Codification and rules for its implementation. Literary and linguistic norm, its codification and distribution

Service and tourism - Tutorial(Volchkova I.M.)

§ 2. norm, its types, principles of codification

Correctness is key communication quality speech, ensuring mutual understanding of the interlocutors. The correctness of speech is compliance with language norms at all levels of the language.

Normal is the common usage language tools, in other words, a set of rules that regulate the use of linguistic means in the speech of an individual. The norm is obligatory for both oral and writing. it covers all aspects of the language. The norm is changeable and at the same time conservative; it is obligatory for all, therefore it is created and maintained by the collective efforts of all speakers.

Norms can be imperative (strictly binding) and dispositive (permitting choice). The imperative norm does not allow variance in the expression of a linguistic unit, regulating only one way of its expression. For example: them, lay down, call, play a role. Violation of the imperative norm is regarded as poor language proficiency. The dispositive norm allows options (stylistic or neutral), regulating several ways of expressing a language unit. Variation in the use of the same language unit is often a reflection of the transitional stage from an outdated norm to a new one. For example: cottage cheese - cottage cheese, bazaar - market.

In accordance with the main levels of the language and the areas of use of language means, the following types of norms are distinguished.

1. Orthoepic (pronunciation) norms are associated with the sound side of literary speech, its pronunciation.

2. Accentological norms determine the variant of stress. Stress in Russian is free and mobile.

3. Lexical norms are the rules for the use of words and phraseological units in accordance with their meaning and features of lexical compatibility. Violation lexical norms leads to a distortion of the meaning of the statement.

4. Word-building norms require compliance with the rules for combining morphemes and forming words in accordance with the laws of the language.

5. Grammar rules are related to usage morphological forms different parts speech (morphological norms) and syntactic constructions (syntactic norms).

Morphological norms are the rules for the formation of grammatical forms of words (forms of gender, number, case of nouns, adjectives, numerals and pronouns, as well as forms of verbs and participles).

Syntactic norms regulate the construction and use in speech of syntactic constructions provided for by the language system (word order in a sentence, the rules for agreeing on the main and secondary members of a sentence, the use of participial and adverbial phrases).

6 Stylistic norms regulate the use of speech means in various areas of literary-standardized communication, depending on the context and speech situation.

7. Spelling norms are associated with the correct spelling of words.

8. Punctuation norms regulate the punctuation marks.

Task 103. Read the words and phrases, determine which of the norms of the modern Russian literary language is violated. Correct the mistakes.

Order armor at the hotel, put down, convince about it, put on a coat, quarter, rings, shampoo, beautiful tulle, large banknotes, new euro, thanks to fires, pay for work, give privileges to someone, play paramount importance, contrary to the instructions of the boss, come from the city, take the title of champion, control the course of treatment, express your answer, go one by one, he is like a sister, point out shortcomings, mutual respect for each other, a colossally small price, an extremely significant function.

Task 104. Read the texts. Highlight the signs of the language norm, the essence and principles of codification of the norms of the literary language.

SEARCHING FOR CRITERIA FOR CORRECT SPEECH

It is known that along with the options allowed by the norms literary language, there are many deviations from the norm, as they say, speech errors. Moreover, in most cases, such deviations are not accidental, but are due either to inconsistencies and contradictions in internal system literary language, or by the influence of external factors (territorial or social dialects, etc.). In 1929, the Swiss scientist Henri Frey, in his Grammar of Errors, rightly noted that many errors are, in fact, regular and are suggested by analogy or other systemic manifestations of a living language.

Thus, both good seedlings and weeds grow in the same field. Every normalizer-practitioner (including the teacher of the Russian language) is faced with the most difficult question: how to separate productive and useful neoplasms from speech errors, if the reasons for the appearance of both sometimes coincide? Where are the criteria for distinguishing between right and wrong?

Some researchers believe that the main feature of correct speech is stability itself, the stability of the language form. However, as already follows from the recognition of the dynamic theory of the norm, this criterion is not reliable. Although in general the language "(and after it the norm) really changes slowly, gradually, there are many cases of a sharp shift in the norm that occurs during the life of one generation. For example, Ushakov's Dictionary also recommended the pronunciation of wireless telegraph<…>.

It would also be reckless to rely solely on the degree of use, prevalence of one or another language form. Of course, quantitative indicators are very significant in the analysis of language and normative assessment. Especially valuable are the results of truly mass sociolinguistic surveys. But it is impossible to absolutize formal numerical data, to rely only on statistics when setting the norm. In a number of cases, as F. P. Filin emphasizes, not quantitative, but cultural and historical factors are decisive. The stress quarter, for example, is very common (statistically, perhaps, and predominant). However, the literary norm preserves the traditional version of qt*l.<…>

For<…>linguistics, aesthetic and pragmatic theories proclaimed by some foreign linguists are unacceptable. So, according to the linguo-aesthetic concept of the professor of Romance philology at the University of Munich, K. Vossler, the main sign of correct speech is the “sense of taste”, individual intuition. But back in 1911, the Russian linguist V. I. Chernyshev rightly wrote: “Stylistic measures and tastes exist for a certain time and change just as the language changes” (Correctness and purity of Russian speech. - Selected works, vol. I. M., 1970, p. 444). There is no need to prove that intuition and subjective sensation (sense of taste) are very unreliable advisers in normative assessments of general linguistic phenomena.

One cannot agree with the pragmatic theory proposed by another German linguist - G. Klaus, who in the book “The Power of the Word” expresses the idea that the norms of the language are devoid of any value from the point of view of truth (and therefore do not need scientific and historical understanding ).<…>

The relationship between the norm and the language system began to attract scientific attention especially after the works of the famous foreign linguist E. Coseriu (Synchrony, diachrony and history. - In the book: New - in linguistics, issue III. M., 1963, etc.). According to this theory, the system covers "ideal forms of implementation of a particular language, that is, techniques and standards for the corresponding language activity" and, as it were, answers the question, as one might say, using the potential of this language. Indeed, knowledge of the system makes it possible to judge the linguistic innovation scientifically, objectively, considering it as the realization of a certain possibility inherent in the system. Unfortunately, even such an approach does not guarantee us against errors in the distinction between “normal” and “abnormal”. For example, in modern oral (especially professional) speech, the forms of a lecturer, lecturers (instead of lecturers, lecturers) are very common. The system of the Russian literary language actually opens up the possibility of forming forms in -а(-я) of masculine nouns that have an accent not on the last syllable (cf. doctor-doctors, director-director). Thus, from the point of view of the system, the lecturer's form is correct, but it still cannot be recognized as normative.

