480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Thesis - 480 rubles, shipping 10 minutes 24 hours a day, seven days a week and holidays
Stand Darya Andreevna. Reduced Forms of Russian Speech: Linguistic and Extralinguistic Aspects: Dissertation... Ph.D. in Philology: 10.02.01 / Stoyka Daria Andreevna; [Place of defense: St. Petersburg State University], 2017
Introduction
CHAPTER 1. Oral spontaneous speech as an object of linguistic research 17
1.1. Oral speech as the main form of language existence 17
1.2. About the genres of oral speech 25
1.3. Phonetic specificity of oral spontaneous speech
1.3.1. Reduced forms of superfrequent words in the "supercore" of the lexical system of the Russian language 33
1.3.2. The norm and implementation of oral spontaneous speech
1.4. Codification of the pronunciation norm: retrospective and current state 44
1.5. Dynamics of lexicographic fixation of reduced forms of everyday Russian speech 58
1.6. Corpus approach to the study of speech 63
CHAPTER 2 Reduced forms of Russian speech (linguistic aspect) 66
2.1. Research material. The principle of selection of microwave units 66
2.2. Types of phonetic reduction and the reasons for its occurrence
2.2.1. Phonetic structure of the word 69
2.2.2. Morphemic-phonetic structure of the word 74
2.2.3. Frequency of a word or its form 75
2.2.4. The position of the word in the syntagm 77
2.2.5. Speech rate 77
2.3. Signs of lexicalization of reduced forms 83
2.3.1. Variation in pronunciation 85
2.3.2. Spelling variation 93
2.3.3. Phonetization 95
2.3.4. Spelling 97
2.3.5. Graphic abbreviation 98
2.3.6. Desemantization, Resemantization and Pragmaticalization 99
2.3.7. Differentiation of the meanings of the full and reduced forms of the word 107
2.3.8. Completion of the process of lexicalization of reduced forms
2.4. Models for generating reduced forms 111
2.5. Reduced forms in the linguodidactic aspect (the experience of lexicographic description) 115
CHAPTER 3 Reduced forms of Russian speech (extralinguistic aspect) 122
3.1. Material and research methodology 124
3.1.1. Establishment of a research subcorps. Balancing speech material and composition of informants 126
3.1.1.1. Gender 127
3.1.1.2. Age 129
3.1.1.3. Profession or occupation 132
3.1.2. Characteristics of the balanced subcorpus 134
3.2. The results of the study of reduced forms in the extralinguistic aspect 135
3.2.1. The dependence of the appearance of reduced forms on the gender of the speaker 137
3.2.2. The dependence of the appearance of reduced forms on the age of the speaker 139
3.2.3. The dependence of the appearance of reduced forms on the professional affiliation of the speaker 143
3.3. Findings 149
3.4. Prospects for the study of reduced forms in linguistic and extralinguistic aspects 150
Conclusion 153
List of abbreviations adopted in the work 156
References 158
Introduction to work
Relevance work is determined by the following factors: firstly, the allegro forms of superfrequent words of Russian speech are familiar today to anyone who speaks and reads Russian. AFs have long and very thoroughly taken their place in our speech and in written texts (the practice of their written fixation has been going on for more than 200 years), and recently AFs are increasingly found in modern literature, in Internet communication, just on Internet sites. Secondly, the path to the full lexicalization of allegraic forms began long ago, as noted above, and is actively continuing before our eyes, providing an opportunity to witness the birth of new words, which explains the interest in studying the process of transition of reduced forms “from speech into language”.
Scientific novelty The work consists in compiling a corpus of allegro forms, describing their variability in both forms of speech, features of functioning and causes of occurrence. AFs are described for the first time from the point of view of their orthographic representation, their pronunciation is analyzed for the first time on the material of spontaneous speech organized into a corpus, and models of language evolution are revealed using the example of AF. In addition, the materials of the Sound Corpus of the Russian Language (ZKRYA), in particular, the block "One Speech Day" (ORD), make it possible to analyze the features of the use of allegro forms in the spontaneous speech of various speakers, taking into account their social characteristics, as well as to investigate the functioning of AF in various communication situations.
Theoretical significance research consists, firstly, in the description and differentiation of the causes of the appearance of AF. Secondly, in the description of the stages of the process of formation of a new word, on its way to obtaining a lexicographic fixation. In addition, the theoretical chapter of the work describes the history of fixing pronunciation features in dictionaries of the 17th-21st centuries. The results of the study may be useful for specialists in oral spontaneous speech in any linguistic analysis of Russian texts and, in general, for further research on spontaneous speech.
Practical significance research is determined by the fact that the presence of a corpus of reduced forms, with the most complete description of units in their oral and written existence, can be very useful in the practice of teaching the Russian language in a foreign language audience. The inclusion of such forms in materials for teaching foreigners will help the teacher
Russian phonetics to teach a foreign language student to perceive allegro forms by ear and visually and correctly correlate them with the corresponding complete ones (that is, understand what is heard).
Research hypothesis: reduced forms of superfrequency words in Russian speech are a special group of units that function both in oral and written speech, characterized by maximum variability, and also located at different stages of the path “from speech to language”, which, ultimately, can lead to lexicalization of one form or another and obtaining a lexicographic fixation for it.
Provisions for defense:
The allegro forms of Russian speech are not a fact of “corruption”, but of the evolution of the language; the process of their lexicalization, or the path “from speech to language”, takes place literally before our eyes and can end with the complete lexicalization of one form or another and obtaining its lexicographic fixation.
The process of speech reduction proceeds according to various models: (1) full form (PF 1) (AF = PF 2) ( sir -with); (2) PF 1 (AF = PF 2) (twice reduced form (DAF) = PF 3) ( see vish ish); (3) PF 1 (AF = PF 2) set DAF n ( please sir please please, sorry, sorry etc.); (4) [*BF 1 (BF 1 = BF 2)] + (BF 3 * BF 2) (BF 3 = BF 4) ((* deeds de) + (to tell *say) = say); (5) PF 1 (set of AF n = set of PF n) ( quiet shh! + shh! +shh! + chsh!+tss! + ss!).
