-p. 26-42.

92. Desherieva Yu.Yu. The problem of linguistic interference in modern linguistics / Theoretical problems of social linguistics.- M.: Nauka, 1981.-p. 240-255.

93. Dobrodomov KG. On the historiography of the study of Turkisms in the Russian language//Soviet Turkology. 1974. - No. 5. - S. 72 - 76.

94. Dubrovina KN. Student jargon//Philological sciences 1980. -№1. - P.78-81.

95. Dyakova V.I. Observations on the vocabulary of the Voronezh urban vernacular//Folklore and literature: problems of study. Voronezh: Publishing house of VSU, 2001.-p.174-178

96. Elistratov A.A. Lexical means of displaying the corporate culture of athletes: Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Chelyabinsk: CTU Publishing House, 2005.-22 p.

97. Elistratov B.C. Observations on modern urban slang//Vestn. Moscow. university Ser. 9. Philology. 1993. - No. 1

98. Elistratov B.C. Dictionary of Moscow Argo. M: Russian dictionaries, 2000-p. 574 - 692.

99. Elistratov B.C. Argo and culture// Elistratov B.C. Dictionary of Moscow Argo. -M.: Russian dictionaries, 2000 S. 574 - 692.

100. Eremin A.N. Pronouns in common speech (semantics and formal features). Kaluga: Publishing House of the KSPU, 1997a. - 28 s.

101. Eremin A.N. Phraseologically related meanings in the literary language and vernacular // Russk. lang. at school. 19976. - No. 5. - S. 71 - 76.

102. Eremin A.N. Figurative meanings in common parlance. Kaluga: Publishing house of KSPU, 1998. - 104 p.

103. Eremin A.N. Word-formation systems of vernacular and literary language//Russk. lang. in school -1999. No. 1. - S. 74 - 77.

104. Eremin A.N. Vernacular Normative-explanatory dictionary - Speech of a native speaker of a literary language / / Semantics. Functioning. Text. - Kirov, 2001.-p. 11-19.

105. Ermakova O.I. Ethics in computer jargon // Logical analysis of language. Ethical languages. Moscow, 2000. - S. 246-253.

106. Ermakova O.E. Nominations in vernacular // Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M., Nauka, 1984. -S. 130-140.

107. Erofeeva E.V. Experimental study of the phonetics of the regional variant of the literary language. Perm: Publishing House Perm. un-ta, 1997. - 140 p.

108. Erofeeva E.V. Dependence of speech behavior on some sociolinguistic factors// Problems of communication and nomination in the concept of general humanitarian knowledge. Chelyabinsk: CTU Publishing House, 1999. - S. 99 -105.

109. Erofeeva E.B. The dual nature of the language of the city and methods of its study// Literature and modernity. Part 2. - Perm: Publishing House of Perm. un-ta, 2000. - 154-163 p.

110. Erofeeva T.I. On the social differentiation of the speech of citizens (to the question of the interaction of colloquial literary and dialect speech) / / Literary language and folk speech. Perm: PGU, 1984a. - S. 10-17.

111. Erofeeva T.I. On the everyday meaning of the literary word in live colloquial speech//Literary language and folk speech: Interuniversity collection of scientific papers. Perm, 1986. - S. 11-27.

112. Erofeeva T.I. "Speech portrait" of the speaker // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990.

113. Erofeeva T.I. Social stratification of the speech of a city dweller // Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. Perm: Publishing House of PGU, 1993. -S. 83 - 92.

114. Erofeeva T.I. Stratification conditionality of possession of professionalism//Anthropocentric approach to the language of Perm: Publishing House of PSU, 1998.-p. 149-160.

115. Erofeeva T.I. Sociolect in stratification performance//Russian language today. Issue. 1.: Sat. articles / Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. -S. 85-91.

116. Erofeeva T.I., Gruzberg JI.A. Once again about vernacular // Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm: PGU, 1989. - S. 2-10.

117. Erofeeva T.N., Skitova F.L. Local elements in the literary speech of the townspeople // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. -S. 15-22.

118. Erofeeva T.N., Skitova F.L. Localisms in the literary speech of citizens. -Perm: Publishing House of Perm. un-ta, 1992. 92 p.

119. Erofeeva T.N. Local coloring of literary colloquial speech: A textbook for a special course. Perm, 1979. - 92p.

120. Zhdanova O.P. Evaluative vocabulary in urban colloquial speech//Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - S. 71-79.

121. Live speech of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr-in. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1988.- 136 p.

122. Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. - Perm: Publishing House of PGU, 1992. 142 p.

123. Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. - Perm: Publishing House of PGU, 1993. 213 p.