The criterion of the norm proposed in 1948 by E. S. Istrina enjoys wide popularity among researchers: “The norm is determined by the degree of use, subject to the authority of the sources” (Norms ..., p. 19). Indeed, reference to literary* examples is a common device for proving the correctness of this or that expression. Card indexes of quotations from classical and Soviet literature constitute the natural and most reliable base of modern normative dictionaries. Of course, when analyzing texts, it is necessary to take into account the development of the language, and deviations from general literary norms motivated by artistic intent, and the possibility of a careless, inattentive attitude or dialectal errors that occur even among authoritative writers and poets (cf. brought in; from Gribachev: head of the club vm. head of the club; from "G. Tess: travel engineer vm. seconded; from A. Gusev: apple trees vm. apple trees, etc.). -" The authority of the source, thus, can also a disservice to speech normalization. Therefore, in order to establish a norm on the basis of observations on the text of fiction, it is necessary, on the one hand, to attract a wide and diverse range of sources in terms of genres, and on the other hand, a critical attitude to the text and a strict distinction between the actual author's speech and the imitation of the language of the characters.<…>

Thus, the norm of the literary language is a complex, dialectically contradictory and dynamic phenomenon. It is made up of many essential features.<…>and relies on 3 main features: 1) regular use (reproducibility) this method expressions; 2) the correspondence of this method of expression to the possibilities of the literary language system (taking into account its historical restructuring); 3) public approval of a regularly reproduced way of expression (moreover, the role of the judge in this case usually falls to the lot of writers, scientists, the educated part of society). Like a two-faced Janus, the norm addresses both the linguistic past, illuminated by a good cultural tradition, and the present, which is supported by the useful properties of new formations and productive trends in the development of the literary language.

(K.S. Gorbachevich. Norms of the modern Russian literary language. M., 1978)

BASIC CONCEPTS AND TERMS OF SPEECH CULTURE

AS A SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE

The concepts of "culture of speech" ("culture of the language") and "language norm" ("norm of the literary language", "literary norm", "language standard", etc.) are general language in the sense that they are defined in a similar way in various modern literary languages, denoting generally the same type of results of often quite different and peculiar objective-historical processes of language development.

The norm of the language is the central concept of the theory of the culture of speech. At the same time, this is one of the most difficult problems, the multidimensionality and diversity of which are determined by objective-historical, cultural-sociological and proper linguistic, i.e., intralinguistic factors.

Insufficient knowledge of the object itself in theoretical terms is reflected primarily in the instability of the internal inconsistency of terminological definitions.1

In domestic works on the culture of speech - of a theoretical and practical nature - the literary norm (or norms) is often determined by signs that are purely external in relation to the language: traditional character, degree of use, authority of the source, etc. Indicative in this respect are the definitions of the term "norm" in dictionaries of linguistic terminology. For example, O. S. Akhmanova in the definition of the norm identifies two meanings: 1) the accepted speech use of language means, a set of rules "(regulation); 2) language, opposed to speech as a system (invariant, etc.), which determines the entire variety of speech Thus, if the second meaning interprets the norm as a language-system (i.e., as it were, removes the very theoretical problem of the norm), then in the first definition one can seem to see the indistinguishability of the objective norm and its reflection in normative dictionaries, manuals, grammars etc.

D. E. Rozental and M. A. Telenkova define the norm as “the most common of the coexisting ones, entrenched in the practice of exemplary use, which best perform their function of language (speech) variants”.

Not everything is clear here either. How does “prevalence” relate to “exemplary use”, what “practice” and what “functions” are we talking about? Defining the "norm" through "variants" (reducing the norm to variants), the authors do not establish the status of the norm, do not determine its inner essence, place in the structure of the language. One could understand this definition as a general linguistic category (the norm, regardless of literary / non-literary), but the appeal to the "exemplary" use does not seem to allow this. Moreover, defining the term "literary language" (p. 165), the authors begin with the fact that it is "a normalized language that serves the diverse cultural needs of the people..."

Interestingly, in the dictionary of O. S. Akhmanova, the concept of normativity (as opposed to norm) implicitly includes an evaluative approach (English prescriptive "prescriptive", appreciative "preferred").

The evaluative (or axiological) aspect is present to varying degrees in the description, research, or simple appeal to the linguistic (literary) norm.

<…>The concept of linguistic codification (or codification of the norm), in contrast to the objective-theoretical description of the structure, slowly but steadily enters scientific use and gradually turns into a linguistic term.<…>

Usually the term "codification" is used as a synonym for "normalization"; cf. in Akhmanova's dictionary: “Normalization. Establishing the norm” (p. 271). There are, however, attempts to distinguish between these terms and the concepts themselves.

V. A. Itskovich suggested that normalization (based on the systemic relations of this term) is not a simple description of the norm, or its codification in the strict sense of the word, but only “active interference in the language process, for example, the introduction of certain terms and the rejection of others as undesirable for some reason."

While noting the usefulness of such a distinction in general, it should be said that there is no real and strict opposition between "normalization" and "codification" in this case. Contrasting in terms of the degree of activity (or “consciousness”) to each other, the concepts of “codification” and “normalization” turn out to be in relation to subordination: the latter is part of the former. In practice, "normalization" in the sense proposed above is usually called "standardization" (in the broad sense of the word: the establishment of GOST, the streamlining of the terminological system, official renaming, etc.).

With all the possible shortcomings of the term “normalization” (causing, as Itskovich believes, false associations with the term “norm”), in a certain sense it is more acceptable in general use, since it directly signals the phenomena of normativity. On the other hand, the term “codification” on Russian soil is somehow associated with great categoricalness (due to associations with the word “code”), it implies imperative assessments and requirements, their almost legislative obligation, which, as you know, is not always justified in the sphere of normative linguistic practice.

At the same time, the terminology of the rule of law also provides another distinction that is useful for linguistics - the division of codified norms into imperative (mandatory) and dispositive (additional, used in cases where the issue is not settled by agreement of the parties). Imperative norms in a language are mandatory implementations that follow from the capabilities of a structure. Violation of them in speech takes the speaker (or writer) outside the native language (cf. violations of the norms of conjugation, declension, agreement in grammatical gender, number, etc.). Dispositive norms in the language are those recommendations that are given based on the structure (structural relations) or act as a consequence of certain theoretical or cultural-historical premises.<…>.

Imperative norms change along with the language, and in terms of codification, one can speak of a more or less complete description of them. Dispositive - are specified, modified or canceled at the next attempts (or at the next stages) of codification.

The difference between these two types of norms in modern normative dictionaries is reflected by two types of marks: warning “not”, “wrong”, “inadmissible”, on the one hand, and “permissible”, “outdated” (or “obsolete”), “and”, “special”, “in professional speech”, etc. - on the other.

