Features of the modern speech situation briefly. Modern language situation and problems of speech culture
Foreign languages, philology and linguistics
The main trends in the cultural speech situation: general characteristics. The main trends characterizing the cultural and speech situation are closely related to the changes currently taking place in society and reflect the features of the functioning of the Russian language at the present stage. The main trends can be traced in the modern cultural and speech situation.
Modern speech situation: main characteristics and trends.
The main trends in the cultural - speech situation: general characteristics. Among the trends and factors in the development of the cultural and speech situation of our time, three leading ones can be distinguished. The impact on the everyday speech environment of each of them is both unequal and ambiguous at the same time. The main trends characterizing the cultural and speech situation are closely related to the changes currently taking place in society, and reflect the features of the functioning of the Russian language at the present stage. The main trends that can be traced in the modern cultural and speech situation. Firstly, it is the democratization of the language, which is associated with the erasure of boundaries between social strata and groups, which leads to the disappearance of the distinction between speech styles. Here we can distinguish such tendencies as: - loosening of literary norms; - insufficient culture of oral and written speech; - the use of profanity and jargon. Secondly, it is the globalization and dialogization of the cultures of different peoples, which reveal the development of the following trends: - polyethnicity; - widespread and active use of foreign words; - narrowing the scope of the Russian language.
Thirdly, total technization currently plays a special role; - the sharply increased importance of computers and new computer technologies, which leads to the emergence of "computer slang" and "electronic language"; - an increase in the number and types of computer games, which entails a significant decrease in the number of the reading population. Thus, the picture of the modern cultural and speech situation remains contradictory and ambiguous. Language is transformed and transformed, is in constant motion. As L.Yu. Buyanov and V.Yu. Mezentsev, “Russian speech of the early 21st century is undergoing active semantic and procedural modifications that reflect the dynamism and globality of extralinguistic changes that modern Russia is experiencing. … This problem is most acute in the space of media discourse, in the language of journalism and the media in general, which is due to the pragmatic goal of these speech-text formations - to form an information slide in such a way as to most effectively influence the consumer of information and by verbal means “force” him to this information perceive and use it in your work.
In general, for the Russian language of the late 20th century, according to (I.A. Sternin), the following generalized development trends are characteristic: “the intensity and speed of changes in the language; the determining influence of socio-political processes on language development; the predominant changes occur in vocabulary and phraseology; quantitative changes prevail over qualitative ones; functional changes prevail over systemic ones” (Sternin, 2000: ; 4–16). I.A. Sternin believes that the period of intensive development of the Russian language has now passed its peak and is gradually waning.
This trend is manifested in a decrease in the aggressiveness of the dialogue, clear signs of stabilization of the stylistic norm, a decrease in the volume of borrowings and the active development of borrowed vocabulary.
1
Content
1. Introduction
1.1 Modern speech situation……………………….………………..…2
1.2 Language and speech………………………………………………….……………...3
1.2.1 Speech, its features…………………………................................................ ..4
1.2.2 The subject and tasks of practical stylistics……………………...….5
1.2.3 Culture of speech……………………………………………………….......6
2. Accuracy and clarity of speech
2.1
Accuracy of word usage…...………………….………………..……7
2.2
Stylistic assessment of dialectisms, jargons………………..…8
2.3
Stylistic assessment of borrowed words……………………….….9
2.4
Words-paronyms and accuracy of speech………………………………………….11
2.5
Accuracy of inflection and shaping……………………….13
2.6
Clarity of syntactic constructions………………………….……....14
3. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………....15
4. Literature………...…………..…………………………………………….16
Modern speech situation
Language is a powerful means of regulating people's activities in various fields, therefore, studying the speech behavior of a modern person, understanding how a person owns the richness of the language, how affectively he uses it, is a very important and urgent task.
Every educated person must learn to evaluate speech behavior - his own and those of his interlocutors, to correlate his speech actions with a specific situation of communication.
Today, the speech of our contemporaries attracts more and more attention of journalists, scientists of various specialties (linguists, philosophers, psychologists, sociologists), writers, teachers, it becomes the subject of heated discussions among ordinary Russian speakers. Feeling speech problems, they try to answer the question, what is the reason for the disturbing state of speech culture for many. The age-old Russian questions “what to do?” and "who is to blame?" quite natural in relation to the Russian language and Russian speech.
In the in-depth study “The Russian Language of the End of the 20th Century (1985-1995)”, an attempt was made to highlight the most significant features of the Russian language of the end of the century. It notes:
“The events of the second half of the 1980s - early 1990s were similar to the revolution in their impact on society and language. The state of the Russian language of our time is determined by a number of factors.
1. The composition of participants in mass and collective communication is expanding dramatically: new strata of the population are joining the role of speakers, the role of writers for newspapers and magazines. Since the late 80s, thousands of people with different levels of speech culture have received the opportunity to speak publicly.
2. In the media, censorship and auto-censorship, which previously largely determined the nature of speech behavior, are sharply weakened.
3. The personal beginning in speech increases. Faceless and unaddressed speech is replaced by personal speech, it acquires a specific addressee. Biological communication, both oral and written, is increasing.
4. The sphere of spontaneous communication is expanding, not only personal, but also oral public. People no longer give or read pre-written speeches. They say.
5. Important parameters of the flow of oral forms of mass communication are changing: the possibility of a direct appeal of the speaker to the listeners and feedback from the listeners to the speakers is created.
6. Situations and genres of communication are changing both in the field of public and in the field of personal communication. Rigid limits of official public communication are weakened. Many new genres of oral public speech are born in the field of mass communication. The dry radio and TV announcer has been replaced by a presenter who reflects, jokes, and expresses his opinion.
7. The psychological rejection of the bureaucratic language of the past (the so-called Newspeak) is growing sharply.
8. There is a desire to develop new means of expression, new forms of imagery, new types of appeals to strangers.
9. Along with the birth of the names of new phenomena, there is a revival of the names of those phenomena that return from the past, banned or rejected in the era of totalitarianism ”(Russian language of the end of the 20th century. M., 1996).
The freedom and emancipation of speech behavior entails the loosening of linguistic norms, the growth of linguistic variability (instead of one acceptable form of a linguistic unit, different variants turn out to be acceptable).
Language and speech
Linguists of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, overcoming the universalism and dogmatism of naturalists (Schleicher), more and more delved into the study of individual linguistic facts and brought their studies to the speech of an individual person. The successes of the new science - psychology - contributed to these aspirations - to bring research to the individual. These views, in their extreme manifestation, reached the denial of language as the property of the collective, questioned the existence of languages.
So, A. A. Shakhmatov believed that “real life has the language of each individual; the language of a village, city, region, people turns out to be a well-known scientific fiction, because it is composed of the facts of the language that are part of certain territorial or tribal units of individuals. (Shakhmatov A. A. Essay on the modern Russian literary language, 4th ed. M., 1941. p. 59.)
Proponents of such views, according to a Russian proverb, "can't see the forest for the trees." W. Humboldt (1767-1835) wrote about this: "... in reality, language always develops only in society, and a person understands himself insofar as experience has established that his words are also understandable to others." (Humboldt V. On the difference in the structure of human languages and its influence on the spiritual development of the human race, see: Zvegintsev V.A. History of linguistics of the XIX-XX centuries in essays and extracts. 3rd uz. M., 1964. h. 1. p. 97)
This idea in the formulation of Marx is as follows: language is “... existing for other people and only thereby also existing for myself” (Marx K. German ideology / / Marx K. and Engels F. Op. 2 -e ed. T. 3. S. 29.), and if the language is always the property of the collective, then it cannot be a mechanical sum of individual languages. Rather, the speech of each speaker can be considered as a manifestation of a given language in a particular life situation. But the individual characteristics in the speech of each person is also an indisputable fact.
This raises a very important problem: languages. These concepts are often confused, although it is quite clear that; for example, physiologists and psychologists deal only with speech, in pedagogy it is important to talk about the development and enrichment of students' speech, in medicine - about speech defects, etc.; in all these cases, “speech” cannot be replaced by “language”, since it is a matter of a psychophysiological process.
