In modern linguistic science, the norm is considered as a dynamic, not a static phenomenon, although normativity as the foundation of a literary language presupposes stability and sustainability.

The term "norm" in modern linguistic science is used in wide and narrow sense.

Concept definition

"In a broad sense, the norm means traditionally and spontaneously formed ways of speech that distinguish this language idiom from other language idioms. In this understanding, the norm is close to the concept of usage, i.e. generally accepted, established ways of using this language.<...>In a narrow sense, a norm is the result of a purposeful codification of a language. This understanding of the norm is inextricably linked with the concept literary language, which is otherwise called normalized, or codified".

Accordingly, on the one hand, the norm should be considered as a traditional phenomenon that has developed historically, and on the other hand, as a fact of codification, a set of regulations.

Concept definition

K. S. Gorbachevich emphasized: “Modern linguistics has freed itself from the dogmatic idea of ​​the inviolability of the norms of literary speech. The norm reflects the progressive development of the language, although it should not be mechanically derived from linguistic evolution. The dynamic theory of the norm, based on the requirement of “flexible stability”, combines in itself and taking into account productive and independent of our will tendencies in the development of the language, and a careful attitude to the capital of inherited literary and traditional speech skills.

Dynamic Approach to the norm was developed in the works of L. V. Shcherba, N. Yu. Shvedova, L. I. Skvortsov, F. P. Filin and other researchers. This approach to the norm combines the reproduction of "the realized possibilities of the system, elevated by social practice to the rank of a model", and "the constant generation of linguistic facts in the process of live communication, oriented both to the system and to the realized model" .

Obviously, the norm reflects both intra-linguistic language laws and extra-linguistic ones. On the one hand, the normativity of language levels is a reflection of the consistency of the language, the principles of linguistic analogy and economy, the patterns of field organization and gradualness. On the other hand, axiological and pragmatic factors also determine the stability of the norm in a given period of development of society. Accordingly, a certain paradoxical nature of the language norm makes it possible to describe it in a complex of dialectical properties: stability and mobility, historical determinism and variability, unambiguity and ambiguity, interdependence of the language standard and context. Consequently, the choice is made both on the basis of linguistic tradition and on the basis of linguistic usage.

In this regard, the coexistence of linguistic options on all language levels, as a reflection of the dynamic properties of the language in the process of its evolution, is proof of the viability of the language system.

Concept definition

Variation (from lat. variants, genus. P. variantis- "changing"), or variability, is a multi-valued concept. Firstly, it is "the idea of ​​different ways of expressing a linguistic entity as its modification, variety, or as a deviation from a certain norm (for example, discrepancies in different lists of the same monument)". Secondly, this term characterizes the mode of existence and functioning of language units and the language system as a whole. Variation is a fundamental property of the language system and the functioning of all units of the language; it is characterized by the concepts of "variant", "invariant", "variation". In the first understanding of variance, only the concepts of "variant" and "variation" are used; what is modified is understood as a certain sample, standard or norm, and a variant is understood as a modification of this norm or a deviation from it. In the second understanding, the term "invariant" and the opposition "variant-invariant" are introduced. Under options"different manifestations of the same essence are understood, for example, modifications of the same unit, which remains itself with all changes" .

In the same sense, L.P. Krysin uses the term variability. We consider it possible to consider the terms variability and variability as equivalent and equivalent.

By analogy with the typology of norms, orthoepic, lexical, grammatical (morphological and syntactic) variants are distinguished.

In Russian lexicography, the most striking fundamental source that reflects the typology of variant grammatical means, the quantitative ratio of variants within a type, the stylistic differentiation of variants, containing a detailed explanation of the causes of variance, and, if necessary, a brief historical background, a description of current trends, is the dictionary "Grammatical Correctness of Russian Speech" .

The authors of the dictionary note that in a large group of double names of various phenomena, both components are usually declined: see. -railway carriage (-buffet, -exhibition, -restaurant, -cistern, -refrigerator). "However, the names of the most commonly used in everyday life such as plan-map, plan-order, dining car, novel-newspaper, sofa bed with a strict literary norm requiring the declension of both components of the name, indeclinable variants at the junction of words have spread in colloquial speech: in the dining car, sale of sofa beds, filling out the plan-card"(S. 179).

Despite the fact that the literary norm is rigid and conservative, it allows the simultaneous functioning of variants of the same language unit. Options may differ stylistically, depend on the communicative conditions of speech, refer to the speech practice of certain social and professional groups; facts and free variation are possible.

The norm changes along with the development of the language. These changes, in turn (usually in the form options), are reflected in lexicographic sources by means of type labels add.(= "permissible"), unfold(= "colloquial"), simple.(= "colloquial"), heat?..(= "slang"), etc. The typology of marks in the modern Russian language is not regulated and therefore can be different.

