Interrelation of student group cohesion and learning motivation. Expert assessment of the cohesion of the study group

O. B. Sirotinina

At first glance, it seems obvious that carriers of the elite type speech culture produce only good speech. As a consequence of this view, even the use of the term elite speech as a synonym and even an absolute synonym for the term good speech. However, this usage cannot be accepted.

Firstly, in modern Russian usage, the use of the concept elitist to denote something not only rare (and good speech is still not so a rare thing), the best (and besides good speech, excellent speech is also possible, obviously rarer than good, and better than good), but also for not reflected in explanatory dictionaries meaning (or rather, additional connotation) "something cut off from the people, incomprehensible to him" ( Well, this is elite art, we don’t understand it etc.). Good speech is just understandable, accessible.

Secondly, the bearer of the elite type of speech culture does not always produce good speech. Any type of speech culture creates the prerequisites for the production of speech of one quality or another, but these are only prerequisites, as a result, the speech itself can turn out to be good (and not only for an elite type of speaker, which is discussed in following sections), and bad. The quality of speech depends on many factors. Such a carrier of an elite type of speech culture cannot have good oral speech, who, due to congenital or acquired pathology of the speech organs, is not able to clearly pronounce certain sounds, use words in their meaning due to a brain injury, or speaks too slowly, without the necessary intonation. discharge (various forms of aphasia). The possibility of good speech in a deaf-mute speaker and even a completely deaf person (the impossibility of controlling the desired volume of speech), etc. is doubtful. functional styles in equal degree. Therefore, it may turn out that a specialist in some field, not being a carrier of an elite type, in this area produces a text that is superior in quality to a text produced by a carrier of an elite type of speech culture, but a non-specialist in this field. So, a lawyer will write a statement of claim better than the brightest representative of an elite speech culture who is not associated with jurisprudence, and a writer will write a story better than a lawyer, no matter what type of speech culture each of them belongs to.

From many psychological reasons depends on the degree of logic of speech, including even the quality of memory, the ability of a person to keep in mind what was said. The ways of representing reality (pictorial-iconic or rational-analytical) are also influenced by a person’s profession and the characteristics of his temperament, and not only by the degree of his communicative competence.

All of the above proves that there can be no direct identification of the quality of speech and the level of speech culture of its producer. However, it is also certain that equal conditions(one profession, one temperament, etc.) the speech of a carrier of an elite type of speech culture surpasses in its qualities the speech of a carrier of any other type.

The type of speech culture does not determine the quality of speech, but at the same time there is their potential interdependence. It is impossible to determine the type of speech culture by good speech, but it is possible by bad speech. By the nature of the errors, it is possible to determine the type of speech culture with a sufficiently high degree of probability, although not unconditionally, but possible.

To belong to one or another type of speech culture means to have a certain level of culture both general and verbal. Belonging to an elite type of speech culture, which is rarer and better than other types, means not only knowledge and possession of orthological and functional-style norms, but also the presence in the carrier of this type of a number of skills that are not so much related to speech as to psychological ones. : development of self-control skills (in general, and not just one’s speech), lack of self-confidence (in general, and not only in the correctness of one’s speech, and hence the habit of always and in everything checking oneself), respect for the interlocutor, partner and people in general, craving to all knowledge, to art, literature in their best manifestations etc.

And yet, all these qualities in a particular carrier of the elite type of speech culture are not all manifested in equally. The brightest representative of the elite type, judging by all the polls, who occupies the first place, is Academician D.S. Likhachev. Indeed, his speech in all respects was not only good, but also excellent. From all points of view, D.S. Likhachev, with his modesty, extremely sincere respect for people (and for the interlocutor in particular), with his highest common culture, erudition in the masterpieces of world classics, with his understanding and love for genuine masterpieces of fine and musical art, is the bearer of an elite type of speech culture.

In second place is usually called V.K. Molchanov, whose speech is also excellent. The situation is much more complicated with such representatives of the elite type of speech culture as, for example, A. I. Solzhenitsyn (see. illustrative examples his mastery of the possibilities of the Russian language in the section "Rhetorical organization of speech"). At the same time, by far not always in his communication there is due respect for the interlocutor, he often abuses in his public and artistic speech unconventional expressions, words and forms far from the modern Russian literary language (stealing, in a swamp of dispute, smearing the wheel axle), in his "Dictionary of the expansion of the Russian language" includes words that are not used by anyone and are hardly appropriate for general use (caption - story, spying - trivia, bookish - shaped like a book return - return Gift, shin - sissy, cezh - strained solution, machinist - artist, inventor, etc.), which rather testifies to the “average literary aggressiveness” of A. I. Solzhenitsyn, his self-confidence in his knowledge and the right to judge (including linguistic phenomena). When questioned, his belonging to the elite type rarely comes up and is never considered indisputable.

With doubts, such television journalists as E. A. Kiselev, S. I. Sorokina are referred to the elite type in surveys. It seems that there are reasons for doubts, although it is undeniable that both of them, if not fully carriers of this type of speech culture, are at least very close to it.

One of the indicators “for” in relation to S. I. Sorokina is not only the correctness of her speech, but also a pronounced respect for the interlocutor (it was especially noticeable in her programs “Hero of the Day” and in “Voice of the People” in comparison with the previous presenter - E. A. Kiselev), which is also manifested in her reactions to her own reservations - an apology, an embarrassed smile, an amendment, which, apart from her, perhaps none of the TV presenters does, although many are mistaken and much more often and unacceptable (for example, V Kiknadze said: after the terrible disaster in pacific ocean with the Titanic Vesti 3.02.2001, there was no correction or apology).

In relation to E. A. Kiselev, there are quite a few indicators “against”: obvious disrespect for the interlocutor, obvious increased self-confidence and self-admiration, numerous speech flaws (regular non-literary just now instead of "recently" - Voice of the people 07/04/2000, often in fig, they don’t understand a fig - The voice of the people! 1.04.200, inter - Results 24.12.2000, good- Voice of the people 07/16/2000, on a new - Results 13.02.2000, uttered not quite personal words - Results 4.07.99, "Experts - Results, 2.04.2000, about seven hundred Results, 05/14/2000. etc.).