On the way "from speech to language" AF can go through several stages of lexicalization: change (variability) of the sound and written appearance, desemantization, resemantization and pragmaticalization of the unit; at the same time, on the synchronous slice, different AFs of Russian speech are at different stages of this path.
The functioning of allegro forms in a person's speech can be one of the signs that make it possible to identify the speaker's belonging to a particular social group: gender, age or professional. The groups of young people (up to 30 years old) and “manual workers” stand out most clearly in this parameter.
5.
Allegro forms should become part of the teaching materials in practice
teaching Russian as a foreign language, which will help
teacher of Russian as a foreign language to teach a foreign language student to perceive AF on
auditory and visually, as well as correctly correlate them with the corresponding
complete forms.
Approbation of work. Main provisions and results of the study
were presented at all-Russian scientific conferences in the Russian State Pedagogical University. A. I. Herzen “Word. Vocabulary. Literature: The Text of the Dictionary and the Context of Lexicography” and “Dynamic Processes in Language, Speech and Dictionary” (St. Petersburg, 2009, 2015), the International Conference of Students, Postgraduates and Young Scientists “Lomonosov” (Moscow, 2010), the International Conference of Young Philologists at the University of Tartu (2010), AATSEEL conference - American Association of Teachers of Slavic and Eastern European Languages (USA; 2011), International Virtual Conference on Russian Studies, Literature and Culture "Educational Technologies in Virtual Linguo-Communicative Space" (USA; 2011) , XIII and XIV conferences at the Nevsky Institute of Language and Culture "Nevsky Readings" (St. Petersburg, 2011-12), III Conference of Young Slavists (Budapest, 2013), XLIII, XLIV and XLV International Philological Conferences (St. Petersburg, 2014- 16), International scientific conference "Voices of the city: linguistic variability and communicative diversity" (St. Petersburg, 2015). 20 works have been published on the topic of the dissertation, of which 4 are in journals recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation.
Thesis structure. The work includes an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, lists of accepted abbreviations, used literature and dictionaries, as well as six appendices, which include, in particular, lists of reducing units (lexemes, word forms or whole phrases), a frequency list of their implementations and a complete set of options. of all detected AF. In addition, a special dictionary of reduced forms of superfrequent words of Russian speech (on electronic media) is attached to the work.
Codification of the pronunciation norm: retrospective and current state
Language is a living organism that is in constant motion, evolving. In the history of the Russian language, for several centuries, a process has been going on that can be called the “allegrization” of the phonetic structure of the word (cf .: to have tea, yourself, is it really something, you see, you see), in which the allegro form becomes the norm of the language, a full-fledged lexical unit. Even superficial observations of the functioning of such forms in our speech convince us that here we are dealing with the fact of linguistic evolution taking place literally before our eyes. An appeal to the language corpora - Sound and National (NCRL) - easily convinces of how widespread these forms are in our speech and how long ago they received their written representation, and then the lexicographic description.
In this chapter, we are talking about the main source of the emergence of allegro forms - spontaneous speech, its phonetic specificity and the reflection of pronunciation features in dictionaries, starting with the minimum orthoepic characteristics of a word (stress) in dictionaries already in the 17th century and ending with a full range of various pronunciation recommendations in dictionaries of the most recent years of publication.
Oral speech (OS) is a sounding speech functioning in the sphere of direct communication, and in a broader sense, it is any sounding speech (see, for example: Zemskaya 1979b: 363; 1997: 582-583; Tumina 2005: 529-531) . Interest in the study of live oral speech has been stable and even growing for a very long time. This is explained by the fact that oral speech, unlike written speech, “is the first and true state of language, and any language is revealed in its entirety only in living use, in the speech of the speaker (author’s emphasis. - D.S.)” (Humboldt 1960: 68), “sound matter is the only mandatory form of the existence of language” (Zinder 1997: 11). Historically, the oral form of speech is primary; it arose much earlier than writing. N.V. Bogdanova notes that living speech is primary not only chronologically, by the time of its occurrence, but also by the influence that it has on a person as a person, as an individual, as a native speaker: “With the help of a living word, people communicate with each other On the other hand, the living word helps and heals; the written form of speech is also built on its basis, which created all the conditions for the formation of an exemplary variety of the national language - the codified Russian literary language (KLYA) ”(Bogdanova 2001: 6).
Written speech, both in the history of society and in the life of an individual, arises much later than oral speech and is formed on its basis. The importance of writing is extremely great. It is in it that the entire historical experience of human society is fixed. Thanks to writing, the achievements of culture, science and art are passed on from generation to generation. The main function of written speech is the fixation of the literary language, which has the goal of preserving it in space and time: “A letter is a means of communication between people in cases where direct communication is impossible for them for some reason, i.e. practically when they are separated by space (geographically ) or time (chronologically)" (Shcherba 1974: 191). The main property of written speech is the ability to store information for a long time: “The written form of the literary language is carefully recorded, convenient for observation and detailed study. It is the results of these studies of the written form of the modern KLA that mainly constitute the content of dictionaries and grammars, are the subject of study at school and university, as well as the main object of scientific description.
Living speech, remaining, as it were, in the shadow of its written model, nevertheless retains its leading role in human life, its primary essence and the amazing power of influence on native speakers ”(Bogdanova 2001: 6-7). Spoken language is much more active than written language: we speak and listen more than we write and read3. Wider and its expressive possibilities. The English playwright B. Shaw noted on this occasion that “there are fifty ways to say yes and fifty ways to say no, and only one way to write it” (cited in: 2002: 19).
But the realization of the great power of the sounding word requires the correct use of units of living speech. This is especially true for the most active representatives of the speaking society, who form the state of modern living speech, exerting a decisive influence on all other native speakers of the Russian language. Among such most active representatives of the speech community, V.V. Khimik includes young people, journalists, civil servants, politicians, businessmen, creative and technical intelligentsia (see: Khimik 2004: 7). Being "the most linguistically influential social categories of people who speak Russian", they "to some extent determine the future development of the Russian language as a whole" (ibid.). L. A. Verbitskaya wrote about the responsibility of those who bring the living word to us: “The circle of people whose speech in a certain way affects the speech of others has expanded and therefore must be correct. Oral speech has become a means of even wider communication than written language" (Verbitskaya 2013: 3).