124. Zhirmunsky V.M. Professional vocabulary, jargons, slang//National language and social dialects. D., 1936. - S. 105-167.

125. Zhirmunsky V.M. The problem of social differentiation of languages//Language and society. M.: Nauka, 1968. - S.22-39.

126. Zhluktenko Yu.A. Linguistic aspects of bilingualism. - Kyiv: Vitsa school, 1974. 176 p.

127. Zhuravlev A.F. Foreign borrowings in Russian vernacular (phonetics, morphology, vocabulary, semantics) // Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 102-124.

128. Zaikovskaya T.V. Can you brainstorm? Sabo herself!//Rus. speech. 1993. -№6. - S. 40-43.

129. Zakiryanov K.Z. Bilingualism and interference: Textbook. allowance Ufa: Bash. state un.-t, 1984.- 80 p.

130. Zakiryanov K.Z. Bilingualism: linguoculturological aspect // Bulletin of VEGU. 2000. - No. 11. - S. 44-50.

131. Zemskaya E.A. Russian colloquial speech//Issues of linguistics. 1971.5.

132. Zemskaya E.A. On the concept of "colloquial speech" / / Russian colloquial speech: Collection of scientific papers: Publishing House of Saratov University, 1970. -S. 3-10.

133. Zemskaya E.A. Russian colloquial speech: linguistic analysis and learning problems. M.: Russian language, 1987.

134. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaygorodskaya M.V., Shiryaev E.H. Russian colloquial speech: General questions. Syntax. Word formation. M.: Nauka, 1981. - 275 p.

135. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaygorodskaya M.V., Shiryaev E.H. Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Moscow: Nauka, 1983.

136. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaygorodskaya M.V. Observations on colloquial morphology//Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 66-102.

137. Zemskaya E.A. Urban oral speech and the tasks of its study// Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - S. 5 - 44.

138. Ilminskaya N.I. Nominations of modes of transport//Colloquial speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Vocabulary. Saratov, 1983. - S. 245-252.

139. Nifontova G.G. On the issue of elite speech culture / Principles and methods of research in philology: the end of the 20th century. Issue. 6. - St. Petersburg - Stavropol: Stavrop Publishing House. gosun-ta, 2001. - S.389 - 391.

140. History of Ufa. Brief essay. Ufa, 1981.

141. Iskhakova Z.A. Bilingualism in the cities of Tatarstan (80-90s). Kazan: Fiker, 2001. - 192 p.

142. Itskovich V.A., Schwarzkopf B.S. Passive bilingualism and the culture of speech // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M.: Nauka, 1972. P. 127-129.

144. Kapanadze JI.A. Vocabulary of everyday use (names of household appliances and machines)//Methods of nomination in modern Russian. M.: Nauka, 1982. S.271-281.

145. Kapanadze JI.A. Lexico-semantic features of colloquial speech // Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture/Ed. E.A. Zemskaya. M.: Nauka, 1983. - S. 142-172.

146. Kapanadze JI.A. Modern urban vernacular and literary language.//Urban vernacular: Problems of study.- M.: Nauka, 1984a. pp. 5-12.

147. Kapanadze JI.A. Modern vernacular vocabulary (Moscow vernacular) // Urban vernacular: Problems of study. -M: Nauka, 19846. -S. 125-129.

148. Kapanadze JI.A. Ways of expressing evaluation in oral speech // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - S. 151-156.

149. Kapanadze JI.A., Krasilnikova E.V. Vocabulary of the city (to the formulation of the problem)//Methods of nomination in modern Russian. M.: Nauka, 1982.-S. 282-294.

150. Karaulov Yu.N. On the state of the modern Russian language//RR. 2001. -№3. -p.25-30.

151. Karlinsky A.E. Fundamentals of the theory of interaction of languages. Alma-Ata: Gylym, 1990.-181 p.

152. Karmyzova O.A. Computer vocabulary: structure and development: Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Voronezh: VGU, 2003. - 24 p.

153. Katagoshchina H.A. The problem of bilingualism and multilingualism abroad / / Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M .: Nauka, 1972. P. 62-74.

154. Katasheva A.Ya. Turkisms in the language of the city: (on the material of the speech of the Russian population of the mining zone of the Chelyabinsk region) // Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - S. 104 - 110.

155. Kitaigorodskaya T.S., Rozanova H.H. Muscovites speech. Communicative and cultural aspect. M., 1999. - 253 p.

156. Kogotkova T.S. On some features of the development of literary vocabulary in the conditions of dialectal bilingualism//Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-S. 250-257.

157. Kogotkova T.S. The role of vernacular in the processes of mastering the vocabulary of a literary language by dialects // Literary norm and vernacular. M.: Nauka, 1977. - S.58-71.