(L.I. Skvortsov. Theoretical Foundations of the Culture of Speech. M., 1980)

Italian surprises.

In fact, the inhabitants of the famous "boot" are spoiled by tourists. After all, in Italy there is something to see. It is said that 70% of the masterpieces of world architecture are located here. Therefore, it is clear that many will come to visit the Italians even if the owners settle them in a canvas tent with amenities at the entrance, if this tent is stretched at the foot of the Colosseum. This, of course, is an exaggeration, but it would be nice to know about the peculiarities of holidays in Italy. You need to know this at least in order to immediately make it clear to yourself why, in fact, you are coming to this country.

Actually, using Italy according to the "seaside vacation" scenario is pretty stupid. Turkey and Cyprus are much more suitable, and for those who are more thirsty for dearly paid loneliness, rest on the deserted beaches of tropical islands will be a real success and an unexpected surprise.

In Italy, you should not wallow on the beaches, but frantically drive around the country and explore it. Johann Wolfgang Goethe, he directly promised: "Whoever saw Italy well, and especially Rome, will never again be completely unhappy."

There are four "pearls" in Italy that you must see: 1) Rome with its ancient ruins and the Vatican Museums, 2) Florence, without which it is impossible to imagine the Italian Renaissance, 3) Pisa, with its ever-falling tower, 4) Venice - surreal the city of bridges and canals, which literally everyone dreams of visiting.

Codification- a legal term by origin (Late Latin codificatio from codex - a book, a collection of laws and facio - I do); this is the systematization of laws in a single legislative code by eliminating inconsistencies, filling in gaps, and abolishing obsolete norms.

Literary language codification - it is a systematic presentation language norms in grammars, dictionaries, in sets of rules for spelling, punctuation, orthoepy, etc.

CODIFICATION, -and; well. [from lat. codex - book and facio - do]

Statement of the set of rules, exemplary language use; language normalization.< Кодификационный, -ая, -ое. К-ая комиссия.

Codification makes the literary language stable, helps it to remain itself as long as possible, to unite people who spoke and speak it in time. "The perfection of the literary language is in the unity of the norms of speech of fathers and children, great-grandfathers and great-grandchildren." From this follows the main difficulty of codification- the search for a golden mean: the preservation of cultural and linguistic traditions should be reasonably combined with the adoption of those innovations that have become stable and widespread in speech educated people our time.

Codification relies on the tradition of the existence of a language in a given society, on some unwritten, but generally accepted ways of using language means. But it is important at the same time that codification is a purposeful ordering of everything related to the language and its application. The results of codifying activity are reflected in normative dictionaries and grammars.

Norm as a result codification is inextricably linked with the concept of a literary language, which is otherwise called normalized or codified. The territorial dialect, urban vernacular, social and professional jargons are not codified: after all, no one consciously and purposefully ensures that the Vologda residents consistently okali, and the residents of the Kursk village akali, so that the sellers, God forbid, do not use the terminology of carpenters, and the soldiers - words and expressions of Labush jargon, and therefore the concept of a norm in the narrow sense of this term just considered is not applicable to such varieties of language - dialects, jargons.

The problem of codifying norms

The process of fixing the norm, i.e. the introduction of certain rules for the use of language means in dictionaries and reference books, is called codification. The language system has a level structure, depending on the level of the language, Various types norms and, accordingly, types of dictionaries: pronunciation and stress norms are recorded in orthoepic and accentological dictionaries, word usage norms - in explanatory and phraseological dictionaries, dictionaries of synonyms, antonyms, paronyms, etc., morphological and syntactic norms - in special reference books and grammars.

Criteria for codifying a norm

It should also be noted that codification- a long laborious process, which in the current economic situation becomes even more complicated, therefore, dictionaries often do not have time to reflect changes in the modern language system and some cases that require clarification are left without interpretation by specialists (for example, the actively used word trunking has not yet been included in modern dictionaries , the meaning of which we have to determine ourselves, based on the media).

Norm options. their coding.

Within the literary norm, there are options (bookish, colloquial), one of which is preferred. Outside of literary norms are professional, colloquial and outdated options. Therefore, some variants of words are given in dictionaries with appropriate marks. It is best to resort to the help of the "Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language". It gives a system of normative marks, which looks like this.

1. Equal options. They are connected by a union and: barge and barge, waves to waves. In terms of correctness, these options are the same.

2. Variants of norms, of which one is recognized as the main one: a) “permissible” (add.): cottage cheese and add. cottage cheese, gave and extra. gave. The first option is preferred, the second is rated as less desirable; b) the mark “tolerably outdated” (additional obsolete): gathered and additional. obsolete gathered. The litter indicates that the variant she evaluates is gradually being lost, and in the past it was the main one.

The dictionary also includes options that are outside the literary norm. To indicate these options, the so-called prohibition marks are introduced:

This litter may have the additional characteristic "Obsolete" (not rec. obsolete). Variants bearing this mark contain the accent that was correct in the past. Today they are outside the norm: point! not rivers. obsolete point, Ukrainians! not rivers. obsolete Ukrainians.

- "wrong" (wrong): kuh about ny! not right. to at honny, dob s cha! not right. d about bull.

- “grossly wrong” (grossly wrong): document! grossly wrong. document, petition Gross wrong. petition.

A number of stresses are associated with the professional sphere of use. There are words in which a specific stress is traditionally accepted only in a narrow professional environment; in any other setting, it is perceived as a mistake. The dictionary captures these options:

and skra in professional speech sparks a

fl e flute musicians about out

to about mpas for sailors comp a with

In addition to the "Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language", a valuable tool is the "Dictionary of Stress for Radio and Television Workers" (compiled by Ageenko F.A., Zarva M.V., edited by Rozental D.E.). It contains words and their forms, the placement of stress in which can cause difficulty, geographical names that are difficult to pronounce, names and surnames of political figures, scientists, artists, writers, artists, names of newspapers, magazines, telegraph agencies, musical works.

In modern linguistics, the term "norm" is understood in two meanings: First of all , the norm is the generally accepted use of a variety of language means, regularly repeated in the speech of speakers (reproduced by speakers), Secondly, instructions, rules, instructions for use, recorded in textbooks, dictionaries, reference books.

Language norms(norms of the literary language, literary norms) are the rules for the use of language means in a certain period of development of the literary language, i.e. rules of pronunciation, spelling, word usage, grammar. A norm is an example of a uniform, generally recognized use of language elements (words, phrases, sentences).

