17:59 — REGNUM

Cinema is a boring genre. And every year it becomes more and more boring, as it becomes disgustingly secondary. As if they took a can of stew, cooked porridge. Then they took it again, splashed boiling water there to wash off the remnants from the walls - and cooked it again. Remakes, remakes - just remakes, sequels, prequels and other recycled materials.

"Halloween" is out. Slasher with Michael Myers, a villain in a white mask (not to be confused with Jason from Friday the 13th - he wore a hockey mask). At the age of 6, Michael killed his sister, ended up in a psychiatric hospital, and then ran after the girls, killing everyone, but not reaching Laurie Strode. The first Halloween appeared in 1978. Its director was John Carpenter(After a couple of years, he will shoot another cult dark fiction "The Thing"). Carpenter is a poor man's Lynch, a sort of B-movie guru. Terrence Malick vice versa.

But for 1978, Halloween was strong. Members of the Manson cult have already killed Sharon Tate, America swore allegiance to Satan, drugs and free sex triumphed - in general, the devil ruled the ball. And here - a fierce killer, possessed by an ancient evil spirit. Actually, "Halloween" is considered the progenitor of all slashers. It became so successful that nine more films were made. Even participated Rob Zombie, as if rethinking the story of Michael Myers. It got boring.

And here is a new movie. Halloween 2018 cuts off all previous films except the first. History shown David Green, follows directly on the one we saw in 1978. Jamie Lee Curtis plays Lori, Nick Castle plays Michael. All these 40 years, Myers spent time in a psychiatric hospital - and now, finally, he was saved. To cut people with a large table knife.

The 2018 film from Green is made with love to the original. It seems to continue it both in terms of semantic and visual range. Even the titles are given in the old style. It is no coincidence that Carpenter personally became the producer.

But! Everything shown in 2018 - from a bloody knife to the carcass of Michael Myers, similar to RoboCop, enslaved by Beelzebub - does not convince at all. It is secondary. And two - it does not scare. 40 years have passed, and the maniac as the embodiment of evil is absolutely not terrible. Even children are not afraid.

"Halloween", released in 1978, shocked and frightened. He was merciless. Someone even wrote and squealed. Critics and public organizations squealed that such a thing is unacceptable on the big screen, that it corrupts, although, let me remind you, George Romero has already filmed his The Living Dead. Nevertheless, Carpenter provoked and intimidated. But "Halloween" 2018 looks not only secondary, but also dull. Why?

The answer, in fact, is given in the film itself. One of the characters says: “What, in fact, did Michael Myers do? Killed five people. By today's standards, there's nothing to worry about." Exactly. Indeed, by today's standards, Myers is not a monster at all. There are much worse. The same shooters from Columbine or Kerch. Or the maniac Pichushkin. Myers is a child compared to them.

This is the path that we have traveled in 40 years - from fear and hatred to absolute dissolution in them. Nothing frightens or shocks anymore. News feeds are scarier than any horror movie. Horror movies no longer work on social motives. "Psycho" Hitchcock can be found in almost every Russian city.

The only thing that still turns the viewer away is physiology. It's hard to deal with this. Because "Saw" with its eight parts has become relevant and cash. There is a moral for the poor in brains and spirit: they say, you have to pay for everything, and a person becomes an avenging God. And there are a bunch of nasty shots - like cutting off a leg or trepanation of the skull. In its own way, "Saw" is a soft, legalized version of snuff. That's why it works.

The ideology of consumption has reached its maximum. Now, to surprise, you have to saw off your leg on some Malakhov's talk show. This is the immediate prospect. Because everything is for sale, and in order to sell, you need to surprise. So, even more trash and even more abomination. The world is oversaturated, and a person in it is not able to be surprised, fall in love, or experience any emotions in principle. Horror films, thrillers, which used to give relief, now only reinforce what has already been said, making it normal and acceptable. Michael Myers, like Jason, are absolutely normal, they are in the spirit of the times - that's the trick.

At the same time, in modern cinema, as in the media in principle, there are no more villains. Previously, the hero of the conventional Schwarzenegger acted according to the basic understanding of goodness. He was punishing a villain that the viewer was supposed to hate. Now there is no such thing. Now we have to sympathize with the villain, because he is portrayed as more sympathetic than the victim, and the supposed hero is also a kind of evil.

Moreover, the viewer is worried mainly not for the victim, but for the maniac. That one is the object of his affections. The viewer is indignant when Michael Myers is killed, and, on the contrary, is upset when the maniac does not overtake his victim. Myers is more empathetic than any of the girls he's slaughtered. He is a key figure in the bloody saga.