158. Kogotkova T.S. Russian Dialect Lexicology: Status and Prospects. M.: Nauka, 1979. - 335 p.

159. Kolesnikova U.E. Features of modern urbanonyms (on the example of the cities of the Volga region and France) // Onomastics of the Volga region. Moscow: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. - S. 50-54.

160. Kolesov V.V. City language. M.: Higher school, 1991. - 192 p.

161. Koltunova M.V. What does jargon bring with it?//PP. 2003. - No. 1. - S. 48 - 50.

162. Konovalova D.A. The Status of the Names of Modern Commercial Enterprises in the Proper Name System: Features of Functioning and Typology // Urban Colloquial Speech and Problems of its Study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.-S. 96-110.

163. Kopylenko M.M. On the semantic nature of youth jargon / / Socio-linguistic research / Ed. L.P. Krysin and D.N. Shmelev. M.: Nauka, 1976. - S.79-86.

164. Krasilnikova E.V. Inventory of morphemes//Methods of nomination in modern Russian. M., Nauka, 1982a. - S. 133-158.

165. Krasilnikova E.V. On the Correlation of Language Levels in the System of Russian Colloquial Speech // Problems of Structural Linguistics. M., 19826. - S. 37 - 49.

166. Krasilnikova E.V. The language of the city as a linguistic problem // Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - S. 5-18.

167. Krasilnikova E.V. On various phenomena in the language of residents of different cities//Functioning of the literary language in the Ural city. - Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. pp. 4-12.

168. Krasilnikova E.V. Language and culture: (to the study of the language of the city) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1990 - P. 4-8.

169. Kocherenkova S.D. Informal names of spatial objects of Sverdlovsk: (methods of nomination) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. - Sverdlovsk: Ural State University, 1990 P. 79 - 89.

170. Krivozubova G. A. Urbanonyms of the city of Omsk: (composition and functioning): Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Barnaul, 1993 - 19 p.

171. Krivozubova G. A. On the inventory of urbonymic units//Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 125 - 30.

172. Krysin L.P. Possession of different language subsystems as a phenomenon of diglossia // Socio-linguistic research. M., 1976. - 232 p.

173. Krysin L.P. The relationship of the modern literary language and vernacular / / Rus. lang. at school. 1988. - No. 2. - S. 81-88.

174. Krysin L.P. Foreign language term in Russian vernacular//Philological collection. M.: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1995a. - S. 262 - 268.

175. Krysin L.P. Foreign term in Russian vernacular // Philological collection (on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Academician V.V. Vinogradov) / Ed. dokg. philol. n. MV.Lapon. M.: Institute of the Russian Language. V.V. Vinogradov RAN, 19956. - S. 262-268.

176. Krysin L.P. Foreign word in the context of modern social life//Russian language of the end of the XX century (1985-1995). M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 1996.- S. 142-159.

177. Krysin L.P. Russian literary language at the turn of the century//RR. 2000c. -#1. - S. 28-40.

178. Krysin L.P. Social marking of language units//VYa 2000 - No. 4. S. 26-41.

179. Krysin L.P. Modern literary norm and its codification//РЯШ. -2002.-№1.-S. 82-87.

180. Kupchik E.V. Pronunciation features of the speech of the townspeople, due to dialectal influence (based on the recording of the speech of the inhabitants of Sverdlovsk and Nizhny Tagil) / / Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. - Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. S. 22 - 30.

181. Labov U. The study of language in its social context / / New in linguistics.-Vyp. VII-M.: Progress, 1975.-S. 96-181.

182. Lapteva O.A. On non-codified spheres of the modern Russian literary language//Problems of Linguistics. 1966. - No. 2. - P. 40 - 56.

183. Lapteva O.A. The study of Russian colloquial speech in Russian linguistics in recent years: a review//Issues of linguistics. 1967. - No. 1. - S. 129-139.

184. Lapteva O.A. Russian colloquial syntax. Moscow: Nauka, 1976.

185. Larin B.A. To the linguistic characteristics of the city (several prerequisites) / / History of the Russian language and general linguistics. M .: Education, 1977a.-S.189-199.

186. Larin B.A. On the linguistic study of the city / History of the Russian language and general linguistics. M .: Education, 19776. - S. 175-189.

187. Levashov E.A. Toponymy of Moscow and Leningrad yesterday and today//RR. -1990.-№3.-S. 122-128.

188. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / Ch. ed V.N. Yartsev. - 2nd ed. M: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998.- 686 p.

189. Literary language and folk speech. Perm: PGU, 1977-1986.

190. Likhachev D.S. Argotic words of professional speech//Development of grammar and vocabulary of the modern Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1964. - S.311-359.