Language norms are not invented by philologists, they reflect certain stage in the development of the literary language of the whole people. The norms of the language cannot be introduced or canceled by decree, they cannot be reformed by administrative means. The activity of linguists studying language norms is different - they identify, describe and codify language norms, as well as explain and promote them.

The main sources of the language norm are:

• works of classical writers;
• works by contemporary writers who continue the classical traditions;
• media publications;
• common modern usage;
• linguistic research data.

The characteristic features of language norms are:

• relative stability;
• prevalence;
• general use;
• general obligation;
• conformity with the use, custom and possibilities of the language system.

Norm criteria:

1) Matching the model. The first condition for the normativity of a linguistic phenomenon is the correspondence of this phenomenon to productive word-formation, morphological, syntactic models.

2) Usability.

3) Necessity. Mere compliance of the model is not enough to be able to speak about the normativity of this or that phenomenon. It is also necessary to take into account the commonness of this formation, its existence in speech. The commonness of a phenomenon, its prevalence in the language is the most common and frequently encountered criterion of normativity.

Norm and literary language. Norm and codification.

In the literary language, the following types of norms are distinguished:

1) norms of written and oral forms of speech;

2) norms of written speech;

3) norms oral speech.

The norms common to oral and written speech include:

• lexical norms;
• grammatical norms;
• stylistic norms.

The special rules of writing are:

• spelling standards;
• punctuation rules.

Applies to spoken language only:

• pronunciation standards;
• stress norms;
• intonation rules.

The norms common to oral and written speech relate to the linguistic content and construction of texts. Lexical norms, or norms of word usage, are norms that determine the correct choice of a word from a number of units that are close to it in meaning or form, as well as its use in the meanings that it has in the literary language.

Lexical norms are reflected in explanatory dictionaries, dictionaries of foreign words, terminological dictionaries and reference books.

Compliance with lexical norms is the most important condition for the accuracy of speech and its correctness.

Grammar norms are divided into word-formation, morphological and syntactic. Grammatical norms are described in the "Russian Grammar" prepared by the Academy of Sciences, in Russian language textbooks and grammar reference books.

Word-building norms determine the order of connecting parts of a word, the formation of new words.

A word-building mistake is the use of non-existent derivative words instead of existing derivative words with other affixes, for example: character description, salesmanship, hopelessness, the writer's works are distinguished by depth and truthfulness.

Morphological norms require the correct formation of grammatical forms of words of different parts of speech (forms of gender, number, short forms and degrees of comparison of adjectives, etc.). A typical violation of morphological norms is the use of a word in a non-existent or context-inappropriate inflectional form (the analyzed image, the reigning order, the victory over fascism, called Plyushkin a hole). Sometimes you can hear such phrases: railway rail, imported shampoo, registered parcel post, patent leather shoes. These phrases allow morphological error- Wrong form of nouns.

Syntactic norms prescribe the correct construction of the main syntactic units - phrases and sentences. These norms include the rules of word agreement and syntactic control, correlating parts of a sentence with each other using grammatical forms of words in order for the sentence to be a competent and meaningful statement. There is a violation of syntactic norms in the following examples: when reading it, a question arises; The poem is characterized by a synthesis of lyrical and epic principles; Having married his brother, none of the children were born alive.

Stylistic norms determine the use of language means in accordance with the laws of the genre, the features of the functional style and, more broadly, with the purpose and conditions of communication.

The unmotivated use of words of a different stylistic coloring in the text causes stylistic errors. Stylistic norms are recorded in explanatory dictionaries as special marks, commented on in textbooks on the style of the Russian language and the culture of speech.

Stylistic errors consist in violation of stylistic norms, inclusion in the text of units that do not correspond to the style and genre of the text.

The most common stylistic mistakes are:

• stylistic inappropriateness (goes in cycles, royal chaos, does not care, the love conflict is described in all its glory - in the text of the essay, in a business document, in an analytical article);
• the use of cumbersome, unsuccessful metaphors (Pushkin and Lermontov are two rays of light in a dark kingdom; These flowers - messengers of nature - do not know what kind of violent heart beats in their chests under stone slabs; Did he have the right to cut off this thread of life, which he did not hang himself? );
• lexical insufficiency (I am deeply concerned about this issue);
• lexical redundancy (He wakes them up so that they wake up; We must refer to the period of their life, that is, the period of time when they lived; Pushkin is a poet with capital letter this word)
• ambiguity (While Oblomov was sleeping, many were preparing for his awakening; Oblomov's only entertainment is Zakhar; Yesenin, preserving traditions, but somehow not so fond of the beautiful female sex; All actions and relationships between Olga and Oblomov were incomplete).

Spelling norms These are the rules for naming words in writing. They include the rules for designating sounds with letters, the rules for continuous, hyphenated and separate spelling of words, the rules for using uppercase (capital) letters and graphic abbreviations.

Punctuation norms determine the use of punctuation marks.

Punctuation aids have following features:

delimitation in a written text of one syntactic structure (or its element) from another;

fixation in the text of the left and right boundaries of the syntactic structure or its element;

combining several syntactic structures into a single whole in the text.

Spelling and punctuation standards are enshrined in the "Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation" (M., 1956), the only most complete and officially approved set of spelling rules. On the basis of these rules, various reference books on spelling and punctuation have been compiled, the most authoritative among which is D.E. Rosenthal, which was repeatedly reprinted, in contrast to the official set of rules itself, published twice - in 1956 and 1962.

Orthoepic norms include norms of pronunciation, stress and intonation. Compliance with orthoepic norms is an important part of the culture of speech, because. their violation creates an unpleasant impression on the listeners about the speech and the speaker himself, distracts from the perception of the content of the speech. Orthoepic norms are fixed in spelling dictionaries Russian language and stress dictionaries. Intonation norms are described in "Russian Grammar" (Moscow, 1980) and textbooks of the Russian language.

Dictionary. The most complete information about the word is given by the explanatory dictionary. The modern standard explanatory dictionary is the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by S.I. Ozhegov and N.Yu. Shvedova. It serves as a guide to correct use words, the correct formation of words, correct pronunciation and writing. From the whole variety of vocabulary of the modern Russian language, its main composition has been selected for this dictionary. In accordance with the tasks of the dictionary, it did not include: special words and meanings that have a narrow professional use; dialect words and meanings, if they are not widely used in the literary language; vernacular words and meanings with a pronounced rough coloring; obsolete words and meanings that have fallen out of active use; own names.

After interpreting the meaning of the word, if necessary, examples are given to illustrate its use in speech. Examples help to better understand the meaning of the word and how to use it. As examples, short phrases, the most common combinations of words, as well as proverbs, proverbs, everyday and figurative expressions showing the use of this word are given.