The reason for this is the lack of any values. Modern cinema, like life, dehumanizes. And the main tool here is laughter. Because there is no antidote to laughter. Especially if it's red laughter. Therefore, a certain Krasovsky is making a funny, so it seems to him, film about the siege of Leningrad, and the stamped movie "Death of Stalin" is nominated for the European "Oscar". After all, death is not a tragedy, but a celebration like Mardi Gras. It must be laughed at in order to destroy the value of human life.

And this action is especially disgusting because no one wants to understand the details. Next to secondary comes superficiality. The directors do not want to understand either the details of the Leningrad blockade, or the life of the country during Stalin's time. I have no doubt that someday it will be Michael Myers who will kill the Father of Nations. In the world of post-truth, it cannot be otherwise.

The ideal modern film director is the albino Simon from the novel Theodor Rochak"Kinomaniya". He makes a terrible, dirty film, as close to life as possible, working for the subconscious - an artistic snuff, the involvement of a snuff in which cannot be proven; everything is legal. And the babies devouring each other and their victims in the sewers are like actors, although in reality they are babies. The line between cinema and life is erased; they are identical to each other.

Who is scarier and who is more real: the killers of a disabled person from Berezovsky or Michael Myers? Or is it the directors and producers? Cinema no longer frightens, like life, which means that there is no point in fighting evil - it remains to accept it joyfully, testifying to the coming of a new era. As the classic sang, "soon dawn - there is no way out." The dawn of the living dead, in which people have turned. Because a person who is indifferent, a person without values, is a dead man who dreams of making others the same. Including through cinema.

Famous linguist Maxim Krongauz about the speech portraits of politicians and the indirect dialogue between the people and the authorities

Many people remember how in June the public, including bloggers and journalists, reacted violently to Donald Trump’s “covfefe” typo. According to linguist Maxim Krongauz, such a reaction is a manifestation of the era of memes in which we live today, when real politics "is not only boring and scary, but also inhuman." The professor spoke in an interview with Realnoe Vremya about how the dialogue between the authorities and society is developing in Russia, and why talk about the degradation and death of the Russian language is meaningless.

Literature today is no longer even a source of winged expressions

Maxim Anisimovich, when we agreed on an interview, you said that you were tired of endlessly talking about the death of the Russian language, about the norm, about borrowings. It turns out that a lot has already been said about this, but does this not solve the existing problems?

A lot has been said about this, and the main thing is that the discussion in the media and the Internet goes in circles. But at the same time, it cannot be said that this does not affect the situation. Constant discussion to some extent shapes public opinion about the state of the Russian language. I'm just not interested in repeating the same thing myself.

- And yet, if we summarize all these discussions, what is the state of the Russian language today?

Since the 90s, a conversation has begun that there are a lot of borrowings in the Russian language, that there are a lot of vernacular, abuse, and jargon. As for the state of the language, then, in short, the language is being adjusted to the outside world. As the conditions of communication change, the language also changes. Many are unhappy with this, but this is a natural process.

- So you don't sound the alarm?

Sounding the alarm is pointless. The Russian language copes with the problems that it faces. Many languages ​​have a harder time. The Russian language in this sense is a rather prosperous language. As for the influence of English, it is experienced by almost all major languages. Globalization is taking place, the world is changing, and if the language remains in this space, is used for communication, including business, sports, if it is used on the Internet, then it inevitably changes. If we write SMS messages in Russian, then we adjust the Russian language to this communicative environment: since we are limited in the volume of speech and compression, reduction of words occurs. This is a natural process of adjusting the language to new communicative conditions. Languages ​​that change survive in these conditions.

And how does modern poetry and prose in Russian, the experiments of writers, influence the state of the Russian language?

It seems to me that there is no influence. Literature today does not even act as a source of popular expressions, which was the case for tens and even hundreds of years. Classical works included in the school curriculum were a source of popular expressions. Today, memes are the heirs of popular expressions. Even modern cinema rarely, at least Russian, becomes a source of such phrases. If literature gives new words, they remain only with the author. The influence of literature on large masses has fallen sharply. New words and expressions that appear from time to time and enter the Russian language are not associated with literary processes, but with advertising, a vivid statement of a blogger, and politicians have also become sources of such phrases.

“Putin often uses the technique of reducing speech”

It's hard not to agree with this when you see how violently the public reacts to such seemingly insignificant incidents as, for example, a typo (covfefe) that was made by Trump. Where does such linguistic sensitivity come from? It seems that the discussion of this interests people today even more than any real gestures and actions of politicians.