Speech, its features
If language is a system of signs and symbols, then speech is the process of using language. Speech is the realization of language, which reveals itself only through speech.
In linguistics, speech is understood as a specific speaking, flowing in time and clothed in a sound form (including internal pronunciation - inner speech) or written. Speech also includes the products of speaking in the form of a speech work (text), fixed by memory or writing. The differences between speech and language are as follows.
First, speech is concrete, unique, relevant, unfolds in time, is realized in space. Let us recall the ability of some speakers, for example, the Cuban leader F. Castro or the Soviet President M. Gorbachev, to speak for hours. Collected works of many writers has dozens of volumes.
Secondly, speech is active, linear, tends to combine words in the speech stream. Unlike language, it is less conservative, more dynamic, mobile. Thus, with the announcement of publicity and freedom of speech in our country, the manner of presenting information has noticeably changed, especially about political leaders and social processes. If earlier the messages were kept strictly in the official style, now no one writes about these processes and leaders without a slight irony.
Thirdly, speech as a sequence of words involved in it reflects the experience of the speaker, is conditioned by the context and situation, is variable, can be spontaneous and disordered. We often come across examples of such speech in everyday life and at work.
Speech, on the one hand, using already known linguistic means, fundamentally depends on the language. At the same time, a number of characteristics of speech, such as tempo, duration, timbre, degree of loudness, articulatory clarity, accent, are not directly related to the language. Of particular interest is the use in speech of words that are absent in the language. For the study and enrichment of the Russian language in linguistics, the following directions are singled out and developed: "The style of the Russian language" and "Culture of speech".
The subject and tasks of practical stylistics
The term "practical style" is found in V.V. Vinogradova, G.O. Vinokura, K.I. Bylinsky and other researchers of the problems of stylistics. It is also used in foreign science... Manuals on the normative style of national languages are being created. Attempts are made to define the concept of normativity, linguistic (and stylistic) norm.
The concept of norm is important for any literary language. Even in the artistic and fiction style, where freedom of choice of language means is widely used and the originality of the individual style of the writer is affected, a complete departure from the national norm is impossible, because “the language of a truly artistic work cannot deviate far and significantly from the basis of the national language, otherwise it will cease to be generally understandable. ".
In practical stylistics, where lexical and grammatical synonymy plays a huge role, the norm is “the totality of the most suitable (“correct”, “preferred”) language means for serving society, which is formed as a result of the selection of linguistic elements (lexical, pronunciation, morphological, syntactic ) from the number of coexisting, present, formed again or extracted from the passive stock of the past in the process of social, in the Broadest sense, evaluation of these elements.
The normative nature of practical stylistics brings it closer to that broad section (philological science, which is called the "culture of speech." If we consider that, in addition to the objective historical study of the speech life of society in a certain era, the task of this philological discipline is to reveal the norms of the literary language in all "levels" of the language system and the establishment on a scientific basis of the rules for using the language, then we can talk about the direct connection of some problems of stylistics and problems of the culture of speech. So G. O. Vinokur wrote: "The task of stylistics ... is to teach members of this of the social environment, an active-purposeful handling of the linguistic canon, to dissect the linguistic tradition and such an attitude that would allow speakers to actively use all the elements contained within its broad framework, depending on the specific social and everyday situation, on the goal that implies for each this act of individual speaking.
The content of practical stylistics is: 1) general information about language styles; 2) assessment of the expressive-emotional coloring of the language means; 3) synonymy of language means.
Characteristics of the concept "Culture of speech"
The concept of culture of speech is closely connected with the literary language. The ability to clearly and clearly express one's thoughts, speak competently, the ability not only to attract attention with one's speech, but also to influence listeners, possession of a culture of speech is a peculiar characteristic of professional suitability for people of various professions: diplomats, lawyers, politicians, teachers of schools and universities , radio and television workers, managers, journalists.
It is important to master the culture of speech for everyone who, by the nature of their activities, is connected with people, organizes and directs their work, conducts business negotiations, educates, takes care of health, and provides various services to people.
What is the culture of speech?
The culture of speech is understood as the possession of the norms of the literary language in its oral and written form, in which the choice and organization of language means are carried out, which allow, in a certain situation of communication and while observing the ethics of communication, to provide the necessary effect in achieving the goals of communication.
The culture of speech contains three components: normative, communicative and ethical.
The culture of speech implies, first of all, the correctness of speech, that is, the observance of the norms of the literary language, which are perceived by its speakers (speaking and writing) as an "ideal" or model. The language norm is the central concept of speech culture, and the normative aspect of speech culture is considered one of the most important.
However, the culture of speech cannot be reduced to a list of prohibitions and definitions of “right or wrong”. The concept of "culture of speech" is associated with the laws and features of the functioning of the language, as well as with speech activity in all its diversity. It also includes the possibility provided by the language system to find a new language form to express specific content in each real situation of speech communication.
The culture of speech develops the skills of selecting and using language means in the process of speech communication, helps to form a conscious attitude to their use in speech practice in accordance with communicative tasks. The choice of linguistic means necessary for this (goal) is the basis of the communicative aspect of the culture of speech. The well-known philologist, a major specialist in the culture of speech G. O. Vinokur wrote: “For each goal there are means, this should be the slogan of a linguistically cultural society.”
Communicative expediency is considered one of the main categories of the theory of speech culture, therefore it is important to know the basic communicative qualities of speech and take them into account in the process of speech interaction.
In accordance with the requirements of the communicative aspect of the culture of speech, native speakers must know the functional varieties of the language, as well as focus on the pragmatic conditions of communication, which significantly affect the optimal choice and organization of speech means for this case.
The ethical aspect of the culture of speech prescribes the knowledge and application of the rules of linguistic behavior in specific situations. Ethical norms of communication are understood as speech etiquette (speech formulas of greeting, request, question, gratitude, congratulations, etc.; appeal to "you" and "you"; choice of full or abbreviated name, form of address, etc.).
The use of speech etiquette is greatly influenced by extralinguistic factors: the age of the participants in the speech act (purposeful speech action), their social status, the nature of the relationship between them (official, informal, friendly, intimate), time and place of speech interaction, etc.
The ethical component of the culture of speech imposes a strict ban on foul language in the process of communication, condemns the conversation in "raised tones". Equally important are the accuracy and clarity of speech.
Accuracy of word usage
Accuracy and clarity of speech are interrelated. However, the speaker (writer) must take care of the accuracy of the statement, and the listener (reader) evaluates CLARITY.
We put our thoughts into words. In order for speech to be accurate, words should be used in full accordance with the meanings that are assigned to them in the language. L.N. Tolstoy jokingly remarked: “If I were a king, I would have issued a law that a writer who uses a word whose meaning he cannot explain is deprived of the right to write and receives 100 blows of the rod.”
The search for the only necessary word in the text requires the writer to exert creative strength and tireless work. This work is sometimes reflected in manuscripts, allowing us to get acquainted with the lexical substitutions that the author made, polishing the style of the work. For example, in the draft of A.S. Pushkin "Dubrovsky" we find the following edit: "The members (of the court) met him (Troekurov) with expressions of [deep humiliation, deep devotion] deep servility" - the last word most expressively described the behavior of the officials bribed by Troekurov, and the writer left it in the text.
The search for the right word is reflected in auto-editing (when the writer corrects himself).
The stylistic correction of the writers in the manuscript reflects the last stage of work on the text, and what work preceded this, how many drafts were written and then destroyed, how many times the author said this or that phrase “to himself” before writing it down on paper - about this one can only guess.
A careless attitude to the choice of words in our everyday speech causes annoying lexical errors, for example: Spring has come, martens will soon have an inheritance (meaning offspring); I decided to become an officer because I want to continue the family dynasty (instead of: tradition).