1. Tradition and writing. The language is generally traditional in nature. Each new generation improves the literary language, takes from the speech of older generations those means of expression, which most correspond to the new socio-cultural tasks and conditions of speech communication. This contributes fixation in texts(written, partly oral).

In compositional speech structure texts form principles internal organization language elements and methods of their use in connection with tasks of this text, depending on the functional purpose style The to which the text belongs.

traditional contributes to the formation of known types of tests, known ways organization of speech means of a given literary language.

2. Obligatory norms and their coding.

Within the framework of the literary language, all its units and all functional areas (bookish and colloquial speech) obey the system of norms.

3. Functioning within the literary language colloquial speech along with bookstore speech.

The interaction of these two main functional and stylistic spheres of the literary language ensures its socio-cultural purpose: to be means of communication native speakers of the literary language, the main means of expression national culture.

4. Branched polyfunctional style system. The functional and stylistic stratification of the literary language is due to the social need specialize language means, organize them in a special way in order to ensure the speech communication of native speakers of the literary language in each of the areas human activity. Functional varieties of the literary language are realized in written and oral form.

6. Literary language is inherent flexible stability. Without it, the exchange of cultural values ​​between generations of native speakers of a given language is impossible. The stability of the literary language is ensured by:

1) maintaining style traditions through written texts;

2) the action of generally binding codified norms, which serve as a reliable regulator of the synchronous existence and development of the literary language.

The stability of the Russian language is also facilitated by its unity, integrity, and the absence of local variants.

Structure literary language

SRLYA consists of two systems, each of which is deeply unique and not similar to each other. Each of these systems is single, integral, self-sufficient, united by its own laws, but nevertheless these are two subsystems of one system. These two systems are the codified literary language (CLL) and colloquial(RYA). RL is uncodified, there are no dictionaries, reference books, textbooks for it. It is assimilated only through direct communication between cultural people, because the RL is one of the two systems that make up the literary (i.e., cultural) language, therefore its speakers are the same persons who speak the CL. The main difference between RY and KLA is the informal relationship between speakers. In the RJ, the norms are not as strictly regulated as in the KLA, they allow large quantity options.

LANGUAGE CODIFICATION

Literary language is a cultural phenomenon that has always been very fragile and vulnerable, they require protection and care. And society consciously cares about the preservation of the language. Conscious concern for language is called language codification. Codification - means ordering, bringing into unity, into a system, an integral consistent set (code). In the language codification - also bringing into unity, order, rejection of everything alien to the literary language and acceptance of everything that enriches it.

Codification tools are dictionaries, language guides, textbooks for high school, scientific linguistic studies setting the standard. It is also an example of people who are fluent in Russian (talented writers, scientists, journalists, artists, announcers); works - artistic, scientific, journalistic - with high social and cultural authority.

Language norm

Language norm- these are generally accepted in the language practice of educated people the rules of pronunciation, word usage, the use of traditionally established grammatical, stylistic and other linguistic means , as well as writing(spelling rules).

The language norm is formed historically, determined, on the one hand, by the peculiarities of the national language, on the other hand, by the development of society and its culture.

The norm is stable for a certain period and at the same time dynamic - changeable over time. Being sufficiently stable and stable, the norm as a historical category is subject to change, which is due to the very nature of the language, which is in constant development. The variance that arises in this case does not destroy the norms, but makes it a more subtle tool for selecting linguistic means.

In accordance with the main levels of the language and the areas of use of language tools, the following are distinguished norm types:

1) orthoepic (pronunciation) associated with the sound side of literary speech, its pronunciation;

2) morphological associated with the rules for the formation of grammatical forms of the word;

3) syntactic, related to the rules for the use of phrases and syntactic constructions;

4) lexical, associated with the rules of word usage, selection and use of the most appropriate lexical units.

The language norm has the following features:

1) sustainability and stability that ensure the balance of the language system for a long time;

2) ubiquity and ubiquity compliance regulations(regulations) as complementary moments of "management" of the elements of speech;

4) cultural and aesthetic perception(assessment) of language and its facts; in the norm, all the best that has been created in the speech behavior of mankind is fixed;

5) dynamic character(variability), due to the development of the entire language system, which is realized in live speech;

6) the possibility of linguistic "pluralism"(coexistence of several options that are recognized as normative) as a result of the interaction of traditions and innovations, stability and mobility, subjective (author) and objective (language), literary and non-literary (vernacular, dialects).

The norm can be imperative, i.e. strictly obligatory, and dispositive, i.e. not strictly required. imperative the norm does not allow variance in the expression of a linguistic unit, regulating only one way of its expression. Violation of this norm is regarded as poor language skills (for example, errors in declension or conjugation, determining the gender of a word, etc.). Dispositive the norm allows variance, regulating several ways of expressing a language unit (for example, cottage cheese and cottage cheese etc.).

Normativity, i.e. following the norms of the literary language in the process of communication is rightly considered the basis, the foundation of speech culture.

VARIANT OF THE LITERARY NORM

Being sufficiently stable and stable, the norm as a historical category is subject to change, which is due to the very nature of the language, which is in constant development. The variance that arises in this case does not destroy the norms, but makes it a more subtle tool for selecting linguistic means.

As mentioned , y the stability of norms is relative, because some of them are slowly but continuously changing under the influence of colloquial speech. Language changes lead to options some norms. This means that the same grammatical meaning, the same human thought can be expressed differently.

The norm fluctuates and changes as a result of interaction different styles, the interaction of systems of language and vernacular, the literary language and dialects, the interaction of the new and the old.

These vibrations create variant norms. Bulk prevalence variant, its regular use and interaction with similar examples of the literary language gradually turns the variant into the norm. There are three main degrees of the "norm - variant" ratio:

1) the norm is obligatory, and the option is prohibited;

2) the norm is mandatory, and the option is acceptable, although not desirable;

3) the norm and the variant are equal.

Variation in the use of the same language unit is often a reflection of the transitional stage from an outdated norm to a new one. Variants, modifications or varieties of a given language unit can coexist with its main form.

There are equal and unequal variants of literary norms. In case of inequality of options, the main one is considered to be the one that can be used in all styles of speech. A secondary, non-primary variant is recognized, the use of which is limited to any one style.

By belonging to the linguistic types of units, the following options are distinguished:

1) pronunciation (bakery-buloshnaya), otherwise-otherwise;

2) inflectional (tractors-tractors, in shop-in shop, hectare-hectares);

3) word-formation (cutting-cutting, stuffing-packing);

4) syntactic (ride the tram-ride the tram, wait for the plane-wait for the plane;

5) lexical (import-import, export-export, film-film).

norm, being general language requires an active relationship. The outstanding philologist L.V. Shcherba regards variants and deviations from the norm as the highest criterion in assessing the culture of speech: “When a sense of the norm is brought up in a person, then he begins to feel all the charm of justified deviations from it.”