Phonetic structure of the word
A question is appropriate, the answer to which is in the book by I. A. Veshchikova: what gives the right to classify dictionaries with such different names as dictionaries of the same type - orthoepic? The fact is that the goals, objectives, types of lexicographic information in all of them are similar.
From the point of view of the tasks solved by the dictionary, most of the listed publications follow the tradition laid down by the first dictionaries of this kind: they give answers to specific questions about the correct pronunciation of individual words and expressions, serve as manuals on general issues of Russian literary pronunciation and stress, contain warning instructions for those cases when the pronunciation or stress of a word does not correspond to the norms of the modern Russian literary language, but is widespread in the speech of speakers. Thus, all the dictionaries under consideration have a common goal - the fixation of literary pronunciation norms.
The question arises about the representation of the literary pronunciation norm by dictionaries - the question of the norm and variability. Dictionaries of orthoepic type - normative dictionaries. However, normativity does not exclude the presence of variants: “the variability of the norm is recognized as a natural phenomenon of the literary language” (Eskova 1997: 307). Dictionaries solve this problem in two ways.
The first approach to resolving the issue of pronunciation options reflects the Dictionary of Stress for Radio and Television Workers (Ageenko, Zarva 1960). Of the equal pronunciation options coexisting in the language, the dictionary recommends only one, so as not to provoke dissension on the air. On the one hand, such a decision helps to cope with the problem of choosing from two equal options, but, on the other hand, the question of “which of the remaining options have the status of literary, and which and to what extent compromise the speech of the one who uses them” ( Veshchikova 2007: 54), remains open.
The second way to solve the problem is that the dictionary should reflect all the variants of the norm existing at this stage of language development and, if possible, accurately qualify them. A similar point of view was expressed by L. V. Shcherba: “Very often, the norm allows two ways of expression, considering both to be correct. A normative dictionary would act in the highest degree carelessly if it rejected one of them, guided by the purest arbitrariness or personal taste of the editor: we must not forget that synonymy is the richness of the language, which allows it to develop, providing the speaker or writer with ample opportunities for finer nuance of their thoughts (the same applies, of course, to emerging literary languages, where at first glance it sometimes even seems that there is no norm at all, but upon closer examination it turns out that it is simply very wide)” (Shcherba 1974e: 277). This approach is reflected in almost all orthoepic dictionaries. According to K. S. Gorbachevich, “the figure of silence regarding fluctuations and variants of the norm hardly contributes to scientifically organized language policy, since it deprives it of its main component - a dialectical approach to a continuously evolving (italics mine. - D. S.) object. The requirements of absolute invariance of norms do not correspond to the current state of the Russian literary language” (Gorbachevich 1978: 3). The language develops, therefore it is impossible to keep the norms unchanged, all the more impossible to reduce the whole variety of linguistic facts to a simple opposition of the norm - the non-norm. There is a special scale of normativity that adequately reflects the real state of affairs, i.e., it qualifies options that are within the normal range in terms of their admissibility, stylistic coloring, speech tempo, etc.
The system of qualification of variants adopted in the first orthoepic dictionary (Orthoepic Dictionary 1983) is supported by most dictionaries of the orthoepic type, and the composition of the notes of modern dictionaries is largely based on the ideas of R. I. Avanesov and S. I. Ozhegov. “The qualification of variants recognized as being within the limits of the norm is reduced to three cases: a) Variants are recognized as equal in rights (connected by the union and); examples: thinker [sl and sl] ...; b) One of the options is recognized as less desirable (it is assessed as admissible - admissible); examples: cottage cheese and allowable. cottage cheese … ; c) One of the options, considered less desirable, is additionally characterized as older, on the way to extinction (litter admissibly obsolete - admissible obsolete); examples: hypocrisy and tolerance. obsolete hypocrisy” (Eskova 2005: 24). The dictionaries record various types of pronunciation and accentological variants: variants related to the time scale, variants related to the stylistic dimension, variants typical for one or another sphere of the functioning of the literary language (marks “in official speech”, “in poetic speech”, "in professional speech", "colloquial", "colloquially", etc.).
Differentiation of the meanings of the full and reduced forms of the word
Despite the unusual phonetic appearance of this unit (see Fig. 3), it is understandable and easily recognizable in speech due to its frequent use and, therefore, predictability in a particular communicative situation. According to L. R. Zinder, it is precisely such a property of the language as redundancy that makes it possible to identify phonetically distorted units: “The high redundancy of the language, indicating the primacy of the semantic side over the sound side, ensures the identification of individual units of the utterance even if their sound appearance is defective” (Zinder 1981: 106).
The speaker neglects the external form of the utterance not only in everyday communicative situations, but also in official communication. The scientific literature has long refuted the hypothesis that the appearance of reduced variants is not characteristic of the official style of communication: “Such forms, as observations have shown, are found not only in fluent colloquial speech, but also in the official business style of communication” (Bogdanova 2008: 31) . The presence of uncodified forms of literary words in official communication was considered a sign of the new time and was explained by the weakening of the “rigid framework of official public communication” (Zemskaya 2000: 13). Options like just do, just do, just do, in the words of M.V. Panov, are “quite literary” and do not “cut the ear” (Panov 1967: 276), not only when set to informal communication. Whatever we talk about, in our speech there are elements of both codified and colloquial (real) norms: “It is well known that any oral speech is characterized by the presence of reduced word forms to one degree or another. Such a reduction, according to our data, is regularly observed even in the full style of pronunciation, for example, in texts solemnly read by the famous announcer Yuri Levitan. But the reduction is manifested most clearly and on a large scale, of course, in spontaneous speech” (Ventsov 2012: 44). So, in the course of analyzing the phonetic realization in spontaneous speech of the words what and what, it was found that the speech of the same informant contains both normative realizations of what , what , so
and colloquial variants, "moreover, these variants are not always associated with the peculiarities of speech communication (official-informal communication style)" (Ryko 2010: 109). Thus, compressed pronunciation variants are not only acceptable, but quite natural in any functional variety of oral literary speech, regardless of their cultural and social significance.