In such cases, one speaks of using the word without regard to its semantics (i.e. meaning). Such speech errors cause illogicality and even absurdity of speech: And our Far Eastern birches stand in their wedding shroud (the author mixed up the shroud and veil). Such "slips of the tongue" are explained by false associations (these are associative errors).
The ambiguity of the statement may arise when using polysemantic words and homonyms, if the context shows a meaning that is not intended by the author. For example: The growth of young figure skaters is stimulated with the help of demonstration performances. It would be better to say: By participating in demonstration performances, young figure skaters improve their skills. The sports commentator did not take into account the possible distortion of the meaning of the following phrase: You see Gavrilov on the screen in a beautiful combination.
The inaccuracy of word usage is explained by inattention or low speech culture of the author. But sometimes they deliberately do not want to use this or that word in order to veil the negative meaning of the statement. They say he fantasizes instead of lying, he accepted gifts instead of taking bribes, etc. Let us recall an episode from the story of A.I. Kuprin "Inquiry":
“Ask him, did he take the tops from Esipaki?
The second lieutenant was again convinced, but of his inexperience and cowardice, because out of some bashful and delicate feeling he could not pronounce the real word he stole.
Words and expressions that soften the rough meaning of speech are called euphemisms (from Gr. ei - good, phemi - - I speak). The euphemism of speech is often explained by the author's desire to dull the critical sharpness of the statement when describing negative phenomena.
Wrong word choice can cause anachronism - a violation of chronological accuracy when using words associated with a particular historical era. For example: In ancient Rome, the plebeians, dissatisfied with the laws, held rallies (the word rally was filled much later, and in England).
Stylistic assessment of dialectisms, jargon
Our speech is subject to various influences, in particular impoverishment, clogging. Various weeds spoil our speech. These can be dialect words, jargon and vulgarisms, neopra, etc.
Approved by the Educational and Methodological Association
Universities of Russia by directions
teacher education,
Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
As a textbook for students
Institutions of higher education
Moscow "High School" 2002
BBK 81.2 Rus-5ya73
Textbook authors: cand. philol. Sciences A. I. Dunev(VI.8, VII.1), Dr. Philol. Sciences M.Ya. Dymarsky(VI.9), cand. philol. Sciences A.Yu. Kozhevnikov(III.8,1V.4, VI.5, VI.6), cand. philol. Sciences N. V. Kozlovskaya(III.1, III.2, III.4, III.5), cand. philol. Sciences I. N. Levina(IX, IX. 1, X), Dr. Philol. Sciences I. A. Martyanova(XI), cand. philol. Sciences E.V. Sergeeva(V, VIII), Dr. Philol. Sciences K.P. Sidorenko(III.6, III.7) , cand. philol. Sciences HER. Silantiev(IV, VI.3, VI.7 Candidate of Sciences in Philology M. B. Khrymova(VI. 1, VI.2), Dr. Philol. Sciences VD. Chernyak (general edition of the textbook, I, II, III.1, III.3), Dr. of Philology. Sciences N. L. Shubin(VII.2)
R 88 Russian language and culture of speech: Proc. for universities /A. I. Dunev, M.Ya. Dymarsky, A.Yu. Kozhevnikov and others; Ed. V.D. Chernyak.
- M .: Higher. school; S.-Pb.: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University im. A.I. Herzen, 2002.
ISBN 5-06-004205-7 (High School)
ISBN 5-8064-0483-8 (Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen)
The textbook is built in accordance with the new functional orientations of the discipline "Russian Language and Culture of Speech" and aims not only to develop students' speech competence, but also to expand their understanding of the Russian language, the modern speech situation, and the speech portrait of our contemporary. The book contains theoretical material and a large number of practical tasks for classroom and independent work of students. The authors consider the aspects of the existence of the Russian word that are relevant for speech behavior, the norms of Russian speech, the stylistic aspects of speech culture, the basics of speech communication.
The textbook is intended for students of higher educational institutions in the discipline "Russian language and culture of speech". The book can be useful to anyone who is interested in the current state of the Russian language and wants to actively improve the quality of their speech.
BBK 81.2 Rus-5ya73
ISBN 5-06-004205-7 © Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Publishing House" Higher School ", 2002
ISBN 5-8064-0483-8
INTRODUCTION
The introduction of the new discipline "Russian Language and Speech Culture" into the educational standards of higher educational institutions is a significant and natural fact. A society in which freedom of speech has become recognized as one of the highest values has come to understand that the knowledge of the native language, the ability to communicate, conduct a harmonious dialogue and achieve success in the communication process are important components of professional skills in various fields of activity. In whatever field a specialist with a higher education works, he must be an intelligent person, freely navigating in a rapidly changing information space. The culture of speech is not only an indispensable component of well-trained business people, but also an indicator of the culture of thinking, as well as the general culture. The well-known linguist T. G. Vinokur very accurately defined speech behavior as "a visiting card of a person in society."
For a long time, the culture of speech was considered only in the aspect of mastering the norms of the Russian literary language. Many manuals on the culture of speech are built in these orientations. On the other hand, the revival of interest in rhetoric and the inclusion of this discipline in university programs contributed to a shift in emphasis towards the study of speech genres and speech behavior.
The characteristic of the culture of speech, given in the collective monograph "Culture of speech and the effectiveness of communication" (M., 1996), reflects the multidimensionality of this concept and defines guidelines for the content of the academic discipline: "Culture of speech is such a set and such an organization of language means that in a certain situation of communication, while observing modern language norms and ethics of communication, make it possible to ensure the greatest effect in achieving the set communicative tasks.
The university course "Russian Language and Culture of Speech" is unique: it is studied by students of different levels of general cultural and language training, who receive education in various specialties. The textbook is built taking into account the various requests of potential recipients.
The authors of the textbook proceed from the principle of variability in the content of the course. It is fundamentally important that in all sections of the textbook materials are presented that allow building work both with students of a high level of language and speech competence, and with those who have difficulty either in following the norms of oral and written speech, or in effective communication in various fields. The textbook should help to implement this principle and contribute to:
- a qualitative increase in the level of speech culture;
The formation of communicative competence, which means the ability of a person to organize his speech activity by language means and methods that are adequate to situations of communication;
Expansion of the cultural level, enrichment of ideas about the language as the most important component of the spiritual wealth of the people;
The formation of skills to evaluate speech behavior and speech works in various areas of communication.
The content of the textbook ensures the performance of its various functions: informing, teaching, developing, reference. Each section of the textbook contains informative and educational parts, assignments and literature for discussion in the audience (mainly these are publications of the popular science magazine "Russian speech", in an accessible form covering the most relevant phenomena of the Russian language and Russian speech). At the end of the textbook is a list of recommended literature that will help deepen and expand knowledge on the topics studied. Much attention is paid to the formation of the need and skills to use dictionaries. Dictionaries recommended for active use should certainly accompany the work with the textbook.
A distinctive feature of the textbook is its appeal to the modern language situation, to the language of today with all its advantages and disadvantages.
The compilers of the textbook will consider their task completed if the students studying it begin to pay great attention to the purity and correctness of their speech, enjoy the language game, and be able to feel like a creative language person, for whom their native language is also a reliable tool in various fields. activities, and a faithful assistant, and a good friend.
I. MODERN SPEECH SITUATION
Language is a powerful means of regulating people's activities in various fields, so the study of the speech behavior of a modern person, understanding how a person owns the richness of the language, how effectively he uses it, is a very important and urgent task. The poet Lev Oshanin in a lyrical miniature conveyed those emotional sensations that arise during speech "failures" (one of the most typical speech errors is played up in the poem):
I dialed the number
But so deep
Unusual, personal
It seemed
All my life I've dreamed of this.
It's quiet, but it's about to sound
Just touch...
And suddenly I hear:
"Where are you calling!?"
And immediately, as if hail through the window,
It's like I was robbed in a movie.
- Oh, girl, I'm sorry -
Don't call, call! -
And she answered: "Does it matter."
She does not care. Gone. Broke off.