191. Likhachev D.S. Features of the primitive primitivism of thieves' speech // Dictionary of prison-camp-thieves jargon. M.: Kraya Moskvy, 1992. - S. 354-398.

192. Likhachev D.S. Psychology of Argo// Russia-East-West. M.: Heritage, 1998.-p. 60 - 84.

193. Likholitov P.V. This is what the border guards say // Russian speech. 1997. - no. -WITH. 63-70.

194. Mayorov A.P. Social aspects of the interaction of languages ​​in a bilingual communicative space. - Ufa, 1997. 138 p.

196. McDavid R.M. Dialect and social differences in urban society//New in linguistics. Issue. VII - M.: Progress, 1975. - S. 363 - 381.

197. Makovsky M.M. On the way to creating a dictionary of the Russian substandard//FN. -1997.-№4.-S. 103-109.

198. Maksimova L.I. About Ishim vernacular // Sociocultural problems of development of small towns in Western Siberia: Abstracts of reports and reports of a scientific conference. Ishim: Izd-vo IGPI, 2000. - S. 95 - 97.

199. Malysheva V.A. Vernacular in urban microtoponymy // Living word in the Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm, 1989. - S.54-58.

200. Marsheva L.I. Justified variability in the names of persons at the place of residence//РЯШ. 2004. - No. 4. - S. 78 - 81.

201. Milekhina T.A. On some features of the colloquial speech of the youth of the city / / Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995. Part 1. - P. 44-46.

202. Mintslov S.R. Ufa. From the book "The Wilds of Life". Ufa: Bashk. book. publishing house, 1992. -176 p.

203. Miralaeva O.D. Modern Russian youth jargon (sociolinguistic research): Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. - Moscow, 1994. -19 p.

204. Mironov S.A. Semi-dialect and everyday colloquial language as varieties of supra-dialect forms of speech // Types of supra-dialect forms of language. Moscow: Nauka, 1981.

205. Mikhailov M.M. Bilingualism (principles and problems). - Cheboksary: ​​Chuvashki, state. un.-t, 1969. 136 p.

206. Mikhailova OA The life of someone else's word in the colloquial speech of citizens//Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. - Yekaterinburg: Argo, 1996. S. 153 - 167.

207. Mikhalap K.P., Shmeleva T.V. The Word of the Urban Environment // Philological Sciences. 1987.-N4.-S. 81-84.

208. Mikhalchenko V.Yu. Problems of functioning and interaction of the Lithuanian and Russian languages. - Vilnius: Makslas, 1984. - 224 p.

209. Mokienko V.M., Nikitina T.G. Big dictionary of Russian jargon. - St. Petersburg: "Norint". 2001. - 720 p.

210. Morozova M.N. Names of cultural institutions//RR. 1973. -№6.-S. 54-59.

211. Morozova O.E. Oral speech and linguistic personality of the speaker // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: Publishing House of PGU, 1998. - S. 56 - 64.

212. Morozova T.S. Some features of the construction of statements in common speech // Urban common speech. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 141-162.

213. Moskvin V.P. Conversational style as a system//Rus. speech. 2005. - No. 4. - S. 37-48.

214. Nikitina T.G. Explanatory dictionary of youth slang: Words incomprehensible to adults. OK. 2000. M.: "Astrel", "ACT", 2003. - 736 p.

215. Nikitina T.G. So say the youth: Dictionary of slang. Based on materials from the 7090s. St. Petersburg: Folio-Press, 1998. - 592 p.

216. Nozhkina E. M. Adverbs / T Conversational speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian language. Saratov, 1983. - S.94-124.

217. Norm and social differentiation of language. M.: Nauka, 1969.- 173 p.

218. Ozhegov S.I. On vernacular (to the question of the language of the city) / / VYa. 2000. - No. 5.-S. 93-110.

219. Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language.- M.: Azbukovnik, 1999.-944 p.

220. Orlov G.A. To the problem of the boundaries of everyday and modern literary colloquial speech//Problems of Linguistics. No. 5.-1981.-S. 119-128.

221. Osipov B.I. On the term "folk colloquial speech of the city" // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 5 - 11.

222. Osipov B. I., Bobrova G. A., Imedadze N. A., Krivozubova G. A., Odintsova M. L., Yunakovskaya A. A. Lexicographic description of the colloquial speech of a modern city: theoretical aspects. Omsk, 1994.-144 p.

223. Osipov B.I., Sukhotskaya E.B. Notes on the urban dialectisms of modern St. Petersburg and Omsk//Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 92 - 96.