The differentiation of marks used in the "Orthoepic Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by R. I. Avanesov, first published in 1983, seems to be successful. The authors of the dictionary, in relation to the norm, distinguish between linguistic facts described as add.(= "additional") - a less desirable version of the norm, which is within the correct range; add. obsolete(= "tolerably obsolete") – the variant being evaluated is gradually lost. Along with the above, prohibitive marks are also distinguished: not rivers.(= "not recommended") as reflecting phenomena corresponding to the general trends of language development ("often this label is used to evaluate variants that can be assumed to become normative in the not too distant future"); wrong.(= "wrong") and grossly wrong.(= "grossly wrong").

See, for example: "reprimand, -a, pl.-y, -ov! wrong, pl. reprimand, -ov (S. 88)"; "put out, -vlyu, -vit, pov. expose and expose, incl. suffering, past exposed" (S. 95); "to sprinkle, - to pour, - to pour, - to pour and add.- sypit, - sypit, pov.-rash, incl. suffering, past sprinkled" (S. 428.); "start, -chnu, -chnet, past start, start, start, start, incl. suffering, past opened and additional obsolete started, started and add. obsolete start, start and started, started, started and additional obsolete started, started! wrong, began" (S. 431-432).

The coexistence of variants in a given period of time is unbalanced, which is determined by the statistical characteristics of use. For example, as noted by the authors of the dictionary "Grammatical Correctness of Russian Speech", approximately until the 1950s. "declension of proper names ending in -a unstressed, both Russian and borrowed, practically without exception belonged to the first type of declension of the feminine morphological gender. "However, since the middle of the 20th century," proper names of this morphological type have fluctuated in declension between the first type of declension and the non-inflected variant (90.91 % – 9.09%)" . Compare: Pike - Pike, Shlomy – Shloma, Batekhi – Bateha, Clubs – cudgel etc.

There are several types of variation of language units within the norm;

• 1)free, for example, the variable coexistence of historically determined grammatical forms, reflecting the basic models of form formation, and modeling Similarly(for example, the shaping of verbs of non-productive groups by analogy with productive ones): ride - ride, wave – waving(Similarly read);
• 2) semantically due, for example, to the variation of the genitive case forms ( cheese – cheese, cottage cheese – cottage cheese), prepositional case (in circle – in a circle, at home - at home), plural forms depending on the meaning of the word ( images – images, orders – orders) and etc.;
• 3) stylistically conditional, cf. alcoholic(neutral) - wino(simple) scandal(neutral) - brawl(colloquial), young woman(neutral) – Virgo(outdated), miser(neutral) – miser(simple);
• 4) professionally conditional, for example: excited(neutral) - excited(prof.), newborn(neutral) – newborn(prof.), convicted(neutral) – convicted(prof.), alcohol(neutral) - alcohol(prof.), spritz(neutral) – syringe(prof.);
• 5) socially conditioned, an example of which are the reflexes of the old Moscow pronunciation in modern sounding speech. In particular, as noted, the results of the research “convincingly showed that some of the old Moscow features that were previously recognized as archaic: the pronunciation of unstressed inflections of verbs II sp. 3 l. in a certain circle of words, the pronunciation of the sound [p "] before soft consonants (dental, front-lingual, labial, back-lingual) should be recognized as normatively acceptable in the modern language, along with new pronunciation options"

The notion of a variant is closely related to the notion of a norm in the language. Variants are an objective phenomenon in any living national language. This is an expression of such a universal language category as variability. Variation is understood as a way of existence of a language unit and as a fundamental property of the language system as a whole. All units of the language are variable, that is, they are presented in the form of a number of options. Here are examples of variants at different language levels:

In pronunciation: natural - [yis'te's't'vinna - es't'es'n], quiet - [t'ihyy - t'ihai], repel - [attalkyvat' - atta lk'ivat'], tempo - [temp - t'emp], term - [termin - t'ermin], Pyotr Aleksandrovich - [P'otr Alexanch - Pet Sanch];

Grammar: on vacation - on vacation, (became) red - (became) red - (became) red; (was) a student - (was) a student;

In word formation: pre-long - long (long) - long-(pre) long;

In vocabulary: eyes - eyes - peepers; linguistics - linguistics.

The problem of the norm arises precisely in connection with the phenomenon of variability. The norm delimits the right options from the wrong ones. Among the given options there are also non-literary ones, for example, the pronunciation [t’ihai]. Within the norm, there are options that are preferable and less preferable in a certain communicative situation, neutral and stylistically colored, becoming obsolete or gaining the rights of literary citizenship.

Variants perform several functions in the language.