Every educated person must learn to evaluate speech behavior - his own and those of his interlocutors, to correlate his speech actions with a specific communication situation.
Today, the speech of our contemporaries attracts more and more attention of journalists, scientists of various specialties (linguists, philosophers, psychologists, sociologists), writers, teachers, it becomes the subject of heated discussions among ordinary Russian speakers. Feeling speech problems, they try to answer the question of what is the reason for the disturbing state of speech culture. The age-old Russian questions “what to do?” and "who is to blame?" quite natural in relation to the Russian language and Russian speech.
In the in-depth study “The Russian Language of the End of the 20th Century (1985–1995)”, an attempt was made to highlight the most significant features of the Russian language of the end of the century. It notes:
“The events of the second half of the 80s - early 90s are similar to the revolution in their impact on society and language. The state of the Russian language of our time is determined by a number of factors.
1. The composition of participants in mass and collective communication is expanding dramatically: new strata of the population are joining the role of speakers, the role of writers for newspapers and magazines. Since the late 80s, thousands of people with different levels of speech culture have received the opportunity to speak publicly.
2. In the media, censorship and auto-censorship, which previously largely determined the nature of speech behavior, are sharply weakened.
3. Increasing personal start in speech. Faceless and unaddressed speech is replaced by personal speech, it acquires a specific addressee. Increasing bioavailability communication, both oral and written.
4. Expanding scope spontaneous communication not only personal, but also oral public. People no longer give or read pre-written speeches. They say.
5. Important parameters of the flow of oral forms of mass communication are changing: the possibility of a direct appeal of the speaker to the listeners and feedback from the listeners to the speakers is created.
6. Situations and genres of communication are changing both in the field of public and in the field of personal communication. Rigid limits of official public communication are weakened. Many new genres of oral public speech are born in the field of mass communication. The dry radio and TV announcer has been replaced by a presenter who reflects, jokes, and expresses his opinion.
7. The psychological rejection of the bureaucratic language of the past (the so-called Newspeak).
8. There is a desire to develop new means of expression, new forms of imagery, new types of appeals to strangers.
9. Along with the birth of the names of new phenomena, there is a revival of the names of those phenomena that return from the past, banned or rejected in the era of totalitarianism ”(Russian language of the end of the 20th century. M., 1996).
The freedom and emancipation of speech behavior entails the loosening of linguistic norms, the growth of linguistic variability (instead of one acceptable form of a linguistic unit, different variants turn out to be acceptable).
An accurate description of the current state of the Russian language from the standpoint of a lexicographer (compiler of dictionaries), for whom it is always fundamentally important to separate the singular and random from the regular and promising for the language, is given by G. N. Sklyarevskaya: “We have a unique opportunity to observe and study the language at the time of its rapid and, it seems, catastrophic changes: all natural processes in it are accelerated and mismatched, hidden mechanisms are revealed, the action of language models is exposed, in the mass consciousness, the observed language processes and facts are assessed as destructive and disastrous for the language. Such dynamics and such tension of all linguistic processes give the impression of linguistic chaos, although in reality they provide precious and rare material for linguistic discoveries. (Sklyarevskaya G.N. Russian language of the late XX century: version of the lexicographic description // Dictionary. Grammar. Text. M., 1996).
Mass media have a special influence on the state of speech culture. Each person daily experiences the powerful impact of television speech, speech that sounds on the radio or presented on the pages of newspapers and magazines. The quality of this speech evokes an immediate emotional response. It is newspapers and magazines, radio and television for many native speakers that serve as the main source of ideas about the language norm, they form the language taste; many diseases of the language are rightly associated with the mass media.
Linguistic emancipation, at times turning into unbridledness, replication of linguistic errors that do not meet with a proper rebuff, dull the sense of linguistic responsibility. Sloppy speech, adherence to cliches, the desire to cover up the banality of thought with “prestigious” words and phrases are found in numerous statements that sound on radio waves and from TV screens. Many broadcasts, primarily addressed to young people, undermine the notion of what is acceptable and unacceptable in public speech.
The modern periodical press is replete with unmotivated borrowings, ineptly formed occasional words (single author's neoplasms), jargon. The removal of ideological prohibitions, the desire to update the lexical and stylistic resources of journalism determine the high degree of looseness of the mass media. “The constant presence of jargon in written texts leads to their “freezing”, as if stabilizing them, literaryizing and, of course, reducing their jargon” (Kostomarov V. G. Language taste of the era. M, 1994).
Twenty years ago, D.S. Likhachev first used the concept, which was quite new at that time ecology in an unusual context - "ecology of culture", "moral ecology". He wrote: “... Ecology cannot be limited only to the tasks of preserving the natural biological environment. No less important for a person's life is the environment created by the culture of his ancestors and himself. The preservation of the cultural environment is a task no less important than the preservation of the natural environment.” In recent years, the question of the ecology of language, directly related to the consciousness of a person, with the defining properties of his personality, has been increasingly raised; the ecology of language is an integral part of the ecology of culture.
"Pollution of the language environment", which occurs with the active participation of the media, cannot but have a detrimental effect on the speech culture of a native speaker. Here it is appropriate to recall the words of S. M. Volkonsky, who wrote back in the 20s of the XX century: “The feeling of language (if I may say so, the feeling of the purity of the language) is a very subtle feeling, it is difficult to develop and very easy to lose. The slightest shift in the direction of slovenliness and irregularity is enough for this slovenliness to become a habit, and, as a bad habit, as such it will flourish. After all, it is in the nature of things that good habits require practice, while bad habits develop themselves. (Volkonsky S. M. O Russian language // Russian speech. 1992. No. 2).
Today, the ability to conduct a dialogue is becoming one of the most important characteristics of a person as a social phenomenon. A significant increase in the role of oral speech in the structure of communication, the expansion of its functions have significantly changed the idea of the reference qualities of a speaker. Oral (meaning freer) verbal communication determines many qualities of speech that are found at different levels.
The well-known linguist academician Yu. D. Apresyan writes that the level of speech culture of a society (and, consequently, the state of the language) is determined by the relative weight of different types of language proficiency:
1. High art of the word, presented in first-class literature. This level of language proficiency can be seen as an aesthetic ideal.
2. Good artisanal (i.e. professional) language skills, represented by good journalism and good translations.
3. Intelligent command of the language, which is dominated by a healthy conservative beginning.
4. Semi-educated command of the language, "combined with poor command of thought and logic."
5. Urban vernacular, youth jargon (Apresyan Yu. D. On the state of the Russian language // Russian speech. 1992. No. 2).
The author emphasizes that it is the fourth type, which embodies the “speech inferiority” complex of a native speaker, his attempts to imitate cultural speech, attachment to ideological clichés, that is fraught with a destructive beginning.
The speech portrait of a linguistic personality is largely determined by the richness of its lexicon. It is this that ensures the freedom and efficiency of speech behavior, the ability to fully perceive and process information received in verbal form. The speech situation at the turn of the century is characterized, on the one hand, by the active enrichment of the dictionary (a stream of borrowings, adaptation of terminological vocabulary by ordinary consciousness, the promotion of jargon units into the literary language), and on the other hand, the impoverishment of certain fragments of the dictionary, largely due to a change in the circle of reading, deverbalization of culture. .
Understanding the language environment is naturally associated with the place that a book and, more broadly, a written text occupies in modern society. The range of texts read and studied has a great influence on the formation of personality. In the process of reading, we do not just perceive texts. Their fragments are appropriated by a person, the processed words and phrases form a lexicon. The quantity and quality of the texts read are directly reflected in those speech works that a native speaker creates in various areas of communication.
Philosophers and psychologists today speak with great concern about the expansion of screen culture, which is replacing the culture of reading. As you know, a reading person thinks differently, has a large vocabulary, but the features of a linguistic personality are determined not only by the quantity, but also by the quality of what is read; the properties of the created speech works depend on the properties of regularly processed texts, they are the result of their processing. The outstanding literary critic and philosopher M. M. Bakhtin wrote that "the individual speech experience of every person is formed and developed in continuous and constant interaction with other people's individual statements."