It's not sensitivity, or even a reaction to an incident with language. This is a reaction to the actions and words of Trump. We live in the era of memes, and Trump is a kind of meme generator, which is closely watched by the whole world of journalists and bloggers. And this is really more interesting than real politics, which is not only boring and scary, but also inhuman in the sense that living people are not present in it, as it were. Therefore, it is much more pleasant to observe the gestures and words of real people, creating a kind of political folklore with very lively characters, this uncle-president and that aunt-chancellor.

“We live in the era of memes, and Trump is a kind of meme generator, which is closely watched by the whole world of journalists and bloggers. And this, indeed, is more interesting than real politics, which is not only boring and scary, but also inhuman in the sense that living people are not present in it, as it were. Photo kremlin.ru

- And what is this political folklore in Russia today?

If we talk about speech portraits, then we can name several people who have such portraits. This is, of course, Putin, Zhirinovsky. Politicians whose phrases are discussed are remembered and remain among the people. Of the late politicians, I would name Chernomyrdin. They remember not those who speak correctly, but those who throw out vivid phrases, change the style of speech on the go. This is typical, in particular, for Putin. He often uses the technique of reducing speech - he abruptly inserts some kind of rudeness. If, in ordinary neutral speech, we suddenly utter something out of it, something stylistically different, then this is remembered. And this flamboyant technique of lowering creates an image, so to speak, of a political macho, and this is attractive to many people. And even those who criticize it (say, the intelligentsia) remember it anyway. And so does Trump. Basically, memes are associated with him, which hardly characterize him well. But the main thing is that he is always heard, they talk about him all the time. Whether it's good or bad is another question.

I somehow noticed this in communication with Moscow art critics who came to Kazan. Their speech was literate, correct, but they considered it special chic to insert some obscene word into it from time to time ...

Yes, this is such a technique, it is used, for example, when telling a joke, when everything is decent and suddenly the joke ends with some such word. This produces the desired effect. Reception of a sharp change in style, as a rule, downward, is sometimes used by writers. Or some refined poetess reads exquisite verses and suddenly inserts such a word into them. Against the backdrop of femininity and sophistication, this works even stronger.

I'm not ready to advertise this technique, but it works. There are masters of this - for example, Igor Guberman. But the abuse of such abrupt transitions leads to the fact that the technique stops working. If we constantly hear swearing, then, of course, this no longer makes any impression. The more taboo swearing is, the less often it occurs, the stronger the effect it produces when it nevertheless breaks through the ban. That's why I'm all for bans. Because when in English and German the previously taboo words were no longer taboo, they became common swear words. And with a strict taboo, these words accumulate the energy of the ban and can have a strong impact.

“There are masters of this - for example, Igor Guberman. But the abuse of such abrupt transitions leads to the fact that the technique stops working. If we constantly hear swearing, then, of course, it no longer makes any impression. Photo mkrf.ru

It's not good when people swear at home, but the state cannot forbid it

Speaking of taboo. You recently expressed doubts about the ability of the state to determine language policy when it was reported that the authorities intended to standardize the norms of the Russian language. But after all, in Soviet times, the state controlled the language policy, why is it impossible now?

Language policy and "standardization" of norms are very different things. The language policy of the state is extremely important, but even more so for the numerous languages ​​of Russia, especially for those under the threat of extinction.

For the state language, it is necessary to clearly define the scope of its use. In the law on the state language, this is not done in the best way. For example, it is unlikely that advertising, which is always characterized by language experiments, should fall into this area. It is interesting that in the USSR the Russian language was not legally the state language, but this did not prevent it from being such in fact.

The talk about the "standardization" of the language, raised recently, seems empty and politicized to me. Firstly, the term itself is incomprehensible, linguists usually talk about codification, and it happens all the time. Constant calls to the authorities to protect the Russian language create a false impression of the state of the Russian language and involve populist politicians in a discussion about the language. Hence this insane rhetoric about the degradation and death of the Russian language. Of course, “lamenting over the Russian language” is more attractive for politicians than painstaking work on dictionaries and grammars. Government intervention in these processes is not necessary at all and should be limited to rare cases. These include the reform of graphics and spelling, which took place in 1917-1918. These may include regulation of the use of swearing in public space, which is happening now. But, carried away by this process, the deputies want to ban swearing in private spaces, which is ridiculous not only because it is practically impossible to prove, but also because the state should not regulate the speech of people in private spaces.