224. Panov V.M. Russian phonetics. M., 1967.

225. Parikova N.V. On the South Russian variant of literary speech//Development of the phonetics of the modern Russian literary language. M., 1996.

226. Pekshieva T.A. Phonetic originality of the colloquial speech of the inhabitants of Arkhangelsk // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PGU Publishing House, 1998.-S. 68-81.

227. Pervukhina E.V. Youth jargon of the 90s (strokes to a speech portrait) // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PGU Publishing House, 1998.-S. 88-93.

228. Pestereva N.Sh., Ruth M.E. Nominativity and expressiveness in the semantics of a figurative word (Naming people in the speech of schoolchildren) // Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988.

229. Petrishcheva E.F. Non-literary vocabulary as a stylistic category//VYa. -1981. N3. - S. 63 - 69.

230. Petrova NA. Notes on teenage slang // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: Publishing House of PGU, 1998. - S. 81 - 87.

231. Pleshkova T.N. Dialectal features of the colloquial speech of the townspeople // Living word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: Publishing House of PGU, 1998. - S. 64 -68.

232. Podolskaya N.V. Dictionary of Russian onomastic terminology. Moscow: Nauka, 1988.

233. Podolskaya N.V. Urbanonymy of the central regions of the RSFSR//Vopr. geography. 1974, - No. 94.

234. Podyukov I.A. On the origin of phraseological units of urban oral speech: (according to observations on the living speech of Perm) / / Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. - S. 163 - 176.

235. Polishchuk G.G. Nominations of colloquial speech//Conversational speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Lexis / Ed. O. B. Sirotinina. Saratov, 1983. - S. 195-212.

236. Pomykalova T.E., Shishkina T.Ya., Shkatova L.A. Observations on the speech of the inhabitants of Chelyabinsk (On the problem of the "language of the city") // Urban vernacular: Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 162-167.

237. Popova A.V. The system of unofficial toponyms of the city of Moscow//Rusisgika at the present stage. M.: Publishing House of MSLU, 1999. - S. 85 - 88.

238. Pospelova G.M. Innovations in the territorial and administrative dictionary of the city//RR. 1997. - No. 4. - S. 64 - 72.

239. Righteous S.P. A few words about modern vernacular // Linguistic and didactic bases of work on the text. Kursk: Publishing house of KSPU, 1997. -p.23 - 25

240. Principles and methods of sociolinguistic research. Moscow: Nauka, 1989.

241. Priyatkina A.F. Colloquial neoplasms: their basis and fate (to determine the internal properties of colloquial speech) / / Russian language today. Issue. Sat. articles / Ed. LL. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - S. 231 - 239.

242. Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-S. 98-102.

243. Prokurovskaya H.A. Colloquial speech of the city of Izhevsk in comparison with the colloquial speech of the cities of the Ural region// Actual problems of regional linguistics and history of Siberia. Kemerovo: KGU, 1992. - S. 69 - 71.

244. Prokurovskaya H.A. City in the mirror of its language: On the linguistic material of Izhevsk. Izhevsk: Udm. un-ta, 1996. - 228 p.

245. Prokurovskaya H.A. The system of colloquial predication and the mentality of the modern city dweller reflected in it. Basic styles of communication// Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.

246. Varieties of urban oral speech / Ed. D.N. Shmeleva and E.A. Zemskoy. Moscow: Nauka, 1988.

247. Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian interuniversity scientific conference. / Ed. B. I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995.

248. Rozanova H.H. Modern Moscow vernacular and literary language (based on phonetics) // Urban vernacular. Problems of study. M.: Nauka, 1984. - S. 37-66.

249. Rosenthal D.E., Teleshova M.A. Dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms. -M.: Enlightenment, 1976.

250. Rosenzveig V.B. Language contacts.- L.: Nauka, 1972.- 80 p.

251. Rozina R.I. From incidents to actions (semantic derivation as a way to replenish the common jargon) / / Russian language today: Sat. articles / Ed. L.P. Krysina. M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - S. 418 - 432.

252. Russian colloquial speech / Collection of scientific works. - Saratov, 1970.-251 p.

253. Russian colloquial speech / Ed. E.A. Zemskaya. M.: Nauka, 1973. -485 p.

254. Russian colloquial speech: Texts / Ed. E.A. Zemskaya, L.A. Kapanadze. -M: Nauka, 1978. S. 3-27.

255. Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture. -M.: Nauka, 1983.- 238 p.

256. Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. - Ekaterinburg: Argo, 1996. 193 p.

257. Ryzhksha O.A., Resnyanskaya JI.H. Psycho- and sociolinguistic analysis of the language portrait of a city dweller (Expressives of women and men) // Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1988. - S. 39 - 47.