The questionnaire, which was answered by tenth graders from three Moscow schools, testifies to a sad fact: dozens of names that create a multidimensional field of culture mean nothing to today's schoolchildren, because they are simply not familiar to them. A crack in the mutual understanding of generations is growing. This cannot but affect the ability to communicate, to conduct a constructive dialogue. The common language of culture is created on the basis of those texts that have already formed the linguistic consciousness of generations.
The writer I. Volgin notes with concern: “There is some kind of secret connection between the weakened grammar and our disintegrated life. The confusion in cases and the monstrous confusion of stresses signal a certain inferiority of being. Behind the flaws of syntax, defects of the soul are suddenly revealed.<...>Damage to language is, among other things, damage to life, unable to express itself in clear grammatical forms and therefore always ready to retreat into the zone of the accidental and lawless. Language is the unwritten constitution of the state, non-compliance with the spirit of which leads to the death of any (including spiritual) power ”(Lit. newspaper. 1993. No. 34). In the author's opinion, many native speakers of the Russian language, including "future intellectuals" receiving higher education, have lost their natural sense of shame for gross errors in written texts; in the general "festival of verbal freedom" those who, by the nature of their activity, should defend the ideals of the national verbal culture, also participate.
In different speech spheres, there is a noticeable impoverishment of speech at the lexical level, its truncation - at the level of constructing an utterance, negligence - at the phonetic and morphological levels. There is a clear decrease in the overall level of speech culture in the media, in professional and everyday communication. N. G. Komlev writes more categorically about this: “People use a variety of linguistic means in microscopic sizes. The culture of speech impact has fallen to its lowest point. Russian speech catastrophically lags behind the high canons of Russian literature. It is becoming more and more primitive, stylistically helpless and often vulgar” (Lit. newspaper, 1997, October 8).
The intensive growth of borrowings in the last decade largely determines the speech portrait of a young Russian at the end of the 20th century. On the one hand, this is manifested in the natural internationalization of the terminological apparatus of modern science being mastered, in familiarization with modern technologies (the rapid enrichment of that part of the lexicon that is associated with computer technology is especially indicative), on the other hand, in the unjustified Americanization of everyday speech.
Yu. N. Karaulov emphasizes that “the introduction of foreign words comes from the laziness of the mind, the conservatism of the thinking of the speaker and writer, from the unwillingness to “stir up” the resources of the native language and look into its storerooms, and sometimes, however, from the desire for elitism in the text, from the pride of one who knows foreign languages in front of those who do not know them. All these are petty human weaknesses that lend themselves to educational and explanatory influence. (Karaulov Yu. N. On some features of the current state of the Russian language and science about it // Russian Studies Today. 1995. No. 1). These words are quite applicable to the speech behavior of a modern linguistic personality and characterize, first of all, a “semi-educated” type of language proficiency. The socio-psychological factors that explain the widespread use of borrowings include the perception of a foreign word as more prestigious, its connection with an elite culture. The incomprehensibility of a foreign word, the opacity of its internal form often weaken the mechanisms of speech control and lead to communication failures.
So, our contemporary, free and liberated in his speech, should not forget about linguistic responsibility: it is with the help of language that cultural and intellectual wealth is transmitted from generation to generation, it is a good command of the native language that gives the individual the opportunity to fully realize himself in the profession and in creativity; the quality of the language environment testifies to the spiritual health of society.
TASKS
Substantiate and confirm with specific examples the factors identified by linguists that characterize the current state of Russian speech.
Read the reflections on the state of the Russian language of writers - our contemporaries. What characteristics can you agree with, what are you ready to argue with? Give examples from modern media, popular literature, advertisements and other types of text that would support your point of view.
1. A simple-hearted news giver, without any irony, reported recently from TV: "During his visit to the Island of Freedom, the Pope declared ..." - meaning a visit to Cuba. From the continuation of the phrase it followed that the pope protested against the infringement on the island of precisely freedoms and rights. It's an oxymoron. But completely involuntary. If you ask the commentator, it turns out that he is not at all mistaken about the freedoms of citizens under the endless dictatorship of Pope Castro, but such a nickname stuck to Cuba in other times and still does not come off despite all the changes in ideological milestones. Habit is straight up bullshit.
Employees of the Russian special services are thoughtlessly called "Chekists". Most of the users of this term do not approve of the Bolshevik terror in the least - they just do not hear the ominous connotation of this word.
The state of nature is now commonly referred to as "ecology". A quite competent TV presenter reports with a sympathetic intonation: “Our report is from a village where the environment is a mortal danger.” In this case, in view of a possible collision with an asteroid, "astronomy" is a mortal danger, and even for our modern language, "philology" undoubtedly lurks in a mortal danger. The era of catastrophes affects the representatives of the most meek professions. And then the music critic reported on the radio with her indescribable intelligent intonation: “The Carmen Suite by Bizet-Shchedrin turned out to be at the epicenter of the concert.” And God himself ordered party and state leaders to constantly be in the “epicenter” of events ...
Applicants for elective vacancies have to show voters a little bit of "charisma" - from a simple Russian word ... from the word "face". And it's understandable: they meet you by the face, in Russia they always knew this, and native charismas look rather ludicrous on all screens, thanks to the make-up artists and um ... image makers. And if you hopelessly didn’t come out with charisma, there’s nothing to meddle in the Kalash row. In Okhotny - even more so.
The reality of our time has pretty much shaken the nerves of citizens, and therefore every sensitive person is constantly “in shock”. There was even, if I may say so, a positive shock, for example: "After the victory of their national team, the fans are in shock." Clearly from joy.
"Genocide" positively does not threaten us, but even the most moderate troubles are easily erected into "genocide". Impressive Russian patriotic leaders called "genocide" the difficulties experienced in Latvia by the "non-citizens" there. Difficulties, of course, are observed, but still one should not equate denials of citizenship with massacres. The memory of the victims of Stalin's or Hitler's genocide is offended, of course, by such a devaluation of fascist crimes, but perhaps this is also included in the calculation ....
The fashion for words is much more sticky than for dresses, because changing the wardrobe will be expensive, and fashionable words are acquired for nothing. Today the word "elite" in the sense in which it is used in English is fashionable. And now they count politicians and businessmen in the "elite", that is, people who are rich and successful in their careers; political scientists importantly talk about the relationship of "local elites", which include frankly dark personalities. But in Russia, the elite has always been called the bearers of the highest culture and spirituality - just in contrast to ministers and millionaires. The loss of this shade, the transformation into an elite of vulgar upstarts means a disregard for spiritual values, even if the zealous repeaters of the current word do not think of anything like that.
In the same way, the word "problem" acquired an English content. In Russian, it invariably meant a deep question of universal or national significance: “the problem of searching for extraterrestrial civilizations” excited the imagination for centuries, “problems of agriculture” remained chronically insoluble, as well as “problems of youth”. Now English tracing papers do not leave the language: “what is the problem?”, “no problem”, “this is your problem”, “I have problems with the refrigerator” ...
The expression - figuratively, of course - "public flogging" has become very common. Either, according to a political observer, the president is going to give the government a "public flogging", then the Duma, and the minister himself, sometimes do not mind declaring in the first person: "I was flogged" ... (M. Eccentrics. Style of these days // Lit. newspaper. 1998. July 15).
2. Pushkin is hard to read by the new generation - it is almost not their language. But just a decade ago, the language of Belkin's Tales and The Captain's Daughter was the "norm of life." There has been a huge infusion of Americanisms and technicalisms into our speech. Our television spoke with an American accent. But the point is not in specific words, but in style - this is now a very recognizable style of sketches, chopped business speech that sounds interlinear from English.
Another huge poisonous infusion is camp jargon. Over the past fifty years of our history, millions and millions of people have passed through the camp system, every second of our citizens has come into contact with this prison-camp system in one way or another. Camp jargon has already become the basis of modern vernacular, it has penetrated into literature and even more into culture.