Of the TV journalists, V. V. Pozner and N. K. Svanidze were doubtfully referred to the elite type of speech culture in surveys. Indeed, their speech is also very close to this type, although some violations of the norms are also found in them. Of course, none of the survey participants, who know journalists only from TV shows, can be expected to precise definitions belonging to one or another type of speech culture (it is impossible to check all the signs of the type of speech culture), but it is characteristic that it never occurred to anyone to attribute neither A. Sharapova, nor A. Lyubimov, nor, especially, V S. Chernomyrdin, B. N. Yeltsin, etc.

Of the politicians, V. V. Putin, V. A. Ryzhkov, A. B. Chubais, and G. A. Yavlinsky are usually named as belonging to the elite type (but with doubts) (in descending order of votes). Each of them has some flaws in speech (very rarely, but they occur even in the spontaneous speech of D.S. Likhachev, not to mention other representatives of the elite type). With regard to V.V. Putin (he was called a politician during the election period), one cannot be sure that his speech does not reflect the efforts of some image makers, speechwriters (although under the same conditions it never occurred to anyone to attribute speech B to the elite type . N. Yeltsin). The speech of V. A. Ryzhkov, indeed, is always bright, figurative and correct, reflects to a large extent the creative component, but sometimes it is not quite accessible to the addressee (voters) because of the very high syntactic complexity, rhetorical virtuosity, designed for intellectuals, and not for ordinary voters (as a rule, there are a large number of historical allusions in his speeches). G. A. Yavlinsky’s speech clearly claims to be called “elitist” (in the usual use of this word), but G. A. Yavlinsky’s speech culture is separated from the elite type of speech culture by narcissism, the absence of even a hint of criticism of himself, his behavior, his speech . Hence the constant violations of orthological norms (intention, contract, beginning), disrespect for the addressee, endless "yakane".

As already mentioned, belonging to an elite type of speech culture (even indisputable) does not guarantee that in any situation the speech of this person can be called good according to all the criteria for such speech. As an example, let us cite the impressions of AD Sakharov and Yu. N. Afanasyev's speeches at the First Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. Those who watched and listened to the live broadcasts of the congress remember, firstly, that A. D. Sakharov’s speech was not loud enough, very difficult (with many hesitation), not emotional enough, even monotonous, read the published transcript, the speech was both very emotional and very logical and clear. However, it was perceived poorly by ear, and this largely prevented A. D. Sakharov from establishing contact with the audience (of course, the often sounding obstruction of his speech by the “aggressively obedient majority” of the audience depended not only on the quality of speech, but it also contributed to this) .

A. D. Sakharov is the unconditional bearer of the elite type of speech culture, who was perfectly able to express his thoughts, but was accustomed mainly to written speech, and not to public, oral (this was facilitated by the facts of his biography and living conditions), besides the formation of oratorical qualities , probably, his state of health also interfered (in many ways also a consequence of life with constant hassle, force-feeding during hunger strikes, etc.), but the fact remains: A. D. Sakharov’s speeches at the congress were not good oral speech and therefore (including) were not perceived by the congress. During numerous objections from the seats and from the rostrum, he did not know how to change the mood of the hall, did not find new arguments, but only continued to repeat what was not accepted by the hall. This was due to the insufficient addressing of his speech (the addressee of his speeches was not sufficiently taken into account). There is no abstract good speech.

Approximately the same is the case with Yu. N. Afanasyev's speeches at this congress. Yu. N. Afanasiev is also an indisputable bearer of the elite type of speech culture, but unlike A. D. Sakharov, he is a university teacher with vast experience in lecturing and speaking in general. But even his speeches at the congress did not achieve their goal. And it seems that the fault lies not only with the "aggressively obedient majority" of deputies, but also with the speaker himself. One gets the impression that the main goal of Yu. N. Afanasyev was not to convince the audience that he was right, but first of all to declare his position and that of the interregional group, on whose behalf and on behalf of which he spoke. But for successful communication, it is not enough to state a position; one must also convey this position to the audience, try to convince the deputies that one is right. This Yu. N. Afanasiev failed, and, as it seems, in many respects the failure was due to the inability to speak not an academic language, but simply, accessible to the majority of deputies. One gets the impression that Yu. N. Afanasiev did not strive for this: he did not respect the aggressively obedient majority (this is his term) of deputies, and this was felt in his speeches.

Disrespect (in Yu. N. Afanasyev, in fact, even contempt) of the addressee in a good speech is unacceptable. Because of the contempt for the audience, Yu. N. Afanasiev's speech was also neither loud enough, nor emotional, nor accessible - nothing was done to convince, and not just to communicate the correct positions.

It should be noted that the inability convince is the misfortune of many of our politicians and statesmen, neglecting the addressing of speech turns into a failure of many good undertakings and, ultimately, the reason that the masses do not understand what they want from them, what they can count on. As a rule, we are told something (if we are told), but we are not explained or convinced that what is proposed is the only possible one under the given conditions, or that it is precisely what is proposed that will benefit the country and, consequently, each of its inhabitants.
Another bearer of the elite type of speech culture - E. T. Gaidar tried to explain and convince, but, apparently, overestimated the capabilities of his listeners (deputies) - he convinced, but did not convince, although, despite the negative attitude towards himself (according to the rating vote for the post Prime Minister took one of the last places), deserved applause. In October 1993, E. T. Gaidar managed to convince many Muscovites to go to the Moscow Council to defend democracy.

Thus, good speech is not synonymous with elitist speech, much less it is synonymous with elite speech, that is, the speech of some kind of elite (political, artistic, etc.). And although most often it is associated with the elite type of speech culture, good speech can also be produced by carriers of other types of speech culture (including, in many respects, good speech and carriers of the folk speech type), in addition, the carrier of the elite type is not always, not in in all situations (and not everyone) produces a good speech.