Therefore, in order to deviate from the norm, one must know it, one must understand why admissible retreat, for example:

people on a horse instead of horses.

1.

A culture of speech is a multi-valued concept. In the first sense, "the culture of speech is a special area of ​​linguistic knowledge, a scientific discipline containing certain sections, subsections and rules related to this area of ​​linguistics" (Culture of Russian speech. Textbook for universities. Edited by Prof. L.K. Graudina and Prof. E.N. Shiryaev. - M .: Publishing group NORMA - INFRA M, 1998. - S. 24-25).

as a scientific discipline The culture of Russian speech has developed in Russian studies since the 1920s. Until that time, the main cycle of humanitarian and normative linguistic knowledge of the educational profile in Russia was associated primarily with rhetoric - one of the seven "free arts" ("arts"). Since ancient times, it has occupied a special place in European culture.

One of the main tasks of the culture of speech- this is the protection of the literary language, its norms. Without knowledge of the basics of the culture of speech in our time, it is difficult to imagine a true intellectual. As A.P. Chekhov wrote, “for an intelligent person, it is as indecent to speak badly as not to be able to read and write.”

In the second sense meaning the characteristic of the totality of knowledge, skills and speech skills of a person. In this case, “the culture of speech is such a choice and such an organization of language means that, in a certain situation of communication, while observing modern language norms and ethics of communication, can provide the greatest effect in achieving the set communicative tasks” (Culture of Russian speech. Textbook for universities. Edited by Prof. L.K. Graudina and Prof. E.N. Shiryaev. - M .: Publishing group NORMA - INFRA M, 1998. - P. 16). The definition emphasizes three aspects of speech culture: 1) normative, 2) ethical, 3) communicative.

Normative aspect of speech culture- one of the most important. Much attention is paid to the issues of the standard of the literary language in the works of linguists. Thus, the central problems put forward by S.I. Ozhegov, were grouped around the following main sections: the theory of normalization, the theory of the norm, the theory of orthology (or, as it was most often said then, the correctness of speech and its practical codification). The famous modern linguist M.V. Panov among the main features of the literary language names such as the language of culture, the language of the educated part of the people, consciously codified language. Codification is the fixation in various dictionaries and grammar of those norms and rules that must be observed when creating texts of codified functional varieties. (Culture of Russian speech. A textbook for universities. Under the editorship of Prof. L.K. Graudina and Prof. E.N. Shiryaev. - M .: Publishing group NORMA - INFRA M, 1998. - P. 47).

Codified norms of the literary language- these are the norms that all native speakers of the literary language must follow. Any grammar of the modern Russian literary language, any dictionary is nothing but its codification.

The ethical aspect of the culture of speech is no less important. Every society has its own ethical standards of behavior. For example, if in the morning you sit down at the table with members of your family, then it would be quite ethical to ask: Pass me the bread. But if you are sitting at a large festive table with people unfamiliar or not very close to you, then in relation to them it would be appropriate to express the same request as follows: Can you (or: it won’t bother you) pass me bread? The first example differs from the second in non-normativity. And from the point of view of communication is more clearly expressed in the first case, however, under conditions holiday table nevertheless the second form is appropriate. The difference between the first and second examples is precisely in following ethical standards (speech etiquette).

Also in the language there is a certain set of statements, fixed by the tradition of using the language, which "prescribe" to the addressee a certain form of response. To do this, each speaker of the language needs to know the meaning of "non-literal expressions", the meaning of which is not derived from the meanings of its constituent word forms. For example, to the request “Could you pass the bread?” or “Will you pass the bread?” the addressee should answer "Yes, please", but not "I can (can not)" or "I will (I will not)". According to these rules, the flower girl Eliza Doolittle from B. Shaw's play "Pygmalion" to the remark "Beautiful weather, isn't it?" I had to answer with a phrase that was not only linguistically impeccably constructed, but also aesthetically and socio-culturally “typical”.

The role of ethical norms in communication can be clarified by another vivid example. Foul language is also communication in which ethical norms are grossly violated.

Important for the culture of speech is what is called the communicative aspect of speech. S.I. Ozhegov wrote “... But the culture of speech is not only in following the norms of the language. It also lies in the ability to find not only the exact means for expressing one’s thoughts, but also the most intelligible (i.e., the most expressive and most appropriate (i.e., suitable for this case) and, therefore, stylistically justified» (Ozhegov S.I. On the norms of word usage. Preface to the book: Correctness of Russian speech: Dictionary - reference book. - M., 1965 // Ozhegov S.I. Lexicology. Lexicography. Culture of speech. - M., 1974.- C .287 - 288).

The language performs different communicative tasks, serves different areas of communication: one thing is the language of science and quite another is ordinary colloquial speech. Each sphere of communication, in accordance with the communicative tasks that are set before it, makes its own requirements for the language.

However, when using any of the existing styles, it is necessary to avoid abrupt and unmotivated deviations from the literary one.
As a rule, good speech is produced by carriers of the elite type of speech culture. In the sphere of the literary language, there are two established types (elitist and medium literary) and two emerging types (literary-colloquial and familiar-colloquial, usually intersecting with jargon, which is already outside the scope of the literary language).

Let's dwell on them in more detail.

elite type. Carriers of the elite type are people who know all the norms of the literary language, fulfill ethical and communication standards. This means observing not only codified norms, but also the functional and stylistic differentiation of the literary language, the norms associated with the use of oral or written speech. The bearer of the elite type of speech culture is characterized by the easy use of the functional style and genre of speech corresponding to the situation and the goals of communication, the “non-transfer” of what is typical for oral speech into written speech, and what is characteristic of written speech into oral speech. To some extent, compliance with communicative norms requires knowledge and practical implementation of the rhetorical rules of communication.

The elite type of speech culture is the embodiment of a common culture in its most complete form: at least passive possession of the achievements of world and national culture (knowledge of artifacts material culture, acquaintance with literary masterpieces, masterpieces of art, at least an idea of ​​the geniuses of science, etc.). It is the general cultural component that provides the richness of both passive and active vocabulary. The ability to think ensures the logical presentation of thoughts. The speech culture of the elite type is also based on the broad coverage by the consciousness of the speaker (writer) of various precedent texts that have enduring general cultural significance. It is on such texts that the bearer of the elite type of speech culture is guided in his speech. The lack of self-confidence in his knowledge develops in him the habit of constantly replenishing his knowledge, relying on authoritative texts, dictionaries and reference books for their verification, and not on what he heard on the radio or television, read in the newspaper, etc.