Having long and thoroughly established themselves not only in our oral spontaneous, but also in the written form of the language, many allegraic forms claim to receive the status of full-fledged units of our lexicon. An analysis of the materials of the Sound and National Corpus of the Russian language showed that modern AFs are at different stages of movement towards a new status of an independent word, and made it possible to identify the peculiar stages of lexicalization of these forms in the language, which are described below.
As noted above, allegro forms are not only a phenomenon of oral speech. The existence of a written fixation of the AF of Russian speech is convinced by an appeal to the materials of the National Corpus of the Russian Language. From the numerous examples found in the NKRY, it is clear how widely and diversely the absolutely, it would seem, speech, compressed forms of many superfrequent words are represented in the written form of the Russian language. Examples have shown that AF has long and very thoroughly taken its place in the written form of the Russian language, i.e., they began the path to complete lexicalization - in the words of N.V. Bogdanova, the path "from speech to language" (Bogdanova 2008: 31). The practice of written fixation of allegro forms dates back more than 200 years and goes back to D. I. Fonvizin, V. V. Vyazemsky, N. G. Pomyalovsky, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, D. N. Mamin-Sibiryak, N. S. Leskov, F. M. Dostoevsky and A. P. Chekhov. Wed earliest examples of AF lock:
Recently, in modern spontaneous written speech (art texts, Internet communication), one can increasingly find abbreviated versions of high-frequency words (see, for example, about them: Andryushchenko 2011), and the range of variability of their orthographic representation is quite wide. The written fixation of AF, as well as a number of other processes, which will be discussed below, testify to the lexicalization of modern reduced forms taking place literally before our eyes.
It seems that on the way to obtaining a lexicographic (or simply written) fixation, a particular speech unit must go through several stages of changing its properties: phonetic, semantic, pragmatic, etc. The frequency of using a unit leads, first of all, to a change in its sound and written appearance , then to desemantization (weakening of the connection between form and content), resemantization (the acquisition of a new meaning by the unit) and - at the final stage - to its pragmaticalization (change in the speech functions of the unit).
The processes of desemantization of the unit, or “washing out” of semantics, as well as its resemantization, expand the range of contexts in which it can function, as a result of which the part of the word can also change. Acquiring new semantics, pragmatics and prosody, as well as syntactic independence, individual lexemes move to the communicative-pragmatic level of the language and sometimes become purely pragmatic units. Thus, the processes of desemantization, resemantization and pragmaticalization can lead to the emergence of a new, independent unit.
At the present stage of language development, some allegro forms of superfrequent words, having received a new orthoepic and spelling appearance, also acquire a new semantic-stylistic and / or pragmatic status, for example, AF right now (now), hello (hello), finally (in general), zhys ( a life).
An appeal to the Sound Corpus of the Russian language revealed the boundaries of the phonetic variability of many allegraic forms29. It is most convenient to illustrate the range of variants on the material of interjections, which are characterized by high usage and very unstable phonetic appearance. So, the interjection (etiquette form) please in the everyday speech of native Russian speakers is represented by 8 different sound variants:
The results of the study of reduced forms in the extralinguistic aspect
Considering the influence of social factors on speech, it should be borne in mind that it rarely manifests itself in its “pure form”, gender and age are mixed with the professional conditionality of speech. Since it is impossible to separate social and biological factors (each person has a whole set of such features), it turns out to be difficult to distinguish between their influence in a real speech process: various deforming forces can simultaneously act on the speech structure: both gender and age, as well as those that are not analyzed in in this work, the type of education, the level of speech competence, or, for example, the psychological characteristics of the speaker. However, it can be assumed that within the groups identified according to one or another social attribute, there is a certain general tendency in the choice of options specific to each group. Thus, the analysis of gender groups showed a tendency towards greater use of allegro forms in the speech of men and a greater variability of AF in the speech of women. In age groups, there is a tendency to use predominantly allegro forms in the speech of the younger generation, and in the speech of older informants, the share of use of full forms exceeds the share of AF. The percentage ratio of PF and AF in each professional group of informants showed that the tendency to use AF in speech is observed among informants of such groups as "manual workers", "representatives of law enforcement agencies" and "service workers", and full forms prevail in speech "knowledge workers", "office workers" and "creative intelligentsia". Analyzing the total number of allegraic forms encountered in the speech of the informants, we can conclude that the largest number of AF is used by "manual workers", and the smallest - by representatives of the "creative intelligentsia". The study of reduced forms (in the linguistic and extralinguistic aspects) provided answers to many questions about the causes and features of the functioning of AF, but at the same time set new tasks and opened the way for the future development of this topic. Despite the importance of this area of speech research, reduced forms have not yet received a proper scientific description, which is associated with the complexity and multimedia nature of the object of study - sounding speech. A full-fledged study of the system of such forms is impossible without the involvement of statistically representative speech material, reflecting the existing variability of phonetic forms in the language, as well as without special linguistic resources (multimedia corpora) and appropriate tools for processing and annotating speech data. The creation of the Sound Corpus of the Russian language opens up new possibilities for studying phonetic reduction and obtaining its systematic and statistical description.
The study carried out in the framework of this work showed that, based on the analyzed material, the frequency of using reduced forms really differs in the speech of different social groups, most often manifesting itself in the speech of men, informants of the younger age group, as well as in the speech of "manual workers". In addition, it is necessary to study the influence of other important factors - the pragmatics of the utterance and the conditions of speech communication in a broad sense. Thus, a promising and fundamental task is to separate the actual phonetic reduction from the use of the reduced form by the speaker as a stylistic device characteristic of a particular genre of oral speech, implemented in certain communicative conditions, or being a marker of verbal communication of a certain social group, or an individual feature of the speaker.
This topic is also promising in view of the constant development of the language. Language evolves, lives: “Nothing in it stands still. Every word, every grammatical element, every expression, every sound and every intonation gradually change their outlines, obeying the invisible, but objectively existing drift, which is the essence of the life of the language” (Sapir 1993: 157). Often, changes take place literally before the eyes of researchers, which explains the interest in studying, in particular, reduced forms, which, gradually becoming fixed in our vocabulary, become evidence of the development of the language.