First, variant is a way of language evolution. Any living national language changes in the process of its development. Only the development is slow. In order to remain an effective communication tool for its speakers over time, a language must remain a stable system. There is a paradox: "Language changes while remaining itself." Variants coexisting for a certain time provide this stability. The variant provides gradualness and continuity in the course of language evolution. It helps speakers get used to the changes in language, making the shift less painful, less tangible. For example, in the word phenomenon the stress was originally placed on the third syllable. In the 80s of the last century, the stress began to move from the last syllable to the middle one. Most people today say phenomenon, although phenomenon can also be heard, and dictionaries note two variants of stress.

Secondly, the variant is a source of replenishment and development of the language itself. In the course of historical development, one option does not always replace the other. It happens that both of them remain in the language system, but their functions change. So, in the form of the nominative plural, a number of polysemantic masculine nouns retain variants with endings -a (-i), -s (-i) for individual values ​​of original names: passes and passes, images and images, camps and camps.

Thirdly, until natural selection has ended, variants perform a stylistic function: contract(book) - agreement(colloquial) , extraction(book) - bull(colloquial); them(book) - theirs(colloquial) ; back(‘backward’ in literary language) – back('again' colloquially) .

Form variation is not a permanent property of a particular language unit. The oscillation continues for a certain period, after which one forces out its competitor, the other either leaves the language or acquires a new meaning.

The presence of variants has a downside: it violates the systemic nature of the language. If heterogeneous, redundant forms accumulate, the language may cease to be generally intelligible, it will not be able to perform the main task - the function of communication.

Society cannot be indifferent to its language. At the moment when the asystemic beginning in the language begins to manifest itself too actively, the speakers themselves tend to streamline the options.

The norm is generally defined as a means of regulating activity in general. The language norm is a social regulator of speech activity.

The literary norm is a socio-historical category. The very emergence, formation and recognition of the norm is the history of the transformation of the potential possibilities of a language unit into the fact of conscious patterns of speech behavior.

The nature of normativity presupposes a preliminary assessment and selection of facts that must be recognized as normative. In this case, two bases are always used: as they said before and as they say now. The formation of a language norm is a complex dialectical process. Here there is an interaction between the objective and the evaluative, the historically established and the modern, mobile. For example, the selection of ways to pronounce many borrowings is currently underway: computer[te] ep and computer[t'e] ep,[mene] dzhment and [m'en'e] jment.

A linguistic fact is recognized as normative if it has the following main features:

Public approval of this method of expression by the educated part of the population;

Reproducibility (regular use) of the variant;

Compliance with the capabilities of the language system.

The "legality" of a language norm acquires with its codification. th - fixation in dictionaries, reference books, textbooks.

Codification does not deny the possibility of variance linking linguistic phenomena, but takes it into account, takes into account, first of all, the use of this variant, the tendencies of language development, evaluates the existing variants from a stylistic point of view. So, the Orthoepic Dictionary, ed. R. I. Avanesova fixes equal and stylistic options:

Sheet, genus. pl. sheet and sheets; ! not rivers. sheet;

Aviakonstrukor, pl. aviation designers; ! not rivers. aviaconstructor.

Codification reinforces what has already existed in the language for some time. Sometimes it happens that codification lags behind the real norm. For example, dictionaries continue to offer accent variants apostrophe, loop, vent, whereas most native speakers stress on other syllables: apostrophe, loop, vent.

So, the norm is based on the spontaneous desire of people to speak like everyone else in order to be better understood and more quickly accepted in society. The norm is a necessary condition for natural and fluent language proficiency.

In the linguistic literature of recent years, two types of norms are distinguished: imperative and dispositive.

imperative(i.e. strictly obligatory) are such norms, the violation of which is regarded as a poor command of the Russian language (for example, a violation of the norms of declension, conjugation or belonging to the grammatical gender). These norms do not allow options (non-variables), any other implementations of them are considered incorrect: met with Vanya(not with Van), call(not call), quarter(not block), my callus(not my corn), wash your hair with shampoo(not shampoo).

dispositive(complementary, not strictly mandatory) norms allow stylistically different or neutral options: otherwise - otherwise, stack - stack, croutons - croutons(colloquial), thinking - thinking(obsolete) swirl - swirl(permissible), brown-brown, a piece of cheese - a piece of cheese, a record book - a record book, three students went - three students went. Evaluations of options in this case do not have a categorical (prohibitive) character, they are more "soft": "so to speak, better or worse, more appropriate, stylistically more justified" and so on. For example, in the oral speech of actors, the phrase I work in theater became widespread (like the adverb exciting: All this is very exciting). In writing, it is more appropriate to use the phrase I work in the theatre. Sailors say compass, report, while the general literary norm compass, report.

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), related to the sound side of literary speech, its pronunciation;

2) morphological, related to the rules of 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.

There are three degrees of the "norm - variant" ratio:

a) the norm is obligatory, and the variant (primarily colloquial) is prohibited;

b) the norm is mandatory, and the option is acceptable, although undesirable;

c) the norm and the variant are equal.

In the latter case, further displacement of the old norm and even the birth of a new one is possible.