­ - Isn't it possible in private? For example, on the Internet?

I would say about the Internet that there we do not always understand what is in front of us - a private space or a public one. It seems to me that modern legislators do not fully take this point into account. Because, say, a discussion that often unfolds in the comments under some message, can it be considered a public space or not, especially if there are some restrictions on publicity (for example, communication between social network friends)?

“The intervention of the authorities in these processes is not necessary at all and should be limited to rare cases. These include the reform of graphics and spelling, which took place in 1917-1918. These could include regulation of the use of swearing in public space, which is happening now.” Photo wikipedia.org

Therefore, the need to define the concept of publicity in the modern world is obvious. This applies not only to the Internet. Now swearing is prohibited in public space, you can be fined for it. But the law does not strictly define what public space is. Of course, this is not only the space of a street or square, not only the space of some kind of assembly. I would think that any professional communication can also be called public. For example, communication between a policeman and an ordinary person. In this situation, the mat should not be used by either the policeman or the citizen. Communication between the doctor and the patient - in this situation, there should not be a mat either. It is still reasonable to define the concept of public space more strictly. But to control private space - what friends and relatives say among themselves - is a senseless and hopeless task. Of course, it is not good when people swear at home, but the state should not take care of private space. It is impossible to limit the thought and words that people utter in a narrow circle, even if these are bad thoughts and bad words.

The government talks to society in a rather specific way.

- What is the level of conversation between the authorities and society today, in particular in Russia?

The authorities talk to society in a rather specific way; in this conversation there are almost always elements of manipulation. Sometimes the conversation is interrupted altogether, becoming a monologue of power. This was the case in the Soviet Union, but fictitious remarks were created by the people or their representatives in order to feel the dialogue. The leaders reported, the demonstrators carried slogans, and there was also a wonderful wording - "the (numerous) wishes of the working people", in accordance with which it was possible to raise prices, rename streets, expel dissidents from the country.

In today's Russia, there is a conversation between the authorities and society, but its level is constantly changing. Taking advantage of the split in society, the authorities can refer to one part of it, while ignoring the other part, or mentioning it in this conversation in a negative context. But, of course, from time to time there is also a direct conversation, which, in particular, is facilitated by the Internet. But television very well reflects the level of conversation. By the way television discussions go, how the host behaves, even simply by the composition of their participants, we can judge what kind of conversation the authorities are having with society during this period, real or ritual.

The degree of intensity of the conversation and its extinction are determined by the interest of the authorities and the activity, perseverance of society, which are very different in different periods of our history.

“There was no direct dialogue, but at the next rallies slogans appeared, as if responding to these words of Putin. There was a dialogue when Putin speaks, answering some questions in a straight line, and the society gives him an answer in the form of posters and slogans.” Photo nnm.me

- Can you give an example from modern Russia?

For example, the conversation during the protests on Bolotnaya Square and after that. In fact, there was no direct conversation. But there was a "direct line" of Putin, who at that time was the prime minister. And answering questions, he remembered the white ribbon, which became a symbol of the protest movement against electoral fraud, and compared it with contraceptives, remembering the propaganda of the fight against AIDS. And he also paraphrased Kipling, repeating the words of the boa constrictor Kaa. There was no direct dialogue, but slogans appeared at the next rallies, as if responding to these words of Putin. There was a dialogue when Putin speaks, answering some questions of the “direct line”, and the society gives him an answer in the form of posters and slogans. That is, more often there is not a direct dialogue, but an indirect dialogue, when the president does not address the protesters, not the people who have taken to the streets, but answers the questions of journalists. There is no direct dialogue, but there is an indirect exchange of views.

Ending to be

Natalia Fedorova

Reference

Maxim Krongauz is a linguist, professor, head of the Research and Educational Laboratory of Linguistic Conflictology and Modern Communication Practices at the Higher School of Economics, head of the Russian Language Department at the Russian State University for the Humanities.

Modern society is concerned that the language has begun to change.
Especially noticeable is the expansion of written speech, which displaces oral speech from various spheres.

The writing

Modern realities are such that our world is subject to constant changes and innovations, so rapid that most people simply do not have time to get used to them and therefore do not understand how to respond. “How should one treat such changes in the Russian language?” - such a question puts before the reader M.A. Krongauz in this text.

Discussing the problem, the author describes its roots and says that, in contrast to the past, in which written speech served “to store and transmit information at a distance”, today the situation is such that “written speech, displacing oral from certain spheres of dialogue acquires a certain orality. Maxim Anisimovich emphasizes that in the age of social networks, written speech has become artificially revived and completely replaces the need for oral communication, thereby introducing a person into “endless communication”. And this, of course, cannot but cause excitement.