Mediocre type. The carriers of this type of speech culture are the majority of the educated population of Russia: the majority of people with higher education and a significant number of people with secondary education. This type embodies common culture a person in its simplified and far from complete version. Wherein feature of the average literary type is the fundamental satisfaction with one's intellectual baggage, the absence of the need to expand one's knowledge and skills, especially in their verification.

The self-confidence of a carrier of the average literary type of speech culture leads to systemic errors in spelling, punctuation, pronunciation, word usage, etc. without a shadow of embarrassment or even with aggressive defense of just such an attitude to the rules (So what!?), and often by challenging the correctness of the one who noticed a mistake (No, I'm right: it should be written right, because this is the acquisition of the right to some kind of property - from a letter to the host of the Saratov radio program "Language Service" Prof. G. Polishchuk). At the same time, references to radio and television are very frequent (I heard the quarter on television). Television and other mass media, as well as popular literature, often of a "junk" type, serve as an unconditional precedent text for carriers of this type; carriers of the medium literary type are not aware of the speech inferiority of such texts.

The medium-literary type is not fully mastered by the elite, therefore it has observance of the norms of the literary language, even the desire for greater "literaryness", but in the absence of the necessary knowledge, this leads to distorted ideas about the correctness, abuse of bookish and foreign words (about snow figures under New Year: the figures melted concretely - Vesti, 12/27/99). Specifically, like, in short (as a pause filler) are very frequent words in the speech of a carrier of this type. Foreign words with incorrect pronunciation and use are also frequent (lack of movement, that is, hypoxia - Ros. gas .; By the method of biolactation it was found that all fields interact with each other - Ros. gas .; the words hypoxia are used incorrectly (it is necessary: ​​hypodynamia), biolactation ( need: dowsing).

The general cultural level also ensures the degree of richness / poverty of the vocabulary (not suspecting the difference between viruses and bacteria, TV journalists and newspapermen calmly talk and write about the cholera virus, the streptococcus virus, etc.). The absence of a large vocabulary in the minds of carriers of the medium literary type of speech culture does not allow them to use the wide synonymous possibilities of the Russian language in their speech, which turns their speech into a stamped one: either like the old newspeak, or with the dominance of reduced vocabulary, to which the desire to make a speech boils down more expressive. Hence the huge number of ugly surrogates for expressive vocabulary in the media: okromya, like, nadys, soon, etc.

The average literary speech culture of our journalists, whose speech is a precedent (and even reference) for carriers of the average literary type of speech culture, creates a vicious circle and contributes to the reproduction and wider distribution of the average literary type of speech culture.

Not only various irregularities in pronunciation, word formation, shaping (Daden's mansion and Tsereteli by the highest mayor's order - Izv. 09/07/99), word usage, etc., are reproduced and widely disseminated, but also violations of traditional national communicative and ethical norms. It was the journalists who introduced and widely disseminated the naming of an adult without a middle name (Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin), which was alien to the Russian tradition of communication until recently (Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin), the use of you-communication and addresses by household names not only in an informal, but also in an official setting.

Literary and colloquial, like familiar-colloquial types began to take shape as independent only in the 90s of the XX century. If a carrier of the average literary type of speech culture, in contrast to the carriers of the elite type, is characterized by the possession of far from all functional varieties of the literary language (as a rule, this is colloquial speech and one of the functional styles that is necessary professionally: for scientists - scientific, for journalists - journalistic and etc.), then the carriers of "conversational" types are characterized by the possession of only a conversational communication system, which is used by them in any setting, including official ones. With their stylistic and stylistic monotony of always reduced speech, “colloquial” types approach the vernacular type of speech culture.

"Conversational" types differ only in the degree of reduced speech. In the literary-colloquial type, you-communication and household names such as Seryozha prevail, in the familiar-colloquial type, you-communication becomes the only possible one, and in circulation Seryozhka, Seryoga is preferred. In both types, there is a huge amount of jargon used in speech, but in familiar-colloquial, the proportion of rude words and colloquial elements increases. However, in both types it occurs a large number of foreign vocabulary and book words, which often become simple pause fillers, so that they are found nearby and specifically, in short, like, in kind, and damn it, damn it, etc.

There is no need to talk about any observance of ethical and communicative norms in these types of speech culture. In addition, the indistinguishability between written and oral forms of speech and the complete inability to build a monologue text are very typical (hence the endless questions to the direct interlocutor in the studio (Do you understand me? Do you understand?) with complete disregard for the possibilities of understanding by the true addressee of the speech - the viewer.

Of course, TV journalists are carriers of non-verbal types of speech culture, but the guests they invite to the air are often such, and thus television spreads these types of speech culture, making them, as it were, acceptable in the eyes (ears) of the population.

In some cases, colloquial types of speech culture unite journalists and “guests” in any case by equally used colloquial (incomplete) style of pronunciation with extreme reduction, the use of household names, “phatic chatter” with jargon and mixed foreign vocabulary [Fedosyuk 2000]. Such "non-distinguishing" between journalists and "guests" is especially typical for the night airs of music radio stations, it is not uncommon on the radio "Echo of Moscow", Saratov's "Hit on a Working Noon" and in some entertainment television programs.

A colloquial tongue twister with a strong reduction is also found in the speech of journalists, which in all other respects corresponds to the average literary type of speech culture, which, of course, prevents the addressee from adequately and fully perceiving what is being reported (Izv. 22.08.2000, article by A. Slapovsky).

As for the observance of orthological norms, in "conversational" types it can even be complete. The disadvantage of these types lies in the extension of the laws of unconstrained personally addressed informal communication to speech in any situation. Of course, the speech of the carriers of these types can be good only in a casual conversation with relatives or friends (it can, of course, not be because of rudeness; good even in such conditions).

The speech of carriers of the average literary type of speech culture may well be good not only in friendly communication, but also in professional activities, however, outside of these situations, their speech may be helpless. Truly good speech in any situation is found only among carriers of the elite type of speech culture, although they may also have some errors.