The concept and features of the literary language

The multifunctionality of the Russian literary language. The difference in the functions of the literary language and the language of fiction

The origin of the Russian literary language

Fiction as highest form the existence of the Russian language

Oral and written varieties of the Russian language

Normative, communicative, ethical aspects of oral and written speech

Styles of the modern Russian language

Styles of book literary language

Spoken variety of the literary language

Language norm, its role in the formation and functioning of the literary language

Functional styles in modern Russian literary language

Interaction of functional styles

Formal business style, scope of its functioning, genre diversity

Scientific style, speech norms of the scientific field of activity

Newspaper-journalistic style

Art style

Conversational style

Oral Features public speech

The speaker and his audience

Logical forms of presentation

23. Preparation of speech: choice of topic, purpose of speech, search for material, beginning, deployment and completion of speech

Basic methods of searching for material and types of auxiliary materials

Verbal design of public speaking

Oratory monologue

Language means of creating emotionality and evaluation of speech

Speaker use different types speeches

Style and type of speech in oratory

Main types of arguments

Colloquial speech in the system of functional varieties of the Russian literary language

Conditions for the functioning of colloquial speech, the role of extralinguistic factors

Types of speech culture

Speech etiquette

Speech as a means of communication

Effective Communication Techniques

The technique of speaking business speech

The most important indicators the level of speech culture of the individual

The main directions for improving the skills of literate writing and speaking

41. Transition from written text to oral: speech at the defense of the diploma, instruction, speech-biography at the memorial meeting, personal summary

Orthoepic norms of the Russian language

Speech norms

Phonetic system of colloquial speech

Stress norms

Purity of speech. Requirements to correct speech

Sources and causes of speech clogging

Influence on the purity of speech of historicisms, archaisms, jargonisms

Word and gesture in public speaking different styles

50. Transition from oral to written text: recording of oral presentation, minutes of the meeting

Spelling and punctuation text

52. Transition from image to verbal text: commenting on a statistical picture (for example, a slide), commenting on a dynamic video sequence

Subject, objectives and course content

The discipline "Russian language and culture of speech" as a section of linguistics deals with a qualitative analysis of statements and considers next questions: how does a person use speech for communication purposes, what kind of speech does he have - right or wrong, how to improve speech?

In modern linguistics, two levels of human speech culture are distinguished - the lower and the higher. For the lower level, for the first stage of mastering the literary language, the correctness of speech, compliance with the norms of the Russian literary language is sufficient. There are lexical, orthoepic (phonetic), grammatical - word-building, morphological, syntactic norms. Lexical norms are fixed in explanatory dictionaries in the form of an interpretation of the meanings of words and their compatibility with other words, the rest of the norms are disclosed in manuals on the grammar of the literary language, in special reference dictionaries.

A person's speech can be called correct if he does not make mistakes in pronunciation, in the use of word forms, in their formation, in the construction of a sentence. However, this is not enough. Speech may be correct, but useless, because it does not correspond to the goals and conditions of communication. The concept of correct speech is inextricably linked with three features: richness, accuracy and expressiveness. Indicators of rich speech are a large volume of active vocabulary, a variety of morphological forms used and syntactic constructions. Speech Accuracy is the choice of language means that the best way express the content of the statement, reveal its topic and main idea. To create the expressiveness of speech, special language means are used that are most appropriate for the conditions and tasks of communication.

A person reaches the highest level of speech culture if he has a correct and coherent speech. This means that he not only does not make mistakes, but also knows how to build statements in the best way in accordance with the purpose of communication, select the most suitable words and constructions in each case, taking into account who and under what circumstances he is addressing.

High level speech culture is an integral feature cultured person. To improve our speech is the task of each of us. To do this, you need to ensure that you do not make mistakes in pronunciation, in the use of word forms, in the construction of a sentence. You need to constantly enrich your vocabulary, learn to feel your interlocutor, be able to select the most suitable words and constructions for each case.

It should be noted that the culture of speech contains 3 components: normative, communicative and ethical.

The culture of speech involves correctness of speech, i.e., compliance with the norms of the literary language, which are perceived by its native speakers (speaking and writing) as a model. Language norm- This central concept speech culture.

The concept of "culture of speech" is inextricably linked with the patterns and features of the functioning of the language, as well as with speech activity in all its diversity. The culture of speech is associated with the development of skills for the selection and use of language means in the process of verbal communication, with the formation conscious attitude to their use in speech practice in accordance with communicative tasks. The choice of language means necessary for this purpose is the basis of the communicative aspect of speech culture. Native speakers must be proficient in the functional varieties of the language, take into account the conditions of communication that affect the correct this case selection and organization of speech means.

The ethical aspect of the culture of speech prescribes the knowledge and application of the rules of linguistic behavior in specific situations. Ethical standards of communication mean speech etiquette (speech formulas greetings, requests, questions, thanks, etc.; choice of full or abbreviated name, form of address, 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". The use of speech etiquette is greatly influenced by extralinguistic factors: the age of the participants in the speech act (purposeful speech action), the nature of the relationship between them (official, informal, friendly, intimate), time and place speech interaction etc.

The subject of study of the linguistic discipline "Culture of Speech" can be defined as follows: it language structure speeches in her communicative impact . From the foregoing, it becomes clear that this discipline is based on whole line linguistic sciences, as well as logic, psychology, pedagogy, sociology. Often the culture of speech is identified with stylistics. However, it is not. Stylistics is the doctrine of language and speech styles as functional. The boundaries of the culture of speech are wider than the boundaries of style.