The linguist believes that it is worth worrying about the change in the Russian language, because in this case it is an indicator that people are interested in the Russian language. However, the author is sure that such changes do not promise us anything bad: one way or another, everything in the language will be balanced.

I fully agree with the opinion of Maxim Anisimovich and also believe that any changes, no matter how global they are, benefit society and the world as a whole, this includes changes in the Russian language. Important in all this is indifference: only having respect for the language of your country and caring about its future, you can predict successful modifications in advance.

I.S. Turgenev in the novel "Fathers and Sons" shows that it is useless and stupid to resist changes in society and is nothing more than a prejudice. Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, being a man of conservative liberal views, an aristocrat and an adherent of the old foundations, could not perceive the behavior, appearance, speech and way of thinking of Yevgeny Bazarov and considered them outrageous and unworthy. However, it was in Eugene that all the changes that were taking place at that time with all the youth of the 19th century were embodied, and it was in the revolutionary thinking of this hero that there were those innovations to which the world was already gradually exposed. Pavel Petrovich's resistance to such changes was stupid and could not affect anything except the existence of the hero himself: the man completely fell out of the flow of life and was left alone with his own "principles".

American philosopher Ralph Emerson once said: "Language is a city, for the construction of which every person who lived on earth brought his own stone." Indeed, each of us is able and should not only not be afraid of changes, but also actively participate in them, thereby making an indispensable contribution to the fate of the future generation. And that is why it is very important to treat the modern Russian language with reverence and interest: a disregard, indifferent attitude can negatively affect the future fate of the language.

Thus, we can conclude that each of us should be open to any changes and changes, and then they will not seem absurd, irreparable and terrible, but will harmoniously fit into our lives.

Composition for the exam - No. 3

Text No. 3 (Modern society is concerned that the language has begun to change ...)

How can one assess the changes that are taking place in the language at the present stage? This is stated in the text, authored by M.A. Krongauz, Doctor of Philology, author of monographs that can be found in Internet publications. It is no coincidence that this issue was raised. Why? Yes, because our life is already impossible to imagine without the Internet. Therefore, it is clear that such a problem as communication between people at the present stage is very important.

Yes, the Internet helps people to communicate, even the most reclusive. But at the present stage there are changes in the language. M. A. Krongauz says that modern youth actively communicates in social networks, written speech is replacing oral speech, and most importantly, interest in the Russian language is manifested in concern about its fate.

According to the author, who so often turns to the Internet himself, one should not worry about the fate of the spoken language, because one way or another everything in the language will be balanced. And yet it is good that such excitement appears: it is for the benefit of the language, excitement is an indicator of interest in the native language. Reflecting on the changes taking place in the language, the author seeks to attract the reader's attention. To this end, he uses such a technique as a question-answer form of presentation. Irreversibility and a certain regularity of the processes occurring in the language M.A. Krongauz emphasizes using lexical means: phraseologism (white crow), borrowed vocabulary (gadgets). The linguist's indifference to the fate of the language and to the attitude of people towards it can be seen in the use of exclamatory sentences in the test.

I agree with the author of this article. We are dependent on the Internet. Constant appeal to him is already a part of our life. And, as the author of the article says, young people “feel confident”, and those who are lonely can always find an interlocutor on the Internet. “And what is significant: the Russian language ... on the Internet came in second place, second only to English. And, of course, the more the Russian language is present on the Internet, the more it is under the pressure of new communication conditions. Of course, one cannot remain indifferent to the processes that are taking place in the language at the present stage. I always find it unpleasant when I read correspondence on the Internet and see mistakes made on purpose, I always correct them mentally.

Communicating via the Internet, we seem to forget about oral speech. I also sometimes experience difficulties when I have to speak in class, to express my opinion in a circle of friends. And yet I always remember how great the significance of the Russian language, whatever it may be: oral, written ... I mentally turn to the words of I.S. Turgenev: "In the days of doubt ... you are my only support and support, the great and mighty Russian language."

Thus, the changes taking place in our language at the present stage are of concern to everyone, the changes are associated with the use of the Internet, they concern both written and oral speech. And although great attention is paid to written speech, a person still cannot do without oral speech. Correct speech can be heard.

The fate of the Russian language is a topic that cannot leave indifferent any philologist. Obviously, the language is changing significantly right before the eyes of our generation. Rejoice at this or be upset? Fight change or accept it? We invite all our authors and readers to the conversation.