The language norm has the following features:

sustainability and stability ensuring the balance of the language system for a long time;

ubiquity and ubiquity compliance with normative rules (regulation) as complementary moments of "management" of the elements of speech;

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;

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

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).

It should be remembered that along with the options allowed by the dispositive norms of the literary language, there are many deviations from the norms, i.e. speech errors. Such deviations from linguistic norms can be explained by several reasons: poor knowledge of the norms themselves ( We want to read; With twenty-two guys we went to the cinema; put on your coat) inconsistencies and contradictions in the internal system of the language (for example, the reason for the prevalence of incorrect stresses such as called, tore, obviously, is the literary stress on the root in the forms called, called, called; tore, tore, tore. Abnormal form lecturer exists, probably because the language system has normative forms doctors, camps etc.); the influence of external factors - territorial or social dialects, a different language system in the context of bilingualism.

A few years ago, all deviations from the norm of the literary language (except for spelling and punctuation) were considered "stylistic errors", without any further differentiation. This practice has been deemed wrong. Errors must be differentiated depending on the speech level at which they are made. Although there is no single optimal classification of speech errors, most researchers distinguish speech errors at the phonetic, lexical and grammatical levels (with their further differentiation, for example, "mistake in the pronunciation of consonants", "mixing of paronyms", "contamination", "errors in declension numerals", etc.) 1 . Actually, "stylistic" are considered such errors that are associated with a violation of the requirement of the unity of style (uniformity), i.e. stylistic errors are considered as a kind of speech errors: Tourists lived in tents, cooked on a fire; Nastya lost her temper, and the Actor hanged himself; At the beginning of the novel, we see Pavel as an ordinary working guy who is fond of partying; The responsibility for the younger brother was assigned to me.

3. The concept of culture of speech.

Variants (or doublets) are varieties of the same language unit that have the same meaning, but differ in form. Some variants are not differentiated either semantically or stylistically: otherwise- otherwise; stack - stack; workshops - workshops; sazhen - sazhen. However, the vast majority of variants undergo stylistic differentiation: called, called, accountants- accountant, determine- condition, wave- waving(the second options, compared to the first, have a colloquial or colloquial connotation).

How and why do options arise? What phenomena can be considered variant, and what are not? What is the fate of variant modes of expression? These and other questions are constantly in the field of view of scientists.

We know that language is constantly changing. It is obvious. Let's compare a text written about 150 years ago with a modern one to see the changes that have taken place in the language during this time:

But as soon as dusk fell on the ground, The ax rattled on the elastic roots, And pets of centuries fell without life! Their clothes were torn off by small children, Their bodies were then chopped up, And they slowly burned them until morning with fire. (Yu.M. Lermontov)

Zeus, throwing thunders, And all the immortals around the father, Their bright feasts and houses We will see in the songs we are blind. (N. Gnedich)

In the above contexts, phenomena are presented that diverge from modern norms on certain grounds: phonetic, lexical, morphological, etc. Permanent, continuous language changes that occur in short periods of time are hardly noticeable. The stage of variation and the gradual replacement of competing modes of expression provide a less perceptible and less painful shift in the norm, contributing in no small measure to the well-known paradox: language changes while remaining itself.

L.V. Shcherba once wrote: "... in normative grammar, the language is often presented in a petrified form. This corresponds to the naive philistine idea: the language has changed before us and will change in the future, but now it is unchanged" . The functioning of the language involves language changes, the replacement of one norm by another. V.A. Itskovich presents the process of changing norms as follows. The new enters the language contrary to the existing rules. It usually appears outside of literary use - in common speech, in professional speech, in colloquial everyday speech, etc. Then it is gradually fixed in the literary language. Schematically, this can be represented as follows.

At first, the phenomenon of X 1 is the norm, the phenomenon of X 2 is outside the CLA (used in colloquial speech, in common speech, in professional speech). At the second stage, there is a gradual convergence of these two phenomena, and is already beginning to be used in KLA, in its oral variety. The third stage is characterized by the fact that two phenomena are used on an equal footing, coexisting as variants of the norm. Then, at the fourth stage, there is a "shift" of the norm: the X 2 variant gradually replaces the X 1 variant, the latter is used only in the written speech of the KLA. And at the final stage, we observe a change in norms: the phenomenon of X 2 is the only form of KLA, and X 1 is already outside the norm. According to this scheme, there was, for example, a change in the endings of the nominative plural in the words lecturer - lecturers, factors - factors, overseers - overseers, compasses - compasses, corporals - corporals and others. In the 70s. 19th century normative were forms with the ending -and I), then gradually they were replaced by forms with the ending -s(-s). It is interesting that for these and similar nouns the norm changed twice: the original ending -s(s) changed to -and I), and then again supplanted this, then new, norm. This diagram shows the most common process of changing norms. But this is not always the case.