258. Salnikova T.A. New phenomena in the emporonymy of Krasnoyarsk // Philology Journalism. - Krasnoyarsk: Publishing House of KGU - S. 63 - 65

259. Salyaev V.A. On the social dialects of the Russian language//Rus. language at school. -1996a.-№1.-S. 78 84.

260. Salyaev V.A. On the main stages of the evolution of the slang word / / Rus. language at school. 1996b.-№5.-S. 90-93.

261. Salyaev V.A. On the normative-stylistic evolution of colloquial vocabulary of slang and jargon origin and its reflection in explanatory dictionaries//Science at the turn of the century: Sat. articles. St. Petersburg: Nestor, 1999. - S. 41 - 45.

262. Sanji Garyaeva Z.S. Colloquial elements in the oral speech of the inhabitants of Elista // Urban vernacular: problems of study. - M.: Nauka, 1984.-S.167-173.

263. Sanji Garyaeva Z.S. Some features of oral speech in Elista // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - S. 235 - 257.

264. Serebrennikov B.A. Social differentiation of language / General linguistics. Forms of existence, functions, history of language / Ed. B.A. Serebrennikov. M.: Nauka, 1970. - S.478 - 498.

265. Sinenko S.G. City on the White River. Brief history of Ufa in essays and sketches. 1574 2000. - Ufa: "Bashkortostan", 2002. - 184 p.

266. Sirotpinina O.B. Colloquial speech (definition, concept, main problems)// Questions of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - 373 - 391 p.

267. Sirotinina O.B. Modern colloquial speech and its features. -M.: Enlightenment, 1974.-144 p.

268. Sirotinina O.B. General characteristics of the vocabulary of colloquial speech//Colloquial speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Lexis / Ed. ABOUT. Sirotinina. Saratov, 1983a. - S. 610.

269. Sirotinina O.B. Russian colloquial speech. A guide for the teacher. -M.: Enlightenment, 19836.-80 p.

270. Sirotinina O.B. Linguistic appearance of the city of Saratov // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - S.247-253.

271. Sirotinina O.B. Speech of the modern city//Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference./Ed. B. I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995. Part 1. - P. 8 - I.

272. Skvortsov L.I. Professional languages, jargons and culture of speech//Rus. speech. 1972. - No. 1. - P.48-59.

273. Skvortsov LI. Literary language, vernacular and jargons in their interaction // Literary norm and vernacular. Moscow: Nauka, 1977.

274. Skvortsov L.I. What threatens literary language? (Reflections on the state of modern speech)//РЯШ. 1994. - No. 5. - S. 99 -105.

275. Skitova F.L. Interchange of lexical synonyms between literary and folk language//Literary language and folk speech. Perm: Publishing House of PGU, 1984. - S. 25 - 31 p.

276. Skrebnev Yu.M. The study of Russian colloquial speech (Review of the works of the Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences) / / Questions of Linguistics. 1987. - No. 1. - S. 144-155.

277. Skrebneva A.A. To the question of general and distinctive phenomena in oral speech (on the basis of grammar) / / Urban vernacular. Problems of study. -M.: Nauka, 1984. S. 173-179.

278. Skrebneva A.A. Some processes of functioning of vernacular vocabulary//Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1988. - S. 2839.

279. Skrebneva A.A. On the status of modern urban vernacular // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990.-S. 30-38.

280. Dictionary of Russian dialects of Bashkiria / Ed. ZL. Zdobnova. Issue. 1-2. -Ufa: "Guilem", 1997.

281. Dictionary of the modern Russian city: Ok. 11,000 words, approx. 1000 idiomatic expressions / Ed. B.I. Osipova. M.: "Russian dictionaries"; "Astrel"; "AST"; "Transit book", 2003. - 564 p.

282. Dictionary of prison-camp-thieves jargon (speech and graphic portrait of a Soviet prison) // Compiled by D.S. Baldaev, V.K. Belko, I.M. Isupov. .

283. Sobinnikova V.I. Dialects and vernacular as part of the national language (according to historical linguistics) Voronezh: Publishing House of VSU, 1992. - 112 p.

284. Socio-economic status of districts and cities of the Republic of Bashkortostan: Statistical collection. Ufa: Bashkortostanstat, 2005. - 256 p.

285. Methods of nomination in modern Russian / Ed. D.N. Shmelev. M.: Science. 1982.-296 p.

286. Sreznevsky II. Remarks on materials for the "geography" of the Russian language // Vestnik imp. geographer. Society. SPb., 1885. part 1, book. 1. S. 1-24

287. Sreznevsky I. Athenian language in Russia//Notes of the Fatherland. 1839.- Vol. 5, Aug., Section VIII.

288. Starodubtseva V.V. Nomination of intracity enterprises and institutions in modern Russian (on the material of Ulyanovsk oikodomonyms): Abstract of the thesis. dis. .cand. philol. Sciences. Moscow: MGOU Publishing House, 2003 -21s.