Reduced forms are abbreviated forms of some parts of speech ( don't, I "m, etc.), which are widely used in colloquial and informal speech and writing.
The table below shows abbreviations in English and examples of their use.
| Unabbreviated form | Short form | Example |
| Are not | Aren't | They aren't (= are not) here yet. They are not here yet. |
| Can't | Can't | I can "t (= cannot) do it because I am very busy. I can't do this because I'm very busy. |
| could not | Couldn't | Why couldn't (= could not) you come in time? Why couldn't you come on time? |
| Dare not | Daren"t | I daren "t (= dare not) say it. I dare not say it. |
| Did not | Didn't | Helen says she didn't (= did not) know anything about it. Helen said she didn't know anything about it. |
| Does not | Doesn't | He doesn't (= does not) like this book. He doesn't like this book. |
| Do not | Don't | Whatever you do, just don't (= do not) touch my antique statuettes. Do whatever you want, just don't touch the antique figurines. |
| Had not | Hadn't | We hadn "t (= had not) seen such a beatiful place before we went there. We had never seen such a beautiful place before we got there. |
| Has not | Hasn"t | Sam hasn "t (= has not) read that magazine yet, give it to him. Sam hasn't read this magazine yet, give it to him. |
| Have not | Haven't | I haven't (= have not) finished working yet, give me some more time. I haven't finished working yet, wait a little more. |
| He had/he would | He "d | He "d (= he had) helped me a lot to finish the work by your arrival. He helped me finish the job before you arrived. He "d (= he would) be very glad to contribute. He would be very happy to help. |
| He will | He"ll | He "ll (= he will) show up, he is just running a little late. He will come, he is only a little late. |
| He is / he has | He's | He "s (= he is) a very talented actor. He is a very talented actor.
He "s (= he has) never lied to us. He never lied to us. |
| Here is / has | Here's | |
| I had/I would | I "d | I "d (= I had) done it by the time you came. I had made it by the time you arrived.
I promised you I "d (= I would) do it. I promised you that I would. |
| I will | I "ll | I "ll (= I will) deal with this. I'll take care of it. |
| I am | I "m | I "m (= I am) already here. I'm already here. |
| I have | I "ve | I "ve (= I have) seen that movie several times. I have watched this movie several times. |
| Is not | Isn"t | I don't know why he isn't (= is not) there. I don't know why it's not there. |
| It will | It "ll | |
| It is / it has | It's | It "s (= it is) hot today. Today it's hot.
It "s (= it has) never been so hot. It has never been so hot before. |
| let us | Let's | |
| May not | Mayn"t | |
| Might not | Mightn "t | You should call him first, he mightn "t (= might not) be home yet. Better call him first, maybe he's not home yet. |
| must not | Mustn't | You mustn "t (= must not) work so hard, have a little rest. You can't work so hard, get some rest. |
| Need not | Needn't | The teacher has said that we needn "t (= need not) do this exercise. The teacher said that we don't need to do this exercise. |
| Ought not | Oughtn "t | Tell him that he oughtn "t (= ought not) to speak with his parents like that. Tell him not to talk to his parents like that. |
| Shall not | Shan "t | Don "t come tomorrow, I shan" t (= shall not) be able to help you. Don't come tomorrow, I can't help you. |
| She had/she would | She"d | She "d (= she had) called me before she came. She called before she arrived.
She said that she "d (= she would) give me a call during the lunch-break. She said she would call me during the lunch break. |
| She will | She'll | She "ll (= she will) come over to our house tonight. She will come to us tonight. |
| She is/she has | She's | She "s (= she is) standing by the window. She is standing by the window.
She "s (= she has) got a lot of money. She has a lot of money. |
| should not | Shouldn't | We shouldn't (= should not) hurry, the work should be done very carefully. You should not rush, the work must be done very carefully. |
| That will | That"ll | |
| That is | That's | |
| There had/there would | There"d | There "d (= there had) been many people here before. There used to be a lot of people here.
I knew there "d (= ther would) be a way. I knew there would be some way out. |
| There will | There'll | They say there "ll (= there will) be a new school in our district. They say there will be a new school in our area. |
| There is / there has | There's | There "s (= there is) little time left. There is little time left.
There's (= there has) been a very nice chinese restaurant down the street before, but now it's gone. There used to be a very good Chinese restaurant on this street, but now it's gone. |
| They had / they would | They "d | They "d (= they had) done their work long before I started doing mine. They did their job long before I started mine.
I talked to them and they promised they "d (= they would) do everything in their power. I spoke to them and they promised that they would do their best. |
| They will | They'll | I hope they "ll (= they will) be on time. Hope they don't be late. |
| They are | They're | We "re (= we are) going to talk about it next time. We will talk about this next time. |
| They have | They"ve | I hear that they "ve (= they have) been told everything. I heard they were told everything. |
| was not | Wasn't | I wasn "t (= was not) ready to go when you called me. I wasn't ready to go when you called. |
| We had/we would | We "d | We "d (= we had) traveled from Germany to Spain. We traveled from Germany to Spain.
We "d (= we would) be much reliable if you helped us. We would be very grateful if you could help us. |
| We will | We'll | We "ll (= we will) watch over the kids. We will look after the children. |
| We are | We're | We "re (= we are) coming, we" re almost there. We're on our way, we're almost there. |
| We have | We"ve | We "ve (= we have) tried to get a hold of you, but failed. We tried to contact you, but we couldn't. |
| Were not | Weren't | They weren "t (= were not) going to come. They weren't going to come. |
| will not | Won't | We won't (= will not) let you down. We won't let you down. |
| would not | Wouldn't | If I were you I wouldn't (= would not) underestimate him. If I were you, I wouldn't underestimate him. |
| What is | What's | |
| You had/you would | You "d | You passed the test because you "d (= you had) prepared for it. You passed the test because you prepared for it in advance.