Several more trends stand out in the development of variance (see the works of L.K. Graudina, V.A. Itskovich and other researchers).

The first is a tendency towards stylistic delimitation of variants (differentiation in terms of stylistic coloring, marking). Such a stylistic stratification occurred, for example, in the 70-80s. 19th century with most non-vowel and full vowel variants (cooling-cooling, gilding - gilding, middle - middle and etc.). As early as the beginning of the 19th century. they (and others like them) were considered stylistically neutral. Later, these pairs sharply diverged, separated: non-vowel variants began to be used in poetic speech and acquired the features of an elevated poetic vocabulary. We also see an increase in contrast in stylistic coloring in pronunciation options for back-lingual consonants. In the XVIII - early XIX century. the "solid" pronunciation of consonants was considered the norm, often this was reflected in spelling. At K.N. Batyushkov, for example, we observe the following rhyme:

In this hut, a wretched hut Stands in front of the window A dilapidated and three-legged table With torn cloth.

But you, oh my wretched cripple and blind, Walking the way, dear... Throw on my wide cloak, Arm yourself with the sword And at midnight deep Suddenly knock... ("My penates")

Somewhat later, P.A. Vyazemsky already used other forms for back-lingual consonants, which are widely used today:

The north is pale, the north is flat, The steppe, native clouds - Everything merged into an echo Where melancholy was heard ...

...Now, where are those triplets? Where is their smart escape? Where are you, brisk bell, you, poetry of carts?

("In memory of the painter Orlovsky")

Nowadays, the "hard" pronunciation of back-lingual consonants is observed only in stage speech (and even then inconsistently, more often among the actors of the Moscow Art Theater of the older generation): there is a steady tendency for spelling and pronunciation to converge. Thus, in the second half of the XX century. the ratio of forms with "hard" and "soft" pronunciation of back-lingual consonants is different compared to what it was in the 18th - early 19th centuries.

Along with such a stylistic differentiation of linguistic means, there is also an opposite trend - the neutralization of bookish and colloquial coloring. For example, in the 19th century units of measurement of physical quantities in the genitive plural had the usual ending -ov (amps, volts, watts). Then (obviously, under the influence of the law of economy) there was a shift in the norm: the form with zero inflection was neutralized (amp, watt, volt) in the modern language, for most technical units of measurement, it has become dominant: ohm, watt, pendant, ampere, erg, hertz. This stage began, according to L.K. Graudina, in the 80s. 19th century and ended in the first decade of the 20th century, i.e. with the change of one generation of physicists by another. The same units of measure as gram, kilogram, in the genitive case of the plural, zero inflection is common in oral form in a colloquial style, and in writing, due to strict editorial corrections, forms on -ov: grams, kilograms. Thus, the process of "shifts" in the ratio of options is not straightforward, it often proceeds unevenly and unevenly.

Variants are classified according to different features. By belonging to the linguistic types of units, options are distinguished:

1) pronunciation (bulo [h "] Nov - boolo[w]naya);

2) inflectional (tractors - tractors, in the workshop - in the workshop, hectare - hectares and under.);

3) derivational (cutting - cutting, flashing - flashing, stuffing - stuffing etc.);

4) syntactic: a) prepositional control (to ride a tram - to ride a tram, a height of 10 meters - a height of 10 meters, comments on someone's address - comments on someone); b) unsolicited control (wait for the plane- wait for the plane, can't read the book- couldn't read books, two main questions- two main questions and etc.);

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

It should be noted that phonetic, derivational and grammatical variants, in essence, are semantic doublets, while lexical variants stand somewhat apart. As L.K. Graudin, the classification of variants according to their belonging to linguistic types of units is hardly expedient; it is interesting only from the point of view of the relative frequency of variants of some types compared to others. P.M. Zeitlin classifies variants according to the types of stylistic relationships between the members of the pairs, highlighting, on the one hand, groups of pairs of variants in which one of the members is sharply stylistically colored. (blato - swamp, breshchi - protect, helmet - helmet), and on the other - pairs in which the options are closest to each other in stylistic terms [short - short, incessant - incessant and under.).

This approach to variants is recognized by most researchers as fruitful. For example, M.V. Panov believes that the types of stylistic opposition should form the basis for the classification of variants. It does not matter whether the syntaxes, lexemes, morphemes or phonemes vary. The main ones are stylistic patterns that govern their functioning in speech.

In the process of language development, the number of variants, according to most researchers, is noticeably and continuously reduced. This is due to the increase in the general literacy of the population, the strengthening of the influence of the mass media and propaganda on the culture of speech, the normalization activities of linguists, the constant unification in the field of spelling and orthoepy, the strengthening of the role of book styles of language - speech, etc.

The concepts of normalization and codification are closely related to the issues of norms and their variance. Often the terms "normalization" and "codification" are used interchangeably. However, in recent studies, these terms and concepts are demarcated.