The foregoing makes us turn to another parameter of good speech - admissibility and inadmissibility of certain deviations from the norms. Let's start with orthological norms. It has long been known that spelling errors in checked and unchecked spellings cannot be treated with the same severity, that much in our spelling must be changed (changes have been discussed for many years), that there are discrepancies in codifications in dictionaries and visual practice (the use of capital letters letters, writing some adverbs and compound adjectives), there are errors in rare words and in frequently occurring ones. It is obvious that spelling errors are unequal in terms of their degree of admissibility. The word plank, adverbs at random, out of spite, utterly, etc. require for correct spelling references to the dictionary, while the separate spelling of prepositions, the checked spelling of the word water, etc., completely obey the spelling rules, and the word dog is so frequent that it should have been remembered in the correct spelling. Obviously, what needs to be reformed and needs to be checked against dictionaries is a less serious mistake. Written speech without a single mistake was met by me only in one carrier of the elite type of speech culture, in the speech of others errors were possible, but single and not rude (we are not talking about those cases where continuous or separate spelling can have different meanings and therefore be challenged) .

In the speech of speakers of the medium literary type of speech culture, spelling errors of not only a non-rough type due to the lack of the habit of looking into the dictionary are quite frequent, including they are also found in printed publications:<...>that is, no one organization<...>, and organizations closed in single system"(KP, 1.07.2000), Monument to Chernyshevsky (Saratov-SP, 9.09.2000). There are also gross spelling errors in handwritten texts (for example, in student and even postgraduate work).

Similar is the case with punctuation rules. A carrier of an elite type of speech culture does not make gross punctuation errors (he will not write complex sentences without commas, mark separations and introductory words with commas), but may not distinguish between different relations in the non-union by setting a dash or colon complex sentence. A medium literary type carrier can do without punctuation marks at all, not use a red line, etc. At the same time, it should be taken into account that in the modern punctuation system there are quite a lot of opportunities for optional setting of signs used for expressive purposes. The carrier of the elite type of speech culture uses them not always consciously, but always meaningfully (see the works of E. V. Dzyakovich), while the carrier of the middle literary type does not suspect the possibility of using optional signs and / or does not use them at all, or uses them accidentally along with with the absence of the necessary signs and the presence of superfluous ones (they can still separate, finally, in a temporary meaning, etc.).

The situation is similar with orthoepic norms. In the speech of a carrier of an elite type, one can meet not only the observance of a strict norm, but also individual cases of the use of such an accent or pronunciation, which in dictionaries has the mark add. and not even rivers., but such pronunciation does not constitute a system (separate words). This happens especially often in cases where the usual norm diverges from the codified one. So, until 1985, the accent was indicated in the dictionaries fo / lga, but in all my life I have never heard such an accent from anyone. All speakers of the elite type known to me pronounced foil /. Now it is this accent that has been codified. Apparently, it will be necessary to codify the stress of the provision, since in the speech of the vast majority of people who otherwise comply with codified norms and fully correspond to the elite type of speech culture, a similar pronunciation is observed (this, of course, does not mean that all carriers of the elite type pronounce this way). Deviations from codified norms are quite frequent in cases where codification does not have clear grounds: why can one say dean and d[e]can, decade and d[e]kada, but only decorator, museum, tenor, cream, morpheme and only background [e]ma, fon[e]tika, t[e]mbr, t[e]mp. We have recorded errors in such and similar words in the speech of speakers of the elite type of speech culture: one who does not allow either te[e]ma or acad[e]miya in his speech can nevertheless say muz[e]th and kr[e]m, and the one who speaks t[e]nor can also pronounce the phoneme, phonetics.

In the speech of carriers of the medium literary type of speech culture, such errors are both more frequent and coarser (not only t[e]ma, acad[e]mia and acad[e]mic, but even t[e]rnia and Karenin are widespread).

In the speech of speakers of the middle literary type, not only orthoepic ones are violated (beautiful / e, ringing / nit, What; preservation of A after soft consonants in the first pre-stressed syllable: spot, necessarily, driver, means /), but also the norms of formation (daden). Many of these violations for the average literary type have become the usual norm (come, go, Nikitovich), often penetrating even into the speech of individual carriers of the elite type of speech culture, but not ceasing to be mistakes. It is curious that in the speech of the speakers of the "colloquial" types of such errors, there may even be fewer such errors than in the average literary type.

Errors in the declension of complex numerals are especially frequent in the average literary type: their formation can really cause difficulties (why one hundred, two hundred, three hundred, five hundred, up to the year two thousand, but up to two thousand one, second, third, etc.), they almost never are found in written speech (indicated there by numbers) - as a result, on the radio and on the TV screen, we constantly hear the erroneous formation of the form even in the speech of journalists belonging to or close to the elite type (E. A. Kiselev, N. K. Svanidze). But are such mistakes acceptable?

Unfortunately, codification often supports erroneous forms and erroneous pronunciation as acceptable (before / speaking, although with / speaking is not recommended, deacon /), as an equal: locksmith /, tractor /, and some scholars even consider many such irregularities simply as socially (professionally) limited in their use (convicted/excited, searches/ - in the speech of lawyers, drug addicts / me, a / alcohol - in the speech of doctors, cake / - in the speech of confectioners, etc. [Krysin 2000 ] Such professionalization does take place, but nevertheless, both among lawyers and among doctors there are such carriers of the elite type of speech culture who observe general literary, and not professional, norms, and it is these representatives of the corresponding profession who have the broadest and deepest general culture.

Even more difficult to determine the boundaries of the permissible are the facts of violation of lexical and stylistic norms, since the criteria for the expediency of using a particular word, which has a pronounced expressiveness, are unsteady. The emergence of a dictionary of common jargon [Ermakova et al. 1999] is one of the proofs of this. In such cases, the decision on the advisability of including a particular word or phrase in speech should be determined taking into account the functional, stylistic and genre affiliation of the text.

Bibliography:

1. Sirotinina O. B. Good speech: shifts in the idea of ​​the standard // Active language processes of the end of the XX century. - M., 2000.
2. Kochetkova T.V. Linguistic personality of the bearer of elite speech culture: Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... doc. philol. Sciences. Saratov, 1999.
3. Shiryaev E. N. Speech culture as a linguistic discipline // Russian language and modernity: Problems and prospects for the development of Russian studies. - M., 1991. Part 1.
4. Shiryaev E. N. The culture of Russian speech and the effectiveness of communication. - M., 1996.
5. Shiryaev E. N. Modern theoretical concept culture of speech // Culture of Russian speech: Textbook for universities. - M., 2000.
6. Goldin V. E., Sirotinina O. B. Intranational speech cultures and their interaction // Stylistic Issues. - Saratov, 1993. - Issue. 25.
7. Goldin V. E., Sirotinina O. B. Speech culture // Russian language: Encyclopedia. - M., 1997.
8. Fedosyuk M. Yu. modern Russia. - Yekaterinburg, 2000.
9. Ermakova O. P., Zemskaya E. A., Rozina R. I. Words that we all met. Explanatory Dictionary of Russian General Jargon. - M., 1999.