The culture of speech as a scientific discipline has a theoretical and applied character. Its theoretical part is based on phonetics, grammar, stylistics of the Russian language, on the history of the Russian literary language. Practical part associated with rhetoric as the science of eloquence. The purpose of the updated rhetoric is to identify the best options ( optimal algorithms) communication. For example, the roles of the participants in the dialogue, the mechanisms for generating speech, the language preferences of the speakers, etc. are studied. Thus, rhetoric is the science of persuasive communication, which teaches how to communicate, express your thoughts logically and expressively, use words, how to use speech in Everyday life and social activities, how to speak in front of an audience. The theory of eloquence has always paid primary attention to oral, “live” contact. Traditionally, rhetoric was also considered an art, compared with poetry, acting on the basis of the importance of creativity, improvisation in speech, the aesthetic pleasure that public “thinking out loud” delivers. Such views are typical, for example, for Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, A.F. Koni. Rhetoric is one of the most important areas in the study of the culture of speech (in its practical application).

One of the main tasks of the culture of speech is protection of the literary language and its norms. Such protection is a matter of national importance, since the literary language unites the nation in linguistic terms. Creating a literary language is not an easy task. The formation of the norms of the modern literary Russian language is closely connected with the name of A. S. Pushkin. The language of the Russian nation at the time of the appearance of the literary language was very heterogeneous. It consisted of dialects, vernacular and other isolated formations. A. S. Pushkin was able on the basis of different manifestations on the mother tongue to create in his works a language that was accepted by society as a literary one. Literary language, of course, differs from the language of fiction, but it sort of grows out of it. The main distinguishing feature of the language of fiction is that it performs a great aesthetic function, and for this, both literary and non-literary elements (dialects, vernacular, etc.) are involved.

important task culture of speech is also a task to teach native speakers to correctly apply the proposed norms of speech and the rules for its construction. It is necessary not only to be able to build your own oral statement, convincingly defending their own position (naturally, in compliance with the rules of the culture of speech communication), but also be able to understand someone else's speech and adequately respond to it. Moreover, if during contact communication the listener can to some extent regulate the pace of new information by asking the interlocutor (lecturer) again, asking him to speak more slowly, comment on some not very clear statement, then with distant perception of speech (radio, television) there is no such possibility . The listener must perceive the speech at the pace language design and volume that do not take into account it individual opportunities. In order for speech to be understandable and accessible, it is necessary to master not only the norms of speech, but also the modern culture of speech communication and speech etiquette, to master the basic provisions of rhetoric.

Example. In communication, people convey this or that information, certain meanings to each other, communicate something, encourage something, ask about something, perform certain speech actions. However, before proceeding to the exchange of logical and meaningful information, it is necessary to enter into speech contact, and this is done according to certain rules. We hardly notice them, because they are familiar. It is just the violation of the rules that becomes noticeable: the seller addressed the buyer with “you”, the acquaintance did not say hello at the meeting, they did not thank someone for the service, they did not apologize for the misconduct. As a rule, such non-fulfillment of the norms of speech behavior turns into an insult, and even a quarrel, a conflict in the team. Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the rules for entering into speech contact, maintaining such contact, because without this business relationship impossible. It is clear that awareness of the norms of communication and speech behavior is useful for everyone, and especially for people of professions directly related to communication, the means of which is speech. These are teachers, doctors, lawyers, service workers, businessmen, and just parents.

Nowadays, a new direction of the culture of speech is being formed - this is the so-called ecology of the culture of speech. The culture of speech in its traditional sense is the degree of mastery of the literary language (its norms, stylistic, lexical and grammatical-semantic resources) in order to effective communication in various conditions communications. An ecological approach to the issues of the culture of speech, speech communication implies a responsible attitude to national language traditions, the cultivation of effective love for the native language, concern for its past, present and future. All this is the essence environmental aspect culture of speech, if understood broadly and generally.

The concept and types of speech culture

The concept of speech culture is very important for the culture of speech. There are 4 types of speech culture of native speakers of the literary language.

Elite- reference speech culture, meaning fluency in all the possibilities of the language, including its creative use. It is characterized by strict observance of all norms, an unconditional prohibition of rude expressions.

Middle literary characterized by incomplete observance of norms, excessive saturation of speech with bookish or colloquial words. The carriers of this speech culture are the majority of educated city dwellers; her penetration into some modern facilities media, works of art promotes widespread distribution.

Literary and colloquial and familiar colloquial type unites those communicators who only know colloquial style. Familiar-colloquial is distinguished by a general stylistic reduction and coarseness of speech, which brings it closer to vernacular. "You" is used as an address, regardless of the age of the interlocutor and the degree of acquaintance with him.

Literary language, of course, differs from the language of fiction, but it sort of grows out of it. In order for speech to be understandable and accessible, it is necessary to master not only the norms of speech, but also the modern culture of speech communication and speech etiquette, to master the basic provisions of rhetoric.

Subjects of linguistic ecology are the culture of thinking and speech behavior, the education of linguistic taste, the protection and "improvement" of the literary language, the definition of ways and means of enriching and improving it, the aesthetics of speech. The linguo-ecological approach assumes careful attitude to the literary language both as culture and as an instrument of culture.

The content of speech depends on many conditions that entail a variety of forms of presentation of material. To achieve speech wealth, you need to study the language in its literary and colloquial forms, its style, vocabulary, phraseology, word formation and grammar. The expressiveness of speech, which is achieved by a clear, clear pronunciation, is essential. correct intonation, skillfully spaced pauses. Due attention should be paid to the tempo of speech, the strength of the voice, the persuasiveness of the tone, and the peculiarities oratory: posture, gestures, facial expressions.

A good speech cannot be without the appropriate knowledge, skills and abilities. It all comes as a result of labor. This means that it is necessary to be demanding not only to the speech of others, but above all to your own.

Similar information.

People live in society, and communication is an integral part of human existence. Therefore, without it, the evolution of the mind would hardly have been possible. At first, these were attempts at communication, similar to baby talk, which gradually, with the advent of civilization, began to improve. A letter appeared, and speech became not only oral, but also written, which made it possible to preserve the achievements of mankind for future descendants. According to these monuments, one can trace the development of oral traditions of speech. What is speech culture and culture of speech? What are their standards? Is it possible to master speech culture on your own? All questions will be answered by this article.