V.A. Itskovich proposes to consider normalization not a simple description of a 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"". However, with this approach to normalization and codification, the distinction between these two phenomena is somewhat lost. We find a clearer solution to this issue in L. I. Skvortsov: : the latter is part of the former. In practice, "normalization" ... is usually called "standardization" (in the broad sense of the word: the establishment of GOST, streamlining the terminological system, official renaming, etc.)" 3 .

According to L.K. Graudina, the term "normalization" refers to a set of problems involving the coverage of the following aspects: "1) the study of the problem of defining and establishing the norm of the literary language; 2) the study of linguistic practice for normative purposes in its relation to theory; 3) bringing into the system, further improvement and streamlining the rules of use in cases of discrepancy between theory and practice, when it becomes necessary to strengthen the norms of the literary language ". The term "codification" L.K. Graudina considers it narrower and more specialized than the term "normalization" and uses it in those cases when it comes to registering rules in normative works.

The new textbook for universities "The Culture of Russian Speech" (edited by L.K. Graudina and E.N. Shiryaev) states the following: "Codified norms of the literary language are such norms that all native speakers of the literary language must follow. Any grammar of the modern of the Russian literary language, any of its dictionary is nothing but its codification.

The most optimal is the definition of normalization as a process of formation, approval of the norm, its description, ordering by linguists. Normalization is a historically lengthy selection of common, most commonly used units from linguistic variants. Normalizing activity finds its expression in the codification of a literary norm - its official recognition and description in the form of rules (prescriptions) in authoritative linguistic publications (dictionaries, reference books, grammars). Consequently, codification is a developed set of rules that brings normalized variants into the system, "legitimizes" them.

Thus, this or that phenomenon, before becoming a norm in the CDL, goes through a process of normalization, and in the case of a favorable outcome (wide distribution, public approval, etc.), it is fixed, codified in the rules, recorded in dictionaries with recommendatory notes.

The formation of the KLA norm is a multidimensional phenomenon, often contradictory. K.S. Gorbachevich remarks on this: "... the objective, dynamic and contradictory nature of the norms of the Russian literary language dictates the need for a conscious and cautious approach to assessing the controversial facts of modern speech ... Unfortunately, not all popular science books and mass textbooks on culture speech reveals a scientifically based and sufficiently delicate solution to the complex problems of the literary norm.

There are facts of a subjective amateur assessment, and cases of a biased attitude towards neoplasms, and even manifestations of administration in matters of language. Indeed, language is one of those phenomena of social life about which many consider it possible to have their own dissenting opinion. Moreover, these personal opinions about right and wrong in the language are often expressed in the most categorical and temperamental form. However, independence and categorical judgments do not always mean their truth.

The phenomenon of normalization is closely related to the so-called anti-normalization - the denial of scientific normalization and codification of the language. At the heart of the views of convinced anti-normalizers is the worship of spontaneity in the development of language. The writer A. Yugov, for example, put forward the thesis that "the Russian language rules by itself", it does not need norms, normative dictionaries. In the book "Thoughts on the Russian Word" he wrote: "Normative lexicography is a relic." And further: "I consider the following historical circumstance undeniable: the so-called literary norms of the Russian language, and now in force (or rather, villainous), they were established "from above", in imperial Russia. These are class norms.

It should be remembered that anti-normalization can undermine the established relatively stable system of norms of the Russian literary language, the system of functional styles.

With the development of the norms of the Russian literary language, their formation is closely related not only to anti-normalization, but also to another (more well-known) phenomenon - purism (from Latin purus - pure), i.e. rejection of any innovations and changes in the language or their direct prohibition. At the heart of the purist attitude to language lies the view of the norm as something unchanging. In a broad sense, purism is an unnecessarily strict, uncompromising attitude towards any borrowings, innovations, in general, to all subjectively understood cases of distortion, coarsening and damage to the language. The purists do not want to understand the historical development of the language, the policy of normalization: they idealize in the language the past, long established and tested.

G.O. Vinokur emphasized that purism only wants great-grandchildren to speak the same way as great-grandfathers used to say in the old and better years. V.P. Grigoriev in his article "Language Culture and Language Policy" suggested that purists put up with the new in the language only if this new has no competitor in the old, already existing and meets their archaic tastes and habits, or if it equalizes , unifies the language system in accordance with their utopian idea of ​​the language ideal. In the book "Living like life" K.I. Chukovsky gives many examples of when prominent Russian writers, scientists, and public figures reacted negatively to the appearance in speech of certain words and expressions, which then became common, normative. For example, to Prince Vyazemsky the words mediocrity and talented seemed low-class, street. Many neologisms of the first third of the XIX century. were declared "non-Russian" and on this basis they were rejected: "In the Russian language there is no verb" inspired "," said the "Northern bee", objecting to the phrase "Rus did not inspire him" ... The philologist A.G. Gornfeld has the floor card, which arose at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, seemed "a typical and repulsive creation of the Odessa dialect." Examples of this purist rejection of the new are numerous.