Russian language - yesterday, today and tomorrow

Ten to twenty years is an insignificant period for the development of a language, but there are periods in history when the speed of language changes increases significantly. Thus, the state of the Russian language in the seventies and nineties can serve as an excellent confirmation of this fact. The changes affected both the language itself and, first of all, the conditions of its use. If we use linguistic terminology, then we can talk about a change in the language situation and the emergence of new types of discourse. Communication of a person from the seventies with a person from the nineties could well end in a communication failure due to a simple misunderstanding of the language and, possibly, incompatibility of linguistic behavior. As confirmation, it is enough to indicate the most noticeable, although not the most interesting change: the appearance of a huge number of new words (including borrowings) and also the disappearance of some words and meanings, that is, a change in the Russian lexicon.

Obviously, both the language changes themselves and their speed in this case are caused not by internal reasons, but by external ones, namely, social transformations and perturbations, or, in other words, changes in the life of the Russian-speaking society. Before talking about the modern language, we should recall its recent history.

Nikolai Glazkov once wrote:

I look at the world from under the table:
The twentieth century, an extraordinary century.
What is more interesting for a historian,
So much sadder for a contemporary.

The twentieth century turned out to be extremely interesting not only for historians, but also for linguists. In essence, a sociolinguistic experiment that was amazing in terms of scale and results was carried out on the Russian language. In the current century, perhaps only the experiment on the German language can be compared with it, but this is the subject of a separate discussion.

Two major social upheavals - revolution and perestroika - affected not only the people, but also the language. Under the influence of what is happening, the Russian language itself changed, and, in addition, the authorities purposefully influenced it, because the language was its powerful tool. Changes in language, their social causes and consequences are one of the most interesting topics of modern science.

The language of the revolutionary era is brilliantly described in hot pursuit by Russian and Western Slavists: S.I. Kartsevsky, A.M. Selishchev, A. Mazon. But the Russian language of the following periods was much less fortunate. Only in the 1960s was a serious study of the Russian language in Soviet society carried out. It was led by M.V. Panov. On the other hand, in the late 80s and 90s, a stream of publications about the Russian language in the Soviet and post-Soviet era poured in. For the most part, they are extremely unprofessional, and their essence boils down to the fact that in the Soviet period the situation with the language was very bad, but “now” it is even worse. The reasons put forward are as follows. In the Soviet era, the language was bureaucratized and squeezed into the vise of censorship and self-censorship, and also served as a tool for manipulating consciousness and brainwashing. Well, in the post-Soviet era, everyone somehow became absolutely illiterate at once, there are no rules or norms for you, so it’s time to talk about the collapse of the language. The expansion of the English language was added to internal problems and, as a result, the enslavement of the once great and mighty by its foreign counterpart. As a recipe for salvation, it is recommended to return to the roots and origins, increase the general culture, rhetoric courses for deputies and prime ministers ...

It is difficult to disagree with what has been said, but it is even more difficult to agree. And that's why. In Soviet times, a curious, but by no means unique situation arose, which in linguistics is called diglossia ( Greek. bilingualism), that is, the coexistence of two languages ​​or two forms of one language, distributed in different areas of use. Next to the ordinary Russian language, another variety of it arose (or was created). It is called differently: Soviet language, wooden language (tracing paper from French - langue de bois; cf. wooden ruble), clerk (the word of K. Chukovsky), but the English writer J. Orwell wrote about it best of all (and better than linguists). And so his "newspeak" (in the original newspeak) has become the most common name for a linguo-political monster. Diglossia has happened before, both in Russia itself and in other societies. So, in Ancient Russia colloquial Russian and literary Church Slavonic coexisted. Later, in the eighteenth century, the Russian language had to share its own people (more precisely, only the nobility) with an alien - the French language. In ancient India, for example, spoken languages, Prakrits, coexisted with a religious language, Sanskrit. Diglossia is generally characteristic of some religious societies, where the "high" religious language serves only religious, ritual and similar communication. In other situations, "low" colloquial language is used. The functions of Soviet newspeak are close to those of a religious language, and it is not for nothing that the philosopher B. Russell called communism a religion.

In fact, other forms of language were also used in Soviet society, for example, vernacular, slang, etc. All these forms almost did not interact with each other, since they belonged to different strata of society and to different situations of communication. Newspeak reigned in speeches, newspapers, and party meetings; colloquial speech, literary or colloquial, depending on the speech situation and its participants, reigned in kitchens and courtyards. The Soviet man was distinguished by the fact that he knew how to switch registers in time, “doublethink” (according to Orwell) gave rise to “bilingualism”, and vice versa.