What is speech culture?

Speech is a form of verbal communication between people. It involves the formation and formulation of thoughts, on the one hand, and perception and understanding, on the other.

Culture is a term with many meanings, it is the object of study of many disciplines. There is also a meaning that is close in meaning to communication and speech. This is a part of the culture associated with the use of verbal signals, which means the language, its ethnic characteristics, functional and social varieties having oral and written forms.

Speech is the life of a person, and therefore he must be able to speak correctly and beautifully both in writing and orally.

Thus, speech culture and the culture of speech is the possession of the norms of the language, the ability to use it expressive means in various conditions.

The culture of speech, regardless of the nationality of the speakers, developed gradually. Over time, there was a need to systematize existing knowledge about the language. Thus, a branch of linguistics appeared, which is called the culture of speech. This section explores the problems of language normalization with a view to improving it.

How was the culture of speech formed?

Speech culture and the culture of speech as a branch of linguistics developed in stages. They reflect all the changes that have taken place in the language. For the first time, they thought about fixing the norms of written speech in the 18th century, when society realized that the lack of uniform rules for writing made communication difficult. In 1748, V. K. Trediakovsky wrote about Russian orthography in his work “A Conversation Between a Foreign Man and a Russian About the Old and New Spelling”.

But the foundations of grammar and stylistics of the native language were laid by M. V. Lermontov in his works “ Russian grammar” and “Rhetoric” (1755, 1743-1748).

In the 19th century, N. V. Koshansky, A. F. Merzlyakov and A. I. Galich supplemented the library of studies of the culture of speech with their works on rhetoric.

Linguists of the pre-revolutionary period understood the importance of standardizing the rules of the language. In 1911, a book by V. I. Chernyshevsky “Purity and Correctness of Russian Speech. The experience of Russian stylistic grammar”, in which the author analyzes the norms of the Russian language.

The post-revolutionary period was the time when the established norms of speech culture were shaken. Then people were engaged in social activities, whose speech was simple and abounded in jargon and dialect expressions. The literary language would have been under threat if a stratum of the Soviet intelligentsia had not formed in the 1920s. She fought for the purity of the Russian language, and a directive was given according to which the “masses” were to master the proletarian culture. At the same time, the concepts of “language culture” and “speech culture” appeared. These terms are used for the first time in relation to the new, reformed language.

AT post-war years speech culture as a discipline receives a new round of development. An important contribution to the formation of the discipline was made by S. I. Ozhegov as the author of the Dictionary of the Russian Language and E. S. Istrina as the author of the Norms of the Russian Language and Culture of Speech.

The 50-60s of the XX century became the time of the formation of the culture of speech as an independent discipline:

The “Grammar of the Russian language” was published.
clarified scientific principles speech culture.
Issues of the Dictionary of the Russian Literary Language are published.
At the Institute of the Russian Language of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, a sector of speech culture appeared under the leadership of S. I. Ozhegov. Under his editorship, the journal “Questions of the Culture of Speech” is published.
D. E. Rosenthal and L. I. Skvortsov are working on theoretical justification some questions. They devote their works to the separation of two terms from each other - “culture of speech” and “culture of language”.

In the 1970s, the culture of speech becomes independent discipline. She has a subject, object, methodology and techniques of scientific research.

Linguists of the 90s are not far behind their predecessors. At the end of the 20th century, a number of works devoted to the problem of speech culture were published.

The development of speech and the culture of speech communication continue to be one of the urgent linguistic problems. Today, the attention of linguists is riveted to such questions.

Establishment of internal links between the increase in the speech culture of society and the development of national culture.
Improving the modern Russian language, taking into account the changes taking place in it.
Scientific analysis of the processes occurring in modern speech practice.

What are the features and properties of speech culture?

Speech culture in linguistics has a number of distinctive properties and features, which are also the logical basis of the phenomenon under study:

Knowing the basics of speech culture and applying them for their intended purpose is the duty of every educated person.

What is the type of speech culture?

The type of speech culture is a characteristic of native speakers depending on their level of language proficiency. It is also important to know how to use language means. Here important role plays how well developed verbal communication, a culture of speech. Let's consider the issue in more detail.

Based on the foregoing, the main norms of speech culture should be distinguished:

Normative. Protects literary language from penetration colloquial expressions and dialectisms and keeps it intact and in accordance with generally accepted norms.
Communicative. It implies the ability to use the functions of the language in accordance with the situation. For example, the accuracy in scientific speech and the admissibility of imprecise expressions in colloquial.
Ethical. It means the observance of speech etiquette, that is, the norms of behavior in communication. Greetings, appeals, requests, questions are used.
Aesthetic. It implies the use of techniques and methods of figurative expression of thought and the decoration of speech with epithets, comparisons and other techniques.

What is the essence of human speech culture?

Above, we considered the concepts of "language", "speech culture" as a social phenomenon that characterizes society. But society is made up of individuals. Consequently, there is a kind of culture that characterizes the oral speech of an individual. This phenomenon is called "human speech culture". The term should be understood as a person's attitude to knowledge of the language and the ability to use and improve it if necessary.

These are skills not only speaking and writing, but also listening and reading. For communicative perfection, a person must master all of them. Mastering them presupposes knowledge of samples, signs and patterns of constructing a communicatively perfect speech, mastery of etiquette and the psychological foundations of communication.

The speech culture of a person is not static - it, like language, is subject to changes that depend both on social transformations and on the person himself. It begins to form with the first words of the child. It grows with him, transforming into the speech culture of a preschooler, then a schoolchild, a student and an adult. The older a person is, the better their speaking, writing, reading and listening skills become.

What is the difference between Russian speech culture?

Russian speech culture belongs to the section of disciplines that are engaged in the study of national speech cultures. Each nation during its existence has formed its own language norm. What is natural for one ethnic group may be alien to another. These features include:

ethnic features language picture peace;

use of verbal and non-verbal means;

a collection of texts that includes all texts ever written in that language, both ancient and modern.