You "d (= you would) like it, I" m sure. I'm sure you would love it. |
| You will | You"ll | You "ll (= you will) see him soon enough. You will meet him pretty soon. |
| You are | You"re | You "re (= you are) one of the best students in this class. You are one of the best students in this class. |
| You have | You"ve | You "ve (= you have) been such a good friend to me. You were such a good friend to me. |
Notes:
1. There is a non-standard form in spoken English ain't, which can be an abbreviation of the forms am not, are not, is not, have not or has not(however, this form has a strong informal connotation):
He ain "t going to come. = He is not going to come.
He will not come.
Don "t talk to me like that - you ain" t my master. = You are not my master.
Don't talk to me like that, you're not my boss.
I ain "t got anything to read. = I have not got anything to read.
I have nothing to read.
2. Abbreviations daren"t and shan"t very rarely used in American English.
3. Short for am not is the form aren't(which, unlike the form ain't, is not colloquial and informal):
Some of the most common reduced/distorted forms found in low-level colloquial speech.
ain't- am not / is not / are not / have not / has notI ain't going there. I won't go there.
We ain't got money. We do not have money.
Ain'tcha - ain't you;
a'bin - have been;
an' -and;
anyways - anyway;
'ave/'ve/'a - have;
'appen- happen;
'ere- here;
'ome - home;
'e -he;
'ow - how;
awys - orluss - always;
a - o' - of;
can'tcha - can't you;
could- could have;
cupla - couple of;
c'mon- come on;
don'tcha- don't you;
didja- did you;
fella - fellow;
fost - first;
wok - work;
g'night - good night;
gimme- give me;
g'by - good by;
germup - get up;
Gerraway - get away;
gon'ta - gonna - to be going to:
Are you gonna stay here long? => Are you going to stay here for a long time? / Will you be here long?
gotta - have got to;
hadda - had to;
hellya - hell do you;
heah- here;
helluva - hell of a;
how'bout- how about;
inna - mto;
jes' - just;
leggo - let go;
lemme - let me;
les's see- let us see;
letcha - let you;
me- my:
me car / me house / ...
mek - make;
tek - take;
'member - remember;
mistah - mister;
musta - must have;
'n' - than;
noa-nope-naw - no;
on'y -only;
oughta- ought to;
outa - out of;
orright- all right;
gerron- get on;
sonuvabitch - son of a bitch;
so's - so as;
'sail right - it's all right;
s'pose - suppose;
shuah - sure;
shurrup- shut up;
speaka- speak to;
talka - talk to;
tha' - that;
they's - there is;
tomorra- tomorrow;
t'day - today;
toucha - touch; puncha- punch:
You touch my car. I punch your nose. You touch the car, you get it in the nose.
Twenny - twenty;
third - thirty;
toleja - told you;
tellya - tell you;
usta - used to;
wanta - wanna - want to;
wi' - with;
wun't - won't;
whenja - when did you;
wudja- what do you/what did you;
willya- will you;
wuddaya - what do you;
ya / ye - you / your;
yeah / yeah - yes.
An example of low level English garbled speech:
- Who the’ dell are yet An’ why ye brung me ’ere?- Who the devil are you? And why did you bring me here?- I want to ask you some questions and I want truthful answers. Now, tell me what happened just before the ship sank.
- Weel, I tell ye, it wam't much different from any other cross-ing, 'cepting it were a rough sea.- Well, I'll tell you. It was not much different from any other crossing, except it was a rough sea.
- Was there a fire on board?
- Jes' a wee one in one o' the topsails. Warn't none on deck 'til she blew. Then they'us fire everywhere.- Just a weak one in one of the topsails. Was not any on deck until she blew. Then there was fire everywhere.
- What was in the hold?
- Gunpowder, a 'course. Helped load 'er meself. 'Ope 'e rots in 'ell who lit it.- Gunpowder, of course. I helped to load her myself. I hope he'll rot in hell who lit it.
I'm already rather tired of inserting "decoding" reduced colloquial forms into parallel texts. It's easier to list it yourself.
At the same time I give a list of generally accepted abbreviations (for those who have already forgotten about them).
Words that are among the most common (according to my calculations) are in bold type. I mean: yeah, gonna, gotta, wanna, alright, out(t)a. And vice versa - rarely occurring words are given in italics.
Reduced colloquial forms found in works of art.
ain't = am not/ is not / are not/ have not/ has not - can mean one of the listed negatives (depending on the meaning of the speech)
ain'tcha["eIn"tʃə] = ain't you
right[ɔ: l "rait] = all right: a - satisfactory; adv- satisfactory, acceptable; like an interjection okay!, I agree!, go!
betcha ["betʃə] you bet! = you betcha! = just betcha! - certainly! do not doubt! you can be sure!(I agree, I want, etc.);
2) betcha = bet you - we argue!
"bout [" baut] = about - oh, about, about(here more often as an object of conversation, worries, etc.); most often in the expression How " bout ...? How about (to)...?
Bro" - abbreviated form brother type pal, friend or buddy. More often American blacks call each other brothers
cantcha = can’ tcha= can't you
'cause=because- because, since
c'mon = come on - 1) come on!, quicker!, let's go!; 2) stop!, stop!, stop!
coulda = could have - here could in combination with the Perfect form is translated as could, could etc.
(a) coupla ["kʌpl] = (a) couple of - pair
D
didja["deja] = did you
dontcha = don'tcha= don't you
dunno = don't know don't know, don't know, don't know; in the vast majority Cases like I dunno. = I don't know. I don't know.
d'ya= do you
Well what d "ya know? |
Okay, what do you know / do you know? |
'em = them- them, them;(meetings super often, usually they say so in colloquial speech)
fella ["felə] = colloquial from fellow - man, guy, buddy, old man
G
g'by = good by - goodbye, goodbye;
Phrasal verbs with stem get they are not usually found in this style, but they are pronounced in American like this:
Gerraway["gɛrəwei] = get away - slip away; leave, leave; away! and etc.
Gerrin["gəriŋ] = get in - enter; get into transport and etc.
Gerrit["gerit] = get it - understand; find out; win; have and etc.
