1.1. Variation in word forms. Fluctuations in the grammatical gender, number and case forms of nouns, the norms of their use.

1.2. Formation options and norms for the use of full and short forms of adjectives.

1.3. Norms for the use of numerals and pronouns in speech.

1.4. Norms for the use of verbs, participles and participles.

2.Syntactic norms.

2.1 Word order in a sentence

2.2. Stylistic errors in the construction of complex sentences

2.3. Norms for constructing constructions with prepositions.

1. Morphological norms. Slide 2-6

Morphological norms regulate morphology- a section of linguistics, which includes the doctrine of word forms and ways of expressing grammatical meanings, as well as the doctrine of parts of speech and their features. Morphological norms of a language are the norms for the formation of various parts of speech.Slide 7

shaping of nouns and adjectives;

shaping verb forms;

declension and compatibility of numerals;

differentiation of functional homonyms.

1.1. Variation in word forms. Fluctuations in the grammatical gender, number and case forms of nouns, the norms of their use.

Noun gender category. Slide 8-17 Despite the fact that we quite easily determine the gender in many nouns, guided by the ending (“null” /b, a / i, o / e), there is a group of words for which the definition of gender can be difficult. Most often, fluctuations are observed in attributing nouns to the masculine or feminine gender. As in the case of stress, these vibrations are distributed in different types, that is, they form variant forms of the word's gender :

Equivalent Options: unt - unta, shutter - shutter, stack - stack.

Stylistic options (characterized by different stylistic affiliations): tat flask(common) shoes(colloquial), key(common) - keys(prof.).

Literary and obsolete variants: hall - hall, shoe - shoe, rail - rail.

Differ word forms denoting male and female persons by profession, position, rank . Such nouns do not always have a full-fledged analogue for designating a female person. There are options:

Gender nouns are masculine nouns, but can also be used to refer to females: doctor, lawyer, deputy, professor, captain.

Parallel, stylistically neutral nouns: teacher - teacher, artist - artist, student - student.

Stylistic nouns, in which the feminine form is stylistically reduced, has a colloquial or vernacular character: doctor - doctor, conductor - conductor, director - headmistress.

Requires special attention assignment of gender to indeclinable nouns , since in many of them we cannot be guided by the ending, and the translation of these words into Russian is different. For example: what kind of word sconce? If we try to translate it, there will be different options: a lamp / night light is masculine, a lamp is feminine. It is impossible to use translation in order to determine the gender of a borrowed noun!

There are rules:

Inanimate foreign nouns belong to the neuter gender: cafe, subway, taxi, interview, aloe. There are exceptions in this group: masculine: coffee, sirocco(dry wind), names of drinks (brandy) and languages ​​( hindi, dari). For the feminine: salami, kohlrabi, avenue. But gradually parallel forms begin to develop: whiskey, coffee, auto, penalty(and m.r. and s.r.), tsunami(s.r.), madrasah((Arabic lit. "place where they study") - Muslim an educational institution that acts as a secondary school and a Muslim theological seminary. Training inmadrasah separate and free. (M.R. and F.R.).)

Animated foreign nouns can be both masculine and feminine: my / my counterpart, this one( on the contrary, against each