So, it is not true that the Russian language in the Soviet era was clumsy, bureaucratic and obscure. This was only one of its forms, namely Newspeak, but Newspeak could not be any other. Its device was determined by its purpose. More A.M. Selishchev formulated a key rule (referring, however, to a newspaper text): if he speaks incomprehensibly, then he is a Bolshevik. It must be said here that Newspeak was not something dead and immutable. Stalinist and Brezhnev Newspeak differ significantly from each other. In many ways, linguistic differences are determined by the functions of the language and the tasks of the "user", that is, the authorities. Direct deceit and brainwashing have been replaced by ritual and chatter. In this sense, the Orwellian newspeak is written off rather from the Stalin era. Epochs changed, discourses changed... Diglossia was preserved, except that there was a certain expansion of Newspeak. The scope of its use is constantly expanding. The authorities already imposed strict requirements on any public speech. The transition to "reading from a piece of paper" became almost mandatory.

Gorbachev's perestroika did not change the Russian language itself, it changed the conditions for its use. The boundaries between different forms of language and between areas of their use have disappeared. In public speech, for example, M.S. Gorbachev or B.N. Yeltsin bizarrely combines elements of the literary language, vernacular and still not dead Newspeak. Despite the first impression, one cannot say that they speak more illiterate than L.I. Brezhnev, they just talk, and he read. The same is true for deputies, and for television, and for newspapers, and in general for modern public speech. An explosive mixture has replaced the literate and oversaturated newspeak with ready-made templates. The result is somewhat paradoxical: there are significantly more mistakes, but speaking in general has become more interesting and better. Of course, not all. Who could only "on Newspeak", lost everything. For example, V.S. Chernomyrdin cannot do otherwise, and Newspeak seems to be already uncomfortable (especially for a center-right leader). The result is obvious.

The linguistic element collapsed and swept over the entire people. It turns out that almost anyone can speak in public, and some are required to. Today, politicians differ not only in appearance, views, but also in language. "Language portraits" of politicians have become an obligatory part of their image, a tool in political campaigns and even an object of parody. Texts generated by E.T. Gaidar, V.V. Zhirinovsky and A.I. Lebed, you can’t confuse them in any way, even if the announcer reads them. Public speech has largely become a reflection of individuality, as, generally speaking, it should be.

Thus, there are now fewer social differences in speech, and more individual ones. Well, the thesis of universal illiteracy, to put it mildly, is wrong. It's just that the illiteracy that has always existed has become partly public.

If we turn to non-public speech, then it has changed somewhat less, although it has also experienced various influences. True, this did not affect the most educated part of the Russian people, but first of all those who were most exposed to the influence of television and newspapers. Russian speech in general has become more diverse, since it combines heterogeneous elements from once incompatible forms of the language. In today's speech of a not young and quite intelligent person, such words and catchphrases flash through that it is just right to shout “guard!”. Youth slang, a bit of classic thieves' bullshit, a lot of Novorussian bullshit, professionalism, jargon - in short, for every taste.

Here are a few rules of a modern cultured person, formulated in modern language:

Don't come!
Don't load!
Do not drive fast!
Don't slow down!

It should be clear to everyone, although not a single word is used in its literary meaning.

Has the Russian language become more “criminal”? Undoubtedly. Like the rest of society as a whole. Another question is why it is so noticeable. Previously, the one who was supposed to “boot” “bot” on the hair dryer. Well, except that an intellectual could let in something like that for a red word. But this word was “red”, that is, it stood out sharply against the general background. Now these words are on the lips of everyone: a professor, a schoolboy, a deputy, a bandit...

Something similar happened with the Russian mat. Linguists have always talked about its taboo. But what kind of taboo is this, when almost all the people pronounce these words? So, firstly, not all, and secondly, not everywhere and not always. The use of obscenities in the USSR was somewhat reminiscent of the situation in Ancient Russia. There, the mat was used, in particular, in special "anti-Christian" rites, one might say, in a special "underground" pagan culture that existed in parallel with the Christian one. Cursing at special times and in special places. For example, in a bathhouse (such a special non-Christian place). The same phenomenon was reproduced in the Soviet era (of course, we are not talking about those who cursed always and everywhere). For the same political functionaries, swearing was a special sign of "unofficiality" and "property." Resting and relaxing with colleagues in the bath, it was simply necessary to swear. For the intelligentsia, swearing also played the role of a symbol and carried, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, the air of freedom and emancipation from the official religion - communism.