However, despite the rejection of any innovations and changes in the language, purism at the same time plays the role of a regulator that protects the language from the abuse of borrowings, excessive enthusiasm for innovations and contributes to stability, traditional norms, and ensuring the historical continuity of the language.

The choice of rational normative changes (solutions) cannot be based only on the intuition of a linguist or a simple native speaker and his common sense. Modern orthological studies are now especially in need of systematically developed forecasts.

The term "forecast" entered into scientific use relatively recently. There are 4 methods of linguistic forecasting:

1) method of historical analogy(for example, a huge influx of borrowings in our time is often compared from a regulatory point of view with a similar process during the time of Peter I );

2) expert forecasting method, associated with the assessment of ongoing shifts by professionals and expert linguists (for example, expert assessments of terminological standards and the extensive activities of linguists related to the unification of terminology in the industrial and scientific fields);

3) predictive method behavior of system units in the text (based on the study of the laws of text generation);

4) forecast method norms for the use of language units based on the modeling of time series.

The system approach of forecasting is especially clearly applied to the phenomena of grammatical variation. Moreover, in the system forecast model, such aspects as the combination of "erroneous" and "correct" in the use of language variants, objective and subjective factors affecting this use, the relative autonomy of individual grammatical categories and the ways of interaction of categories with the grammatical subsystem and the system in in general. In this case, both external and internal factors are important. In forecasting they are called exogenous indicators (caused by external causes) and endogenous indicators (caused by internal causes).

4. The concept of "culture of speech".

The term "culture of speech" is ambiguous. First, it can be understood in a broad sense, and then it has a synonym for "language culture" (in this case, exemplary written texts and potential properties of the language system as a whole are implied). Secondly, in a narrow sense, the culture of speech is a concrete realization of linguistic properties and possibilities in the conditions of everyday, oral and written, communication. Thirdly, the culture of speech is called an independent linguistic science.

L.I. Skvortsov gives the following definition: "The culture of speech is the possession of the norms of oral and written literary language (the rules of pronunciation, stress, grammar, word usage, etc.), as well as the ability to use expressive language means in different communication conditions in accordance with the goals and content of speech" . In linguistic literature, it is traditionally customary to talk about two stages of mastering a literary language: 1) the correctness of speech and 2) speech skill.

Norm- this is a uniform, exemplary, generally recognized use of language elements (words, phrases, sentences); rules for the use of speech means in a certain period of development of the literary language.

characteristic peculiarities norms of the literary language:

relative stability;

prevalence;

general use;

general obligatoriness;

conformity with the use, custom and possibilities of the language system.

Language norms are not invented by scientists. They reflect regular processes and phenomena occurring in the language and are supported by speech practice.

To the main sources of formation of the language norm relate

Works of classical writers and modern writers;

· analysis of mass media language;

Common modern usage

data from live and questionnaire surveys;

· scientific researches of linguists.

The norm does not divide the means of language into good and bad, but points to their communicative expediency.

The official recognition of a literary norm and its description in grammars, dictionaries and reference books that have authority in the opinion of society is called literary norm codification .

A codified norm is stronger than an uncodified one, especially if the codification is known to the general population. Codification opens up the possibility of ensuring greater stability of the norm, preventing its semi-spontaneous changes. These possibilities of codification can be judged by the following example: colloquial speech stubbornly imposes stress on native speakers of the literary language. call "nish, call" nit. This emphasis is supported by the law of analogy: we pronounce: ho "dish, ho" dit; but "you sit, but" sit; about "sish, about" sit. These verbs are: walk"be, wear"be, ask"be have with verb call "be similar structure, so why are personal forms call"sh, call"t, call"m etc. should it be pronounced differently? But such is the prescription of the codified norm, and, despite the presence in the language of the basis for the transfer of stress, the pronunciation must be recognized as correct call"t, call"t with an accent on the ending.

Language norms are a historical phenomenon. The change in literary norms is due to the constant development of the language. What was the norm in the last century may be perceived as a deviation from it today. For example, in the 1930s and 1940s, the word enrollee named both school graduates and those entering universities. But already in the post-war years, the word graduate, and for those who take entrance exams at a university or technical school, the word enrollee. Or, as an example, consider the word coffee. Ten years ago, this word could only be used as a masculine noun, and deviation from this norm was considered as a gross violation of it. Today in the "Orthoepic Dictionary" along with the masculine form ( strong coffee) the form of the middle gender acceptable in colloquial speech is noted ( strong coffee).

The historical change in the norms of the literary language is a natural, objective phenomenon. It does not depend on the will and desire of individual native speakers. The development of society, the change in the social way of life, the emergence of new traditions, the development of literature and art lead to the constant renewal of the literary language and its norms.