The ethnic picture of the world is understood as a set of views on the world through words and expressions. specific language, which is shared by everyone on it talking people and is taken for granted. But the difference between national pictures of the world can be easily traced through the analysis of folklore and the epithets used. For example, the expressions “bright head” and “kind heart” imply high intelligence and responsiveness. It is no coincidence that the head and the heart are chosen in these epithets, since in the understanding of Russians a person thinks with his head, but feels with his heart. But this is not the case in other languages. For example, in the language ifaluk internal feelings convey the intestines, in the Dogon language - the liver, and in Hebrew the heart does not feel, but thinks.

At what level is the modern Russian culture of speech?

Modern speech culture reflects:

typological features of the Russian language;
scope of its application;
unity of speech throughout the territory of the Russian Federation;
territorial variants of the Russian language;
written and oral texts of not only artistic, but also national significance, which reveal ideas about good and correct speech, about the achievements of the science of the Russian language.

Russian speech etiquette

Russian speech etiquette is understood as a set of norms and rules of communication that have developed under the influence of national culture.

Russian speech etiquette divides communication into formal and informal. Formal is communication between people who are little known to each other. They are connected by the event or occasion on which they gathered. Such communication requires unquestioning observance of etiquette. In contrast to this style, informal communication occurs between people who are well acquainted with each other. This is family, friends, relatives, neighbors.

Features of speech etiquette in Russia involve addressing a person to you in formal communication. In this case, you need to address the interlocutor by name and patronymic. This is mandatory, since there are no forms similar to "sir", "mister", "mrs" or "miss" in Russian speech etiquette. There is a general “ladies and gentlemen”, but it applies to a large number of people. AT pre-revolutionary Russia there were such appeals as sir and madam, but with the advent of the Bolsheviks they were supplanted by such words as comrade, citizen and citizen. With the collapse of the USSR, the word "comrade" became obsolete and acquired its original meaning - "friend", and "citizen" and "citizen" became associated with the police or the court. Over time, they also disappeared, and words that attracted attention came to replace them. For example, “sorry”, “excuse me”, “could you...”.

Unlike the speech culture of the West, in Russian there are many topics for discussion - politics, family, work. At the same time sexual are prohibited.

In general, the culture of speech etiquette is assimilated from childhood and improves over time, acquiring more and more subtleties. The success of its development depends on the family in which the child grew up, and on the environment in which he develops. If the people around him are highly cultured, then the child will master this form of communication. Conversely, supporters of the vernacular type of speech culture will teach their child to communicate in simple and uncomplicated sentences.

Is it possible to develop speech culture on your own?

The development of speech culture depends not only on the environment of a person, but also on himself. At a conscious age, if desired, it can be developed independently. It takes time every day to do this. self-study. It will take 3 days to complete all the tasks, and before mastering the new one, you need to repeat the old one. Gradually, it will be possible to perform tasks not only together, but also separately. At first, such a lesson in speech culture will take 15-20 minutes, but will gradually increase to an hour.

Extension vocabulary. For the exercise, you need to take any and a dictionary of Russian or foreign languages. Write out or underline all the words of one part of speech - nouns, adjectives or verbs. And then choose synonyms. This exercise contributes to the expansion of passive vocabulary.

Compiling a story keywords. Take any book, pick up at random with your eyes closed 5 any words and make up a story based on them. You need to compose up to 4 texts at a time, each of which takes no more than 3 minutes in time. This exercise contributes to the development of imagination, logic and ingenuity. A more difficult option is to compose a story of 10 words.

Conversation with a mirror. For this exercise, you will need the text from task 2. Stand by the mirror and tell your story without facial expressions. Then retell your story a second time, using facial expressions. Analyze your facial expression and the manner of the story by answering 2 questions - "do you like your facial expression and the way you present information" and "whether others will like them." This task is aimed at developing the habit of consciously managing your facial expressions.

Listening to a recording from a voice recorder. This exercise will help you hear yourself from the outside and identify strengths and weak sides his speech, and consequently, to correct the shortcomings and learn to use the merits of his manner of speaking. Read on the recorder any you like artistic text or a poem. Listen, analyze it like the previous task, and try to retell or read it by heart a second time, taking into account the corrections.

Conversation with the interlocutor. This type of exercise helps develop dialogue skills. If among your friends or acquaintances there are people who do these exercises, then you can do exercise 2 with one of them. If not, then ask someone to help you. To do this, prepare a topic of conversation and a plan in advance. Your goal is to interest the interlocutor, arouse his curiosity and hold his attention for at least 5 minutes. The task is considered completed if the interlocutors talked on 3-4 of the given topics.

The development of speech culture requires constant training - only in this case, success will not be long in coming.

Levels of speech culture: high - medium - low, i.e. cultural - uncultured - completely uncultured, we determine unconsciously in each person. As a rule, we note either a very high level of speech culture, or a low level, and the average "does not notice". At the same time, all levels of speech culture assess the quality of speech both in general and in terms of individual aspects and criteria.

A high level of culture is manifested in everything. Outwardly - in the sounds of the voice and intonations, in the way a person walks, stands, sits, in the manner of speaking, in gestures, facial expressions, eyes - all this in oral speech is evaluated from the standpoint of how they correspond to our ideas about the culture of communication. It analyzes how a person relates to other people, how he conducts a dialogue, how he builds a monologue, etc. In written speech: what kind of handwriting does a person have - an analogue of good diction (it is no coincidence that calligraphy was given such great attention in classical education and did not think of learning without it), how he arranges the text on the page, whether there are visual aids - diagrams, tables, graphs, photographs, etc .; how and on what the text is written, how well it is in terms of spelling and punctuation; whether the genres are correctly framed and much, much more. Compliance with language and speech norms is also necessarily assessed, and the assessment takes place at the level of knowledge of the evaluator.