Gerron= get on- sit on/in; start / continue and etc.
germup["gærəp] = get up - get up; get up (wake up); intensify; rise in price and etc.
getchaorget "cha["getʃə] = get you. Similar to gotcha (see below), but refers to the present or future (unlike gotcha, to the past). Very rare.
gimme ["gimi] = give me - give (those) / hand over (those) / give (those) etc. to me
g’ night= good night- Good night;
gonna["g (ə) nə] \u003d going to. Used in circulation to be goingto: (am/ is/ are + going + infinitive with to)to intend to do something; 1) Used to express the intention to perform an action in the future; 2) To express the high probability or inevitability of actions in the future (predictable future). More often it is not translated separately, and the action expressed by the subsequent infinitive is simply translated in the future tense.
gotcha ["gɔtʃə] = got you. Depending on the context: 1) I understood you). (caught your idea) ;
2) Aha! Gotcha!(literally or figuratively, when someone is cunning);
3) deliver / place someone somewhere, (meetings rarely)
gotta["gɔtə] = (have) got to - must, must (... us), need etc. (expresses an obligation, have often falls out completely without loss of meaning)
H
hadda["hadə] = had to - expresses an obligation regarding the past
hafta= have to - expresses an obligation regarding the present and future
(a) helluva ["heləvə] = (a) hell of - as an adjective: damn, terrible, creepy, hellish, unbearable, cool etc. (both in a negative and a positive sense: admiration, etc.)
hellya= hell are you in questions like What the hell are you…? What, hecktake, you …?
I
"im = him - his
kinda = kind of: 1) if we are talking about some kind of. action, process, situation, etc., then: something / something like, sort of like, something like, as if, as if etc.;
2) if we are talking about a noun, then it is translated: variety, class, type, species etc.
lemme ["lemi] = let me let me, let me etc.
letcha= let you allow / give / allow you / you
let "s = let us. Combination of abbreviated verb construction let" s in meaning " Let's" with the infinitive has the connotation of invitation or advice.
lota["lʌtsə] = lots of - full, many, many
(a) lotta= (a) lot of - full, lot, a bunch of
'member["membə] = remember - remember
musta= must have - in combination with the perfect infinitive, it translates as must be probably probably etc.
N
'n' = and - and or than- how
naw = no - no, no
nope = no no, no
O. K./ OK/ Ok/ ok = okay [əu "kei] - Okay.; Good.; I agree.; Correctly.; Yes.; Order.; Fine.; Goes.; There is!; I obey! and etc.
oughta [ɔ:tə] = ought to - should, should, should; (expresses obligation; censure; assumption)
outta/outa["autə] = out of - from , from , with
R
" scuse= excuse- excuse. Usually in the "Scuse me. I'm sorry / I'm sorry.
Seeya= to see you see you!, bye!, everything!(when saying goodbye)
shoulda ["judə] = should have, the future is in the past in the Perfect form, translated as should, should etc.
shurrup= shutdown- shut up, shut up. It is very rare in this spelling, but it is pronounced like this in American.
sonuvabitch/ sonovabitch/ sonofabitch/ sonofa-bitch/ sum-bitch etc. = son of a bitch – son of a bitch, bastard, bastard etc.
sorta ["sɔ: tə] - sort of - like, sort of, sort of like(literally - kind, genus, kind, variety etc. something)
so's = so as - as well as (and), also
speaka= speak to- to talk to by someone
" spect= expect believe, expect, hope; or suspect suppose, suspect
" spose= suppose - suppose, suppose
T
talka= talk to- talk / talk to by someone
tellya= tell you- I say/ I will sayyou/ to you
tha's[ðiz] = that is - Thisthere is …
U
usta = used to- to be in the habit: usually, used to, used to usually / often etc.
V
wanna [brit."wɔnə, Amer."wʌnə] = want to – want, wish do something (want + verb infinitive); an example of an absolutely logical colloquial abbreviation, otherwise you can just "break" the language.
whaddaya = what do you… – whatyou / you …?
whatcha = what do/ did/ are you - whatyou …? ; In questions like What do you want? What do you want?, What are you doing? What are you doing? Auxiliary are generally reduced in the vast majority of cases in colloquial speech. It is not thrown out at all, but we can hardly catch it by ear.
whatta= depending on the meaning, it can mean: 1) what do / are - in questions:
2) (less often) what a - in exclamations in the meaning what, what, what, For example:
whattaya / whatta ya= what do you… – whatyou/ you …?
willya= will you (usually in requests and questions)
woulda ["wudə] = would have, the future is in the past in the Perfect form, translated as would
wuddaya= what do you… – whatyou/ you …?
X
Y
ya = you / your you, you/your, your
ye= you- you you(very rare)
yea= yes- Yes(very rare)
yeah= yes- Yes(this is even written very often, but it is said almost always; the word yes with "swallowed" [s])
yep=yes- Yes(much less common, akin to "nope" - nope)
yup= yes- yes, yeah(very rare)
Often present participles (IV form or -ing form) are written with an apostrophe at the end instead of g, for example: doin" = doing, livin" = living, tryin" = trying, etc.
Common abbreviations.
aren't = are not
can't = cannot
couldn't ["kudnt] = could not
didn’t ["didn(ə)t] = did not
doesn't ["dʌz(ə)nt] = does not
don't = don't
hadn't ["hædnt] = had not
haven't = have not
hasn't ["hæz(ə)nt] = has not
he'd = he had/should/would
he'll = he will
he's = he is / has
here"s = here is / has
I'd = I had / should / would
I'll = I shall / will
I'm = I am
I've = I have
isn't = isn't
it'll ["it(ə)l] = it will
it's = it is / has
let's = let us
mayn't = may not
mightn't ["mait(ə)nt] = might not
mustn't ["mʌs(ə)nt] = must not
shan't [ʃa:nt] = shall not
she'd [ʃid] = she had / should / would
she'll [ʃi:l] = she will
she's [ʃiz] = she is / has
shouldn't ["ʃudnt] = should not
that'll [ðætl] = that will
that's [ðæts] = that's
there's [ðəz] = there is / has
they'd [ðeid] = they had / should / would
they'll [ðeil] = they will
they're ["ðeiə] = they are
they've ["ðeiv] = they have
wasn't = wasn't
we'd = we had / should / would
we'll = we shall / will
we're = we are
weren't = were not
we've = we have
what's = what is
won't = will not
wouldn't ["wud(ə)nt] = would not
you'd = you had/should/would
you'll = you will
you're = you are
7.1. For many reasons, including the possibility of comparing the values of different characteristic functions on the same coalition, it seems convenient to carry out a kind of normalization of the characteristic functions.