Blat speech, coupled with Americanisms - this is the new business Russian language, in which we do not read, but live and work day by day, is a prototype of social thinking. Language is an ideal tool for controlling the consciousness not of an individual, but of the whole society. The criminal world is really trying to control our consciousness, society, and the most vital interest of this world is the destruction of the cultural layer, because only an uncultured people can be controlled by all these thieves in law, authorities and godfathers. But, having spoken to them with concepts, drunk on this thieves' poison, we will not be “brothers” for them and not even people, but “fraera”, “sixes” (Oleg Pavlov // Twinkle. 1998. No. 7).
3. A special language, as a means of creating a new context, is widely used in various fields of human activity, primarily forming a new ethical environment, freeing from traditional obligations and forcing the development of new ones.<...>
Why do criminals use their own special vocabulary?
For conspiracy? But the "fenya" just does not hide, but betrays the criminal. So, to recognize "their"? It's faster. "Thieves' Fenya" is stable and conservative almost more than the language of politicians.
The word in the national, natural language carries not only worldly, denoting meaning, but also fixes the moral experience of the people.
Murderer. Rapist. Robber. Bandit. Scammer.
This is not just a designation of persons and the nature of the activity, but also an assessment and a sentence. That is why in the thieves' dictionary there are a hundred synonyms for the word "murderer". And how many synonyms for the words "kill", "steal", "deceive", "thief", "prostitute" ... These synonyms lead the criminal fraternity out of the moral context traditional for our people, free from moral assessment.<...>
How amazingly our great writers heard all the shades that reveal the ethical diversity of seemingly similar tautological concepts. To Raskolnikov of a strange appearance and habits, the stranger threw: "The killer." Not a "murderer", but a "murderer". And if the terrible word “murderer” bears on itself, as it were, the uniform of a judicial-protocol, newspaper-reporting guise, then “murderer” is the word “for life”, this is already a stigma, a curse, a sentence of conscience. All the endless, almost brilliant verbosity of Porfiry Petrovich in conversations with Raskolnikov, the exposure and denunciation of the murderer is not able to outweigh the ethical weight of the sentence - "murderer".
Why are we so persistently asked to call hired killers "killers"? Fashion? Of course, the fashion too, but the fashion for shamelessness, for cynicism, for taming a new morality: "in the whole civilized world they kill." There is no evaluation in this foreign word, it is, as it were, on a par with such neutral, non-moral words “dealer”, “colour”, this seems to be service terminology: janitor, painter, carpenter
Moving to a new context, to emigration, begins, first of all, with immersion in a new vocabulary, and this is where the “revaluation of values” begins ...
This is very convenient - to put the inhabitants of their country, their city in the position of emigrants, staring at incomprehensible signs, hearing foreign speech, not knowing how to ask what to call. City halls, prefectures, municipalities, killers, dealers, racketeers... This is a dusty bag, which is primarily operated by those who do not want, or maybe are afraid, that its activities be called simply and distinctly in a language that has absorbed experience nation, including the moral (Kuraev M. Journey from Leningrad to St. Petersburg. SPb., 1996. S. 127–132).
4 . Language (as a way of communication) is a living phenomenon. It is constantly changing - well, right before our eyes. The only bad thing is that linguistic innovations at first cut the ear pampered by the literary norm - like a fork on glass!
Literally over the past year, the modest formerly prepositional form “about that” began its victorious march. So, under conditions of pollution, blue-green algae, previously inconspicuous, suddenly begin to multiply in water bodies.
- I do not rule out that prices will rise.
Although it is so convenient not to exclude the possibility that prices will still be kept at an affordable level.
- Intimidation about...
Although before they preferred to intimidate with whom and with what.
- No evidence to support...
- I hid about...
Illiteracy carries some mysterious temptation. Someone was the first to dare to simplify the grammar: well, why, indeed, indulge the intelligibility, even the fastidiousness of Russian verbs: “stated that” is correct, but “proved that” - you see, no. And the people in unison rushed after the brave leader, widening the gap in the wall of rules erected by pedants!
But for some reason, there has never been an epidemic spread of the norm of the Maly Theater. "Cottage cheese" is unable to oust "cottage cheese".
Separately, there is still political illiteracy. A Ukrainian patriot and just a politician, speaking as if in Russian, will never admit that he lives "in Ukraine." No. he resides "in Ukraine". The patriot is offended: “in Russia”, “in Belarus”, even “in Moldova”, although it is very small, and Ukraine is discriminated against through the preposition “on”. And now I am anxiously waiting for this charming subtlety of the language to be erased, confirming that (but not "about") that the language is becoming large-block or something - like modern construction, in which small charming architectural details are unprofitable - cast lattices, stucco molding, skates roofs...
After all, what is typical. When I first heard:
- We will be able to prove to the Russian authorities that ... - I was just thrown up - as if on a language bump.
And after the hundredth repetition in the same way:
- We are indignant that ... - I almost do not resent. I'm getting used to it.
It looks like a new normal is being born.
And maybe it's even good. Because if you wish and have a certain taste, you can arrogantly follow the norm of the old, discarded by the masses - and thereby move away from the surrounding rough life, locking yourself in your own stylistic shell. Much cheaper than an ivory tower (Mikhail Chulaki.“Indignant about what is said” // Lit. newspaper. 1999. No. 11).
5. The Russian language is one of the richest in the world. A misfortune has happened: he becomes impoverished and dead before our eyes (and in our ears). If it is enriched with something alive, then only with well-aimed thieves or semi-thieves words, and besides them - with dry, dead political terms. (The term is a mortified word, devoid of shades, smell, taste, devoid of expressiveness and power, suitable only for Esperanto.) The very foundation collapses: additions die off, for some reason the names of localities and numerals do not decline. Why did they begin to say: “they have five children”, and not “five”? - Why: “I did not have one hundred and twenty-three rubles”, and not “one hundred and twenty-three”? Schoolchildren, teaching literacy, are apparently not taught the names of letters - hence “ne”, “me”, “se”, “sy”, “fe”. (By the way: for the first time I heard these “ne” and “me” from the prison window in 1937. The jailer asks again: “Ne” or “Me”? ..) ” instead of “accept”, “deepen” instead of “deepen”, “aggravate” instead of “aggravate”, “begin” instead of “begin”, etc., etc., without end. "Facilitate" instead of "facilitate", "intention" instead of "intention" ... "Dogma" instead of "dogma", "community" instead of "community", "sign" instead of "sign".
There are more than enough foreign words that have flooded into the Russian language. In essence, there is nothing wrong with this. The Russian language has long grown foreign roots next to its roots. This is what Pushkin did. But at the present time it is already a stream, a flood. Among the newly acquired terms, there are those that, of course, meet the requirements of the new social reality: for example, the concept of "sponsor" could not exist under socialism, under Soviet rule, there was no need for it, but now such a concept has arisen, it does not exist in the language - why not to take? - but we do not need many, many foreign words at all. The speaker thinks it is more intelligent to say "exclusive" or "consensus" instead of "exclusive" or "consent". And the intelligentsia, observing this deadly stream, is itself choked with it. (She does not fulfill her cherished duty: to make a selection.) But the trouble is by no means only in foreigners. The trouble is deeper. They jumped from the places of the prefix and rushed at random to innocent nouns and verbs. The prefix “by” triumphs: “wash”, “wash”, “stroke”, “change” (instead of “wash”, “wash”, “ironed”, “exchange”, “exchange”, “replace”, “change ”, “exchange”, “exchange”). Why instead of "I did not consider it possible" they began to say "I did not consider it possible"? Why, instead of sorting out “in this matter,” they began to say “with this matter” ... And declensions, I repeat, declensions! “I live in Odintsovo”, “I live in Kratovo” - why not in Odintsovo, not in Kratovo? "The shelling of Sarajevo continues." Why not Sarajevo? (It’s just a problem with declensions: “arms control” says “arms control”; instead of “drug smuggling” - “drug smuggling” ...).