According to scientists, the process of changing language norms has become especially active in recent decades.

Distinguish norms obligatory (mandatory) and variant (dispositive).

Mandatory norm- a norm that fixes only one variant of use as the only true one.

For example: score, but not score; catalog, but not catalog; quarter, but not quarter.

Variant norm- this is a norm that provides for the possibility of a free choice of options, both of which are recognized as acceptable in the modern language.

For example: waving, waving- allowed and waving, waving. Or spiny lobster – lobster, cuffs – cuff.

Options- these are formal modifications of the same unit, found at different levels of the language (phonetic, lexical, morphological, syntactic).

Options can be equal or unequal.

Equal Options can interchange each other in all situations of communication, regardless of the style of speech, time of use, etc.

For example: rust "vet - rust"(phonetic variants),

l inguistics - linguistics(lexical variants),

bunker a"- bu "nker s (morphological variants),

walk in the evenings - walk in the evenings(syntax options).

Unequal Options cannot interchange each other in all situations of communication, since

may differ in meaning. Such options are called semantic.

For example: and "rice - iri" with(phonetic variants),

f alshivy - artificial(lexical variants),

teacher and- teacher I (morphological variants),

on graduation(temporary value) – on room(place value) (syntactic variants);

May refer to different language styles. Such options are called stylistic.

For example: compass(literary version) - comp "with(professionalism) (phonetic variants),

coffee(m.r. - literary version) - coffee(cf. - colloquial version) (morphological variants);

May appear at the time of their use - modern and outdated options. Such options are called normative-chronological.

For example: ra "course(modern version) - cancer "rs(obsolete) (phonetic variants),

rail(m.r. - modern version) - rail(zh.r. - obsolete version) (morphological variants), etc.

The language develops - the norm changes. In the question of variability, it should be taken into account that the literary norm does not prevent the existence of variants at each of the language levels. Their presence is an organic property of linguistic means, arising from the nature of the language system.
Variants of the norm are its modifications, which are recorded in the dictionary. The variability of the norm, i.e. the presence of parallel ways of expressing the same content, should be considered as a distinction between normative (literary / non-literary) and stylistic (appropriate / inappropriate) plans in statements of a different nature. Therefore, the possibility of using one or another variant can only be determined taking into account the context. V.V. Vinogradov believed that the functional use of the literary language "leads to functionally limited or stylistically justified - possible or acceptable - variations of the literary language norm."
The new form supersedes the old one, fixed in grammars, dictionaries, reference books, etc. If the trend towards a new use corresponds to the laws of language development, it will win.
It must be remembered that the variants of the norm and the speech error are different concepts. For example: a phenomenon is an acceptable phenomenon (about a person); rain: [dosht"] - Moscow pronunciation; [dosh"] - Leningrad pronunciation; tunnel - tunnel; orangutan - orangutan; valerian - valerian; galosh - galosh; rake and rake (r.p. pl.); but a stocking (stockings - wrong, only in phraseology: blue stockings).
Speaking of linguistic and stylistic norms, it should be taken into account that the norm does not claim to be "universal domination" and allows deviations from the established canons. Norm is a category that involves the assessment of a given linguistic phenomenon in the process of communication, depending on the scope, conditions and goals of communication. It should also be remembered that a conscious and motivated violation of the norm may be a sign of the individual style of the author, lecturer. When working with a text, one must be able to determine the motivation for the deviations of the author's speech from the literary language.
A special role in the normalization of the literary language is played by lexicography, mainly normative explanatory, spelling, educational, grammatical dictionaries, special dictionaries of "correctness", "difficulties", etc.
In order to improve speech culture, it is advisable to constantly refer to explanatory dictionaries, which explains the main meaning of the word; to encyclopedic, special dictionaries by branches of knowledge, where a more detailed description of those phenomena that are indicated by words is given. You can expand your knowledge of special terms by referring to different dictionaries and other sources, which trace how the scope of concepts denoted by these terms has expanded. For example, the word "bard". In the dictionary of S.I. Ozhegov says: "A bard is a singer-poet among the ancient Celts." In the “Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms”: “Singer of the lyrics of the Celtic peoples (Irish, Welsh, Scots, Picts), who sang the feat of their king and his squad. Since the 18th century, the bard has been the same as the poet.” In modern times, the word "bard" has come to be applied to poets who write lyrics, write music to them, and perform them themselves. Thus, the norms are stable (fixed in dictionaries and reflected in the language of fiction, so they need to be followed) and dynamic.

More on the topic 2.7. Norm and variability of the norm:

1. The concept of Norm. Norm and Variant. Stylistic variation and fluctuation of the norm. Reasons for violating the norm of the literary language
2. Normalization as a basic character trait. language. Literary norms. language in vocabulary, phraseology. phonetics, orthoepy. word formation. grammar, spelling. punctuation. Variability of the norms of the literary language.