Definition. The characteristic function v over / is called 0 - 1 -reduced (has a 0 - 1-reduced form) if
v(i) = 0 for any /Є/, (7.1)
It follows from the definition that any 0-1-reduced characteristic function is non-negative and therefore non-decreasing: from K with L it follows
v(Kv(K) + v(L\K)< v(L) .
7.2. THEOREM. Every essential characteristic function is affinely equivalent to some 0 - 1-reduced characteristic function, and exactly one.
Proof. Let v be an essential characteristic function. We will construct the desired affine equivalence transformation by finding the corresponding k and at from Sec. 5.1.
For this, we write a system of n + 1 equations with n + 1 unknowns:
v"(z) = kv(i) + ir- = 0 for /Є/, (7.3)
v "(I) \u003d kv (I) + 2 ir \u003d 0. (7.4)
/ є /
The matrix of this system
. . o u(1) .. o u(2)
. 1v(n) . . 1v(l).
has a determinant equal to
v(I)~ Z v(i), I = 1
which, due to the essential nature of the characteristic function, is positive. The theorem being proved thus becomes an elementary algebraic fact. ?
7.3. The actual solution of the system (7.3) - (7.4) is not difficult. Subtracting all equations (7.3) from (7.4) gives us
k(v(I)- 2 v(i)) = 1, i є /
whence immediately both the desired k > 0 and all
2
.g-v(0(v(/)- 2 u(/)G
/e/
- For example, in the case of the game from Example 2 in Section 2.2, the 0 - 1-reduced form will be the characteristic function v for which v(K) = B(K)/B(1).
- Note in passing that the set of all 0 - 1-reduced characteristic functions over a given set of players is convex.
- In accordance with what was said in Sec. 3.4, instead of a separate characteristic function, we can consider a whole class of affine equivalent functions. Instead of such a class, we can, in turn, consider one of the representatives of this class.
- Like 0 - 1-reduced forms of characteristic functions, for arbitrary a and b (pa Ф b), one can also consider "a-reduced" their () yurma, understanding lift such characteristic functions v for which v "(0 ~ a> i^Iy v "(L ~ b.
In addition to the already mentioned 0-1-reduced forms, game theory also considers 1-0-reduced forms.
More on the topic § 7. O - 1-REDUCED FORM:
- 6.10. Perron's criterion and its generalization 6.10.1. Perron criterion
- 7.2. Cointegrated time series. Error Correction Models
- 2.4 Recommendations for improving the methods of providing content services by mobile operators in the regional market.
Cooperative game (IV,V) game if v0-1, reduced form if V(i)=0 ; i=1,2,…,n; V(N)=1
The payoff of an individual player if he plays alone is -0, and if he plays with a coalition then 1.
Each essential game is equivalent to one and only one game in 0-1 reduced form.
Proof.
Given a game (IV,V), we will look for a game equivalent to the given (IV/V ”) ~(IV,V), which is also a reduced form in the game 0-1. Let's make an equation:
V´(i)= KV(i) + C i =0 i=1,2,…,n equivalence condition
V´(N)=KV(N)+ =1 (n+1)
There are n+1 equations in total
Add the first n equations
Subtract the resulting equality from the equation n + 1. We get:
The cooperative game is essential, then >0 (incomprehensible word) both parts can be divided by this bracket
Knowing K, we find the unknowns C i = - KV(i)=>
Find the characteristic function
For the next game, find an equivalent one that is represented in 0-1 reduced form. Find: V’ V(S)-stage of setting the characteristic form V’(S)- new, it is required to build an S-coalition
Initial data:
V(1)=100 V(1,2)=300 V(1,2,3)= 550
V(2)=150 V(1,3)=350
V(3)=300 V(2,3)=420
V' (1) = V' (2) = V' (3) =0 V'(1,2,3)=1
28. Dominance of divisions.
29. C-core of a cooperative game.
It is natural to base the analysis of a cooperative game on the principle of optimal distribution of the maximum payoff u( S) between the parties.
The implementation of this principle leads to the consideration C-core − the set of non-dominated "completely stable" divisions of a cooperative game.
Vector x = (x1, ..., xn) that satisfies the conditions of individual and collective rationality is called we share under the conditions of the characteristic function u.
The distribution of payoffs (sharing) of the players must satisfy the following natural conditions: if we denote by xi win i- player, then, first, the condition individual rationality
xi³u( i), for i ON (1)
i.e., any player must receive a payoff in the coalition no less than he would have received without participating in it (otherwise he will not participate in the coalition); secondly, the condition must be satisfied collective rationality
U( N) (2)
i.e., the sum of the payoffs of the players must correspond to the possibilities (if the sum of the payoffs of all players is less than u( N), then the players do not need to join the coalition; if we require that the sum of payoffs be greater than u( N), then this means that the players must divide among themselves the amount greater than they have).
System ( N, u) consisting of a set of players, a characteristic function over this set, and a set of imputations satisfying relations (2) and (3) under the conditions of the characteristic function, is called classic co-op game.
division x dominates y if such a coalition exists S, for which the division x dominates y. This dominance is expressed as follows: x > y.
Presence of dominance x > y means that in the set of players N there is a coalition for which x preferable y. Dominance ratio is not possible for every coalition. Thus, domination by a coalition consisting of one player or of all players is impossible.
Any division from the C-core is stable, in the sense that none of the coalitions has either the desire or the ability to change the outcome of the game.
In order to divide x belongs to the c-core of a cooperative game with characteristic function u, it is necessary and sufficient that for any coalition S inequality was met.
The C-core may be empty, for example, when there are too strong coalitions. If the C-core is empty, then the demands of all coalitions cannot be satisfied at the same time.