“God, God, what happened? / Why did everything around / spun, spun / And rushed like a wheel?- Korney Ivanovich asked in a children's fairy tale and on a completely different occasion.
K. Chukovsky did not live up to all this collapse, although he named the name of the main disease of the bureaucratic state: clerk. (From the word "office" by analogy with "diphtheria", "appendicitis", etc.). He laughed sadly at such turns of speech: "we are planning for the summer in the Crimea" instead of "we are going to the Crimea." (“Does every family have its own Gosplan?” he asked). He laughed bitterly when people in his presence flaunted unnecessary foreign words and, using them, thought that they were joining them to education. (What would he say now: “image”, “summit”? After all, we have Russian words for these concepts.) Maria Stepanovna comes to my mind, our dear, glorious worker, an illiterate Russian village woman from under Orel. How beautifully, picturesquely she spoke, told! But now, having once seen pigeons swarming among the flowers, Maria Stepanovna uttered the immortal phrase: “We need them otteda cancel "...
The phrase is very characteristic of modern speech. “Kill out”, “drive out” is too simple, rustic, but if you say “annul” - and you are already educated.
And the words stuck together, and the confusion in the very meaning of the word: “painting” (i.e., wall painting, frescoes) got mixed up with “signature” and “receipt” ... “We need another one of your paintings,” the accountant will tell you in any institution. The meanings of the words “humanitarian” and “humane” are tightly mixed up - and yet they have different meanings. The words "graceful", "grace" used to mean "graceful", "grace", and now they mean "thin", "thin". The word "gain" meant "get well" and now means "put on weight."
And the hairdresser's obsequiousness! "Put your purse on the windowsill." “Can you tell me what time it is?” instead of "Tell me, please, what time is it?". (It seems more polite to them.)
The intelligentsia, I repeat, have lost their immunity. Doesn't select. He is in a hurry to “accept” that swill, which the street, radio, newspaper, TV treat us all day and night. (At the time of glasnost, brilliant and fearless publicists appeared in our country, but I’m not talking about them.) “After the third round voting agreed for an introduction to agreement paragraph on the annulment of this proposal from there "... (Why not "otteda"?) Or: "There were fierce battles on the border during the day, but by evening the situation calmed down." Listen to your speech, broadcasters! How can the situation calm down? Is the situation a machine-gun fire?
I am far from thinking that the drastic changes that take place in the language occur by chance or "by mistake." Well, of course, a lot comes from elementary illiteracy. But in general, this is a complex process, subject to study not by an amateur like me, but by the community of sociologists and linguists. Especially sociologists. (How, for example, to coordinate pronouns and verbs with masculine nouns in some cases? “My doctor ordered” ... For me it sounds unbearable - like “my rook has arrived.” The word “rook” is masculine - where does “mine” come from? and "arrived"? Well, "my doctor said" - what's better? Isn't it just as unnatural? The only way out is to urgently give the name, patronymic, or at least the surname of the doctor, or, at worst, invent it: "My doctor , Nina Mikhailovna, ordered me "... Here all the words are agreed. I see no other way to escape from this hole. To say: "doctor" - for some reason it is insulting; to say "doctor" - it will mean "doctor's wife").
But I can lengthen and lengthen the list of my persistent questions ... Why, for example, people who inherited the surname "Ivanov" from their ancestors - suddenly and all at once preferred to call themselves "Ivanovs"? I don’t find anything bad in this, but why is every Ivanov now an Ivanov? Or: why were all translators, leaders, chairmen turned into translators, leaders, chairmen? Why did all female correspondents become correspondents? It's easy to understand: in recent decades, many professions that were previously held only by men have also been mastered by women. There were women engineers, women architects, women economists, women doctors. It was: "translator Vera Zvyagintseva." It became: "translator Vera Zvyagintseva." From this, the translations themselves are no better and no worse, but why?
I'm silent. I will wait until "actress" turns into "actor", "singer" into "singer", and "dancer" into "dancer". I have one question left: are you alive - alive like life? (Chukovsky Lydia. My rook has arrived... // Nevskoe Vremya. 1996. January 10).
Similar information.
"Speech situation" is the basic concept of the science of linguo-pragmatics, which studies the use of language by a person in order to influence the perceiver of speech (addressee), as well as behavior in the process of communication through speech.
What influences this behavior and its characteristics in a particular person? It turns out that there are many factors and reasons on which it depends. Their totality is usually called a speech situation.
The main components of the speech situation
Communicative and speech situation are synonymous. Its main components are: participants in communication and their relationships, as well as internal and external conditions of communication.
Communication settings can be formal or informal. By the nature of the situation, communication is divided into business (lecture, report, discussion) and everyday (conversations with relatives, friends). The characteristics of the addressee include the number of listeners, role-playing and communicative relations between them. According to the number of participants, monologue (speech of one person), dialogue (a conversation between two people) and polylogue (a conversation between several participants) are distinguished.
The goal pursued by the speech situation is communication as such (entertainment), communication (information) or influence (persuasion, motivation, explanation, etc.).
Secondary components of the speech situation
In addition to the above main factors that affect the nature of speech, its features, as well as the speech behavior of the participants in communication, one can also distinguish such factors as the degree of remoteness of the interacting parties from each other, the degree of their acquaintance (here we can distinguish between direct and indirect communication, for example , telephone conversation and speech in the media), the presence of observers, etc. But these factors are secondary, in contrast to the main, or constituent, factors of the speech situation.
Let us consider in more detail the main components that the speech situation has, the types and features of each of them.
Situation
The setting can be formal or informal. The official setting means the special legal significance that this speech situation represents. This is due to the fact that certain people - individuals - express the interests of various legal entities (enterprises, firms), as well as the fact that they act on behalf of these individuals in the process of business meetings and negotiations.
Formal communication takes place in a special service room - a reception room, an office, a conference room, etc. It can also be intra-corporate, taking place at meetings, meetings, boards of directors (protocol business communication).
Requirements for speech etiquette in a formal setting
The official setting involves the fulfillment of the requirements of the relevant norms of etiquette in speech behavior. These include:
Mandatory two-way to the interlocutor, regardless of what age and social category he belongs to;
Strict adherence to the norms of the etiquette frame of communication (standard and farewells);
The use of generally accepted forms of politeness provided for by etiquette ("be kind", "allow me ...", "be kind", etc.).
The official setting implies compliance with the requirements for the vocabulary of the participants in communication - it should not include jargon, swear words, vernacular words, as well as dialectisms.
There are also special requirements regarding the pronunciation of words. It is necessary to adhere to the literary type of pronunciation, speak clearly, clearly. It is unacceptable to speak in a tongue twister, mutter, carelessly draw up a speech. It is necessary to pronounce, for example, not [kada], but [when]; not [hello "e], but [hello" e].
The main tone during strict formal conversations should remain restrained, calm, and in less strict conversations, benevolent, calm, affable is appropriate.
An informal atmosphere is typical for presentations, business meetings outside the office, anniversaries, everyday communication in a team. The participants in the conversation feel much freer when choosing various speech means than in a formal setting. That is, they apply the same norms and rules of speech behavior that are used in everyday life.
Requirements for speech etiquette in an informal setting
In this case, there are more loose rules:
An appeal to "you" or "you" is used, depending on the age, degree of acquaintance and position of the interlocutor;
Words of farewell and greeting are used;
The application of etiquette requirements is kept to a minimum.
However, despite the less stringent requirements for the selection of words, it remains undesirable to use lexical layers that are not recommended for use when there is an official speech situation.
The same goes for pronunciation.
The degree of acquaintance of the participants is the main determining factor in speech behavior in an informal setting. When communicating with unfamiliar or unfamiliar people, essentially the same etiquette requirements apply as in formal communication. Even if there is an "outsider" (client, visitor), people who are in the same room with him should use the rules of official communication.