289. Persistent Art. Social dialects / Questions of linguistics. 1957. - No. 1. - S. 78 84.

290. Stolyarova E.A. Types of lexico-semantic fields in Russian colloquial speech// Russian language today. Issue. 1: Sat. articles / Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - S. 433 - 443.

291. Sudzilovsky G.A. Slang: what is it?. M., 1973. - P.40

292. Types of supradialectic forms of language. M.: Nauka, 1981. - 309 p.

293. Toshovich B. The semantic structure of slang verbs / / Russian language today. Issue. 1: Sat. articles / Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - S. 444-455.

294. Trosheva T.B. Non-literary vocabulary in students' oral speech // Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm, 1992. -S 111-116.

295. Turbin G.A. On the concepts of "semi-dialect" and "vernacular" in modern dialectology // Word in systemic relations. Sverdlovsk, 1982. - P. 42 - 59.

296. Ustinenko I.A. The phenomenon of condensation in language and speech//Theory of Linguistics and Russian Studies: the legacy of B.N. Golovin. N.Novgorod: NSU Publishing House, 2001.-p. 317-319.

297. Favorin V.K. To the question of the modern pronunciation norm. Izv. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953. -T.12, issue 1. - p.87..

298. Fedyanina O.N. Uncodified vocabulary of the language of the city of Kirov (On the material of colloquial speech and jargon): Diss. .cand. Phil. n. Kaluga: KGU, 1997. -285 p.

299. Filin F.P. On the problem of social conditionality of language//Language and society. M.: Nauka, 1968.- S. 5-21.

300. Filin F.P. Modern social development and the problem of bilingualism // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.- M.: Nauka, 1972.-p. 13-25.

301. Filin F.P. On the structure of the modern Russian literary language//Russian language in the modern world. M.: Nauka, 1974. - S. 107-122.

302. Filin F.P. On the properties and boundaries of the literary language / / Questions of linguistics. 1975.- No. 6. - S. 3-13.

303. Filin F.P. On colloquial and colloquial in the Russian literary language//Philological sciences. Scientific reports of higher school. 1979. -№2. - S. 20-25.

304. Frolov N.K. On the history of the formation of urbanonymy in the city of Tyumen//Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 118 -125.

305. The functioning of the literary language in the Ural city. - Sverdlovsk, 1995.

306. Haugen E. Language contact//New in linguistics. Language contacts. - M .: Progress, 1972, - Issue. 6. S. 61-80.

307. Kharlamova M.A. The origins of urban speech in Omsk//Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 11 - 19.

308. Chemist V.V. Poetics of the Low, or Common Speech as a Cultural Phenomenon. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg, 2000. - 272 p.

309. Khorosheva N.V. Interjargon in the Functional Paradigm of the Russian National Language // Living Word in Russian Speech of the Kama Region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. Perm: Publishing House of PGU, 1993. - S. 122 -128.

310. Tsvetkova ML. The main directions of research in Polish colloquial speech / / VYa 1990. - No. 5. - P. 116 - 123.

311. Churkina K.I. The evolution of pronunciation norms in the speech of the intelligentsia of the city of Krasnoyarsk: Abstract of the thesis. Dis. cand. philol. Sciences. Novosibirsk, 1969

312. Shvedova N.Yu. Essays on the syntax of Russian colloquial speech. -M.: Ed.Acad. Sciences of the USSR, 1960. 377p.

313. Shvedova N.Yu. About some active processes in the modern Russian language//VYa. 1964. - No. 2.

314. Schweitzer A.D. Modern sociolinguistics: theory, problems, methods. -M.: Nauka, 1976. 175 p.

315. Schweitzer A.D. Interaction of the literary language with substandard vocabulary in modern English // Oral forms of the literary language: History and modernity. M.: Editorial URSS, 1999. - S. 29 - 45.

316. Sheigal E.I. Computer jargon as a linguocultural phenomenon//Linguistic personality, cultural concepts. Volgograd-Arkhangelsk: Change, 1996. - S. 204-211.

317. Shkatova JI.A. How the word will respond. Chelyabinsk: CTU Publishing House, 1986. - 60p.

318. Shkatova JI.A. Specificity of urban communication//Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - S. 19-28.

319. Shkatova JI.A. "Language code" of the Ural city // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. - S. 72 - 79.

320. Shkatova H.A. Methods of studying the language of the city / / Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipov. Omsk, 1995.4.1.- S. 15 - 16.