The low level of speech culture is also manifested in everything. If a person of high culture takes care of everything so as not to cause inconvenience to anyone, then a low culture of a person makes him do the exact opposite - to assert himself at the expense of others. Hence - rudeness and peremptoryness, ignorance of something and unwillingness to find out, and even more unwillingness to follow any norms. It is due to these manifestations that we immediately see a person with a low culture.

The range of manifestations of the average level of speech culture is much wider. As a rule, in this case there is no open disregard for various norms, rather, there is some orientation to the situation - the basic norms must be observed when a violation can be punished. Otherwise, people with an average level of culture are usually much closer to a low level than to a high level, because a person with a really high level of culture most often considers himself unworthy to sacrifice them by breaking the rules in any situation.

Researcher O.B. Sirotinin distinguishes full-functional, non-full-functional, average literary, literary jargon and everyday types of speech culture.

a) full-featured type

For carriers of a fully functional type of speech culture, the most complete possession of all the riches of the Russian language is characteristic, active use synonyms, taking into account all the nuances of their meaning and use, free activation and expedient use of any word from their extensive lexicon.

They are also characterized by:

Ownership of all (although in varying degrees) functional styles of the literary language, which is manifested not only in the knowledge of their features, but also in the ability to build texts in a given situation of style.

Compliance with the norms of the literary language (spelling and punctuation, orthoepic and intonation, stylistic, lexical norms compatibility, etc.).

But, unfortunately, absolutely error-free speech is an extremely rare phenomenon, but a carrier of a fully functional type is characterized by a minimum of violations of norms, their non-systematic nature, randomness, and, no less important, a person’s lack of excessive self-confidence, a developed habit of checking himself in everything (in relation to correctness of speech - according to dictionaries and reference books).

The role of a fully functional type of speech culture, despite the relatively small number of its speakers, in the fate of the literary language, the preservation of its existence and in its very development is very great.

b) incomplete type

In general, a non-full-functional type of speech culture can be characterized by the word less: less knowledge, less effort to expand it, a lower level of skills, etc.

The role of people with a non-full-functional type of speech culture, on the one hand, is much less than the role of people with a fully-functional type, since they cannot serve as a standard for good speech, but, on the other hand, their role is quite significant for the state of the speech culture of the population, since it is to This type of speech culture includes most people with higher education, including school teachers, university professors, journalists and writers, whose speech they are guided by.

c) average literary type

The most widespread is the medium literary type of speech culture, its carriers are primarily people with secondary and incomplete secondary education. They are characterized by a very superficial knowledge of the norms of the literary language, and therefore systematic deviations from them in pronunciation, shaping, fashion for foreign words, used out of place, and in the wrong meaning, and with the wrong pronunciation. Ignorance of the differences between oral and written forms of speech leads such people to focus on a "more prestigious" written speech (abuse of bookish elements, the desire to use participial and participle constructions without taking into account the norms for their use, etc.)

The speech of representatives of the middle literary type is replete with rude and abusive words. Stamps dominate in speech, there is no necessary self-control and preliminary preparation for speech.

d) literary jargon type

The specificity of this type lies in the conscious imposition of reduced, often even illiterate speech. The desire for "human language", which manifested itself as a reaction to the Soviet officialdom of the media, led to the fact that people who did not have any linguistic training came to journalism.

The danger of this type of speech culture lies in its perception by readers of newspapers and magazines and television and radio listeners as a standard of good speech.

e) everyday type

This type is found among the poorly educated population. Its carriers know only everyday skills, i.e. colloquial speech: they are not capable of producing either official monologue or written speech.

The most demanded and implemented among young people is the average literary type of speech culture, which is also characterized by abruptness in the perception of the world and understanding it; the predominance of information rather than persuasion.

Based on the current state of the speech culture of society in recent times in the science of the culture of speech, the problem of functional literacy as the basis of mutual understanding is being actively developed. Functional literacy does not negate or belittle the importance of linguistic correctness, but emphasizes the insufficiency of a purely linguistic approach to the formation of speech culture, the need to focus primarily on the main functions of speech - communicative, and also implies great attention to the culture of speech in all the diversity of this concept.

The type of speech culture is not only a linguistic, but also a cultural concept. It roughly corresponds to the concept of "speech style", but includes speech behavior- the relations between partners established in the process of communication, and most importantly - evaluates the cultural value of each of the types of speech culture identified by scientists.

In the late 80s - early 90s. of the last century in the works of N.I. Tolstoy, O. B. Sirotinina and other linguists in the domestic speech environment, the following cultural and value hierarchy of the types of speech culture that existed then was established:

1) elite;
2) average literature;
3) literary and colloquial;
4) familiar;
5) colloquial;
6) argotizing (slanging);
7) folk (folk-colloquial).

Let's briefly characterize them.

The elite type of speech culture implies a conscious preference for the old, and sometimes even outdated, language norm over the new norm, and even more so for non-normative phenomena of language and speech, speech behavior.

The elite type of speech culture today is a rarity and a great cultural value. That is why we consider in detail its main pronunciation features in next chapter, giving you the opportunity, after completing the tasks and exercises given there, to master the system of elite pronunciation markers - not to impose as an indispensable teaching norm, but so that you learn to appreciate elite speech, feel its special beauty, understand its need in society and protect it, as rare and endangered species of animals are now preserved. An elite type of speech culture is an acquisition much more valuable than an elite cottage or a suit: after all, such speech easily introduces you into the world of people of culture and art, sets you apart from everything “average” and above it. Carriers of the elite type of speech culture are people with high culture, not only philological at all (an example would be the late physicist Pyotr Kapitsa, a long-term host of popular science television programs; the living Nikolai Drozdov, a zoologist, host of the program “In the Animal World”), other scientists, especially the older generation, many artists, some writers .