Together with all the forbidden mate, now it has escaped to freedom. And zealots of the Russian language claim that they began to swear more and more. Of course, no one has conducted statistical studies, but this is highly unlikely. It's just that the mat is now found in those places where the path was previously ordered to him. For example, in newspapers and books. On the TV it breaks through, then somehow hypocritically and indecently squeaks. And again the dialectics, as with illiteracy: swearing is more noticeable, because it is more public, and more inconspicuous, because it has lost its iconic function, it has become, as it were, less obscene.

The language has been compared with everything - with a game, with a living being, with an instrument, but, it seems, in order to visually show the transition from the Soviet state to the post-Soviet one, you need to compare it with soup. In Soviet times, there were many different groups and each cooked his own soup in his own pot. Someone had it tastier, someone had it hotter ... Moving to another team, I had to swallow a different soup. That's how we were all polyglots at that time: with home - like at home, with young people - like youth, with party members - like a party, but with wolves - like a wolf. And now all these soups and soups have been poured into one large cauldron, in which the common stew is brewed. You can, of course, complain, but you have to eat borscht with mushrooms and peas. To calm down, we can only say that after a while all this will be digested into a homogeneous mass. Something will disappear, something will remain...

The only, perhaps, tangible loss on this path of development of speech was the almost universal loss of linguistic taste. A language game built on the combination of different layers of the language (there are many examples in the Soviet period: V. Vysotsky, A. Galich, Ven. Erofeev, etc.), or simply using a pronounced social style (for example, M. Zoshchenko or A. Platonov) now hardly possible. These techniques have become the norm and are no longer perceived as a game. Of the new speech genres that still have a playful beginning, banter should be mentioned. Its novelty, however, is conditional and rather consists in socialization, access to the public platform.

As for other claims to the modern language, everything is not so simple here either. Indeed, the flow of borrowings from the English language has sharply increased. The influence of America is obvious, and not only on the Russian language and not only on the language in general. These changes are also associated with the destruction of borders and partitions, but only external ones. The largest number of borrowings falls on new areas where the system of Russian terms or names has not yet developed. This happens, for example, in modern economics or computer technology. In the absence of a word for a new concept, this word can be created from old means, or it can simply be borrowed. The Russian language as a whole took the second path. If we talk about specific words, then, say, Printer won printing device. In such areas, borrowings are quite expedient and, in any case, do not pose any threat to the language.

However, one cannot explain the expediency of borrowing. In many American-oriented areas, borrowings are clearly redundant, since the corresponding words already exist in Russian (sometimes old borrowings). Nevertheless, new borrowings are more prestigious and push Russian words out of circulation. So, businessman struggling with entrepreneur, model - With fashion model, presentation - With performance, image - With way,make-up artist With hairdresser etc. The appearance of this kind of borrowing sometimes makes communication difficult. An ad like "Sales Manager Wanted" is intended solely for those who understand, and for the rest remains a mystery. But costs of this kind are temporary (only for the period of struggle and the formation of new terminology) and also do not pose a particular threat to the language as a whole. We hardly become less Russian by saying accountant(sounds like, if you think about it!) and not accountant. And why is it so dear to us hairdresser p to protect him in a difficult fight against makeup artist?

The number of borrowings in any language is huge, which is not always felt by the native speakers themselves. Language is an unusually stable system and is able to “digest” rather alien phenomena, that is, to adapt them and make them, to one degree or another, one’s own. The degree of this adaptation is important, but it does not decide the matter. So, words like coat(indeclinable noun) or poet(distinct about in an unstressed position) were not completely digested, but the Russian language was not destroyed.

So, there is no need to be afraid for the Russian language - it will cope. The most paradoxical thing is that stability and conservatism will be provided to him in many respects by not very educated people, primarily those who did not study at universities and do not understand foreign languages. And as long as there are many of them, you don't have to worry. Another thing is that the zealots of the "Russian" deserve not ridicule, but respect. Despite the apparent ineffectiveness of their efforts, they are a kind of counterbalance to opposing tendencies. Thus, the authorities' measures to protect the language (for example, the requirement to write signs in Russian), despite the ironic attitude towards them, still have a certain effect.

In conclusion, it should be said that often in the public mind this or that state of the language is evaluated, and it is usually the “bad” state of the language that is noted. Such criticism is caused, as a rule, by too rapid changes in the language and the resulting gap between the discourses of different generations. We are in a similar situation now.