321. Shmelev D.N. Russian language in its functional varieties (On the formulation of the problem). M: Nauka, 1977.-168 p.

322. Shmeleva T.V. Notes on the speech of Novgorodians (in connection with the problem of linguistic portrayal of a modern city)// Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.

323. Shcherba JI.B. On the concept of mixing languages//Selected works on linguistics and phonetics. JL: Publishing house of Leningrad State University, 1958. - v.1. -182 p.

324. Yuganov I., Yuganova F. Russian jargon of the 60-90s. Dictionary Experience / Ed. A. N. Baranova. M., 1994.

325. Yunakovskaya A.A. Omsk urban vernacular (research results)// Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference. / Ed. B.I. Osipov. Omsk, 1995. - Part 1. - S. 66 - 69.

326. Yunakovskaya A.A. Expressive and stylistic differentiation of colloquial vocabulary (on the material of Omsk)//Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - S. 80 - 87.

327. Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Publishing House of the Ural State University, 1990. - 184 p.

328. Yakovleva E.A. The rhetorical function of Turkisms in Russian speech in a multi-ethnic environment (for example, Ufa) // Russia and the East: Problems of interaction. Part IV. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk University. 1995. - S. 182-187.

329. Yakovleva E.A. Urbonymics of Ufa: linguo-cultural-semiotic aspect//Bulletin of VEGU. -1996. No. 3: Pedagogy. - S. 16-20.

330. Yakovleva E.A. Rhetoric as a theory of thought-speech activity (as applied to the analysis of literary texts, urban texts and topical nominations): Scientific report on the published works of Dr. Philol. Sciences. -Ufa. 1998.-98 p.

331. Yakovleva E.A. Features of Russian verbal behavior of a city dweller in a multi-ethnic environment // Problems of communication and nominations in the concept of general humanitarian knowledge. Chelyabinsk: Publishing house of the Chelyabinsk state. un-ta, 1999. -S. 188-196.

332. Yakubinsky L.P. About dialogical speech//Yakubinsky L.P. Selected works: Language and its functioning. M.: Nauka, 1986.- S. 17-58.

333. Baichev B., Videnov M. Veliko-Tarnovskiyat ezik: Sociolinguistic study in Veliko Tarnovskaya grad river. Veliko Tarnovo: Abagar, 1999. -388 p.

334. Videnov M., Bancheva M., Sotirov P., Angelov A. Sociolinguistics and student speech. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski, 1996. - 190 p.

335. Krupska-Perek A. Szkic socjolingwistycznego opisu mowy mieszkancow maiego miasta: (Na przykiadzie Praszki w woj. cz?stochowskim)// Rozprawy Komis. j?z./ Lodzkie t-wo science. Lodz, 1995. - V.40. - S. 169-185.

336. Andersson L., Trudgill P. Bad Language Cambridge- Massachusetts: "Basil Blackwell Cambridge Center", 1990.

337. American speech: A Guarterly of Linguistic Usage. Columbia Press, 1975. Vol. fifty.

338. Drake J. A. The Effect of Urbanization on Regional Vocabulary//American speech. -1961. V. 36. - P. 17 - 33.

339. Ferguson Ch. A. Language structure and language use: essays by Ch.A. Ferguson Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971. - 328 p.

340. Ferguson Ch. A. Diglossia/ZLanguage structure and language use: essays by Ch.A. Ferguson Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971. - P. 1-26.

341. Gumperz J.J. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

342. Kloss H. Types of Multilingual Communities: A Discussion of Ten Variables//International Journal of American Linguistics. 1967. - V. 33. - No. 4. - P. 7-17.

343. Labov W. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.

344. Language and social identity/ Ed. by J. J. Gumperz Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

345. Language in culture and society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology/ Ed. by D. Hymes New York, 1964.

346. Language in the British Isles/Ed. by P. Trudgill Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

347. Macaulay R.K.S. Social class and language in Glasgow//Language in Society. -1976,-v. 5.-№2.-P. 173-188.

348. Social dialects and language learning: Proceedings of the Bloomington, Indiana, conference, 1964.

349. The interdisciplinary study of urban bilingualism in Brussels/Ed. by Witte E., Beardsmore H.B. Glevedon; Philadelphia: Multilingual matters, 1987. - 241 p.

350. Thompson R.M. Mexican-American English: Social Correlates of Regional Pronunciation// American speech. 1975. - V. 50. - No. 1-2. - P. 18 - 24.

351. Trudgill P. The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. - 212 p.

352. Variation in the Form and Use of Language. A Sociolinguistics Reader/Ed. By R.W. Fasold. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1983.