This rule is not applicable only for any rank (employees of departments and ministries). For them, official communication should be the only one (the speech situation, types and nuances of interaction may change). Representatives of the authorities are unacceptable to use informal as a working environment. Strict hierarchical relations do not allow using the appeal to "you" during work.
Destination
The addressee factor is no less important in business communication than its conditions. This is the person to whom the speech of the speaker (addresser) is addressed (addressed). The choice of means of etiquette and communicative tactics depends on what kind of communicative and role relations the addresser enters with him.
For example, the areas in which management is implemented involve the performance of social roles by managers, which include:
Administrative activities of the company (organization);
Its external industrial relations;
various commercial relationships.
Entering into the interaction "leader" - "subordinate", "producer" - "consumer", "partner" - "partner", the head or manager formulates for himself certain principles on the basis of which interactions are built, develops their strategy.
Target settings
They are formed on the basis of which principle of communication is chosen as the leader in this area. The modern speech situation considers the principles of responsiveness in market relations, consensus in partnerships and equality in corporate relations to be the highest priority.
The principle of politeness is universal. However, there is a rich choice of speech means, the use of which may be different depending on the situation. For example, when addressing, the most important criterion for choosing a form is the social status of the person you are addressing.
Dear Vasily Vladimirovich!
Dear Mr. Kirillov!
Dear Igor Olegovich!
An indication of the social status of the addressee can be verbal (using the choice of words) and non-verbal (using the choice of intonation).
Social role and social status
The social position determines the social, service, material status, various merits. In the Russian tradition of business communication, gender differences are not emphasized, that is, a woman and a man with the same social status enjoy the same advantages.
Over the long years of Soviet power, a tradition of so-called pious appeal to superiors was formed. On the part of subordinates and other people with a lower status, fawning was often observed, sometimes even servility. When determining the social position, the modern speech situation especially takes into account the official position, but the attitude towards the authorities is still different. When communicating, personal achievements and merits of the addressee are also taken into account.
Social role and social status do not always coincide. Often in the modern era of market relations, a situation arises when partners are representatives of organizations that are in relation to the hierarchy (such as a subsidiary and a parent company).
The social role is the most important criterion for determining the communicative expectation that the interlocutor develops. So, the expectation of subordinates from the boss is politeness, correctness, caring, respect, sometimes patronage. Violation of the standards of speech behavior are aggression, the desire to attribute their mistakes to the account of a subordinate person. Unfortunately, it is worth noting that such blunders on the part of leaders still take place in our society.
Situations of speech etiquette may be different, but communication with a subordinate "on an equal footing" is a prerequisite in order to create a friendly and cohesive team that can effectively exist in a market competition.
Unlike social roles, communicative ones are changeable. Let's take an ordinary dialogue: the speech situation can change - the same person can be the addressee, addresser or observer.
Addresser
Etiquette speech situations necessarily provide for the addresser. The sender is the one who started the dialogue. The speech situation of communication can be very different (for example, it can be a speaker or a writer). Of course, tactically this is a beneficial role, since the addresser sets the pace, tone, and topic of communication. As a rule, he starts communication and he ends it. However, this does not mean that the addressee takes a passive position. Communication implies the active participation of all parties. The addressee can and should use reactive cues: "of course", "yes", "if I understand you correctly ...", "in other words, you think ...", etc. With the help of such cues, he can intercept the addressee's speech initiative, change roles.
The observer, oddly enough, is also an active position of a participant in communication, since, even without participating in the conversation, he nevertheless influences its course.
The presence of a visitor on the premises requires that internal business issues be resolved as quickly as possible.
Thus, as mentioned above, there are simply no passive participants in business communication; the speech situation defines each of the parties as an active subject. According to psycholinguists, listening is an even more intellectually intense process than speaking. That is why there are always breaks in the school and university schedule, and an experienced teacher knows that when you are teaching a lesson, the situation of verbal communication requires periodically making short pauses in order to maintain contact with the audience.
It should also be pointed out how important the personal-subjective factor is in communicative relations. After all, when communicating, we not only exchange information, but also convey our attitude towards it. This largely determines the reaction of the interlocutor to our behavior. For example, a lesson (the speech situation that we just described) should be conducted in such a way as to arouse the interest of the audience, to interest them, and not just to convey information. This is a necessary condition for students to properly master the material. Such educational and speech situations clearly illustrate how important the personal factor is in the process of communication.
Target
Goals can be urgent or long-term. For example, in business communication, long-term goals are realized in cooperation plans. It is possible to build constructive business relations only on the basis of mutual positive emotions - sympathy, trust, respect, goodwill, etc. That is why various invitations to celebrations, congratulations, letters of thanks, condolences, and so on are sent out.
You can inform the addressee about the state of affairs (another type of goal) using calls, letters, faxes, price lists, catalogs, etc.
Rules, instructions, orders, orders, complaints, demands, requests in oral and written form exist with the aim of influencing the addressee, inducing him to do something.
It often happens that the above goals are combined within one text (an example is a request letter that begins with a status report and ends with a request).
There are a lot of different speech situations, but their typical features can be noted, helping to navigate the choice of speech means of communication to achieve the goal. Such features are fixed in the field of business communication in oral speech (working meeting, telephone communication, etc.) and written speech contract, rules, license, etc.
Among the factors and conditions for the development of the modern Russian language (internal and external), in our opinion, the following can be distinguished:
1. The trend of general language development is towards democratization. The composition of participants in mass and collective communication has sharply expanded: new strata of the population are joining the role of speakers, the role of writers for newspapers and magazines. Since the late 80s, thousands of people with different levels of speech culture have received the opportunity to speak publicly.
2. Censorship and auto-censorship, which previously largely determined the nature of speech behavior, are sharply weakened in the media.
3. Increasing personal start in speech. Faceless and unaddressed speech is replaced by personal speech, it acquires a specific addressee. Increasing dialogue communication, both oral and written.
4. Expanding scope spontaneous communication not only personal, but also oral public. People no longer give or read pre-written speeches. They say!
5. Important parameters of the flow of oral forms of mass communication are changing: the possibility of a direct appeal of the speaker to the listeners and feedback from the listeners to the speakers is created.
Situations and genres of communication are changing both in the field of public and in the field of personal communication. Rigid limits of official public communication are weakened. Many genres of oral public speech are born in the sphere of mass communication. The dry radio and TV announcer has been replaced by a presenter who reflects, jokes, and expresses his opinion.
The psychological rejection of the bureaucratic language of the past is growing sharply.
There is a desire to develop new means of expression, new forms of imagery, new types of speech etiquette formulas (in particular, new types of appeals to strangers).
Along with the birth of the names of new phenomena, there is a revival of the names of those phenomena that return from the past, banned or rejected in the era of totalitarianism.
In the modern literary language, there is an intensive convergence of traditional book-written and oral means with everyday colloquial elements, urban vernacular, social and professional dialects. However, a certain emancipation of literary norms should not lead to their loosening or stylistic decline. As a normal and inevitable process, such emancipation creates conditions for the richness and diversity of all expressive means and, consequently, for the improvement of speech culture. At the same time, we are well aware that modern oral and written speech is stylistically reduced and coarsened The language of fiction tends to be faceless and standard (including the standards of the latest modernism and the underground) The language of science suffers from unnecessary complexity, an abundance of not always justified foreign borrowings in the field terminology Publicism sometimes sins with verbosity, indistinctness and inexpressiveness. The legitimate alarm of the public is caused by the argotic elements that have flooded into our press, which are uniformly used to “revive” texts. For example: download rights, in law(often in the headlines of articles), hang noodles on your ears, powder your brains, for free, hang out and many others. etc. Such a deliberate coarsening of speech, of course, is not directly related to the normal processes of democratization of the literary language and is rather a reflection and indicator of an insufficiently high level of speech and general culture of speakers and writers, a lack of linguistic taste.
Information material "young reader's corner"
Doctor who are far to destroy
Where to buy sulfuric acid?