It is very difficult for a carrier of an elite type of speech culture, if he is natural from birth, learned from childhood, to switch to “you” with a recent acquaintance, with a student, even with a graduate student. Example: one of the teachers told me that when his graduate student, only a few years younger than him, asked why the leader doesn’t call him “na you”, because it’s easier when working together on expeditions and in general in daily communication, he answered: “When you, my dear, defend your dissertation and also become a candidate of science, then it may be easier for me to address you “on you”. In the meantime - no, you know, it's too early. For the elite type of speech culture, with all the strict observance of the etiquette norm, increased emotionality is characteristic: warmth, goodwill, sincerity when communicating with unfamiliar and even strangers, regardless of their social status, if they behave “like a human being”, and, on the contrary, a sharp , tough, with the pathos of condemnation, although absolutely correct suppression of any manifestation of "rudeness". By the last quoted word, we mean "conscious verbal aggression» . In the same way, unworthy behavior in general is suppressed and uncompromisingly condemned - by refusing to shake hands, coldness of tone, etc., but a carrier of an elite type of speech culture will never allow himself not to say hello to a familiar person: he will say hello coldly, emphasized formally, and yet ... So he orders professional speech etiquette, and deviating from it is not allowed. Characteristically emphasized in the speech is "equality" with a partner. The elite type of speech culture does not allow communication "from top to bottom", although it establishes a certain personal distance.

The average literary type of speech culture is, according to Professor O.B. Sirotinina and her colleagues from Saratov state university, simply “good speech” and etiquette, often formal, normative speech behavior of announcers and leading central TV channels. The speech literary norm is respected, mistakes happen, but they are few; the main thing is the frequent preference for the modern norm when choosing options: a person will say "cottage cheese", but not "cottage cheese", "tiny", but not " pitch”, “providing”, but not " security"(although the first option is considered not the norm, but an error): we will talk about this in the next lecture. The tone of communication is more neutral, less expressive, less emotional.

Literary-colloquial type of speech culture. The literary and colloquial type of speech culture is distinguished by greater freedom, informality of communication, but compliance with the literary norm in speech: it is clear that the carrier is an educated, cultured person, but non-literary elements are very frequent in speech: common jargon, especially youth, and in general new words and phrases , deliberately used colloquial elements, but never too rude - with a paradoxical combination of all this with scientific terminology, not always clear to the mass audience or non-specialist interlocutor.

An example from the domestic media is the speech of the host of the Dialogues about Animals program, Ivan Zatevakhin. Characteristically, in official situations of communication, a carrier of a literary-colloquial type of speech culture can switch to average literary speech and speech behavior (the opposite is also true).

Familiar type of speech culture: an example is VV Zhirinovsky in his public image. Errors - there are quite a lot of deviations from the literary norm; speech is highly emotional, but always this emotionality, this pathos - with one sign, negative. Characteristic "rudeness" - conscious verbal aggression. Relations with the audience or partner are built familiar, but not equal, but "top down". Naturally, there is an inclination to communicate “on you”, otherwise for a carrier of a familiar type of speech culture it is awkward, uncomfortable, unusual, and not necessary. Such a person seems to be attacking someone all the time: speaking in front of an audience - on a certain image of the “enemy”, which can be anything, according to the situation and in accordance with the subject of speech; addressing the interlocutor, "pounces" on him if he is lower or equal in social status, and is very exaggeratedly polite, not to say - servile, if he occupies a higher level of the social hierarchy. Only in this case, the emotionality of speech can become positive, but even then - beyond measure. There is no harmony, no beauty in such speech. This type of speech culture, like all subsequent ones, lies outside the scope of literary speech. Many Russian characters classical literature illustrate precisely the familiar type of speech culture: we easily recognize them in the novels of Gogol and Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, in the stories of Chekhov ...

Colloquial type of speech culture. Its carriers are people who do not know the norms of Russian speech - neither written nor oral. They are insufficiently educated and do not have sufficient speech training for public speaking. It's not just pronunciation or grammar errors. Starting a phrase, they try to build it in the way it is customary in book speech - it is difficult, “branched”, but when they start, they forget what has just been said.

The thread of their reasoning is difficult to grasp; sometimes it turns out something completely meaningless. The famous bearer of Russian vernacular will remain in the memory of generations political figure era of perestroika V.S. Chernomyrdin: his public statements were so anecdotal and expressive that to this day the Internet keeps a list of "Chernomyrdyms". The most memorable phrase that expressed the very essence of "perestroika" is Chernomyrdin's aphorism: "We wanted the best, but it turned out as always." The people will not forget the other: Better than vodka no worse." However, such stars of the vernacular type of speech culture rarely shine in the public sky. The sphere of existence of the colloquial type of speech culture is everyday communication of not very educated and uncultured people.

The jargonizing (argotizing) type of speech culture has asocial spheres of distribution: this is the Russian fenya - the speech and speech behavior of the zone, ITW, splashed out beyond the boundaries of places of detention along with its carriers. There were two such “waves” of liberation of the feni from its original places of existence: the first was with the mass release of political prisoners who lived in the same barracks with the “thieves” after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. The speech and speech behavior of the intelligentsia during the years of the "thaw" was remarkably described in the book "Yawning Heights" by the Russian philosopher A.A. Zinoviev, devoting a special chapter to this "Newspeak", which describes the conversation in the smoking room of the Lenin Library. The second wave - at the beginning of "perestroika" - swept over the entire society, occupied the media, and today anyone can listen and see the reproduction of the jargon type of speech culture in any domestic detective or "gangster" series.

The folk type of speech culture turned out to be on the lower rung of the value ladder “erroneously”. Actually in its own way cultural value it is not inferior to the elite and is just as rare: it is the speech and speech behavior of carriers of pure, untouched by "civilization" and the media territorial dialects - Russian dialects. There are very few such carriers left: these are very old people, mostly uneducated peasant women who did not leave their village or district. For our topic, this disappearing image of folk speech, rare in beauty and harmony, in its various dialect variants is insignificant, but it would be criminal not to mention its existence (more precisely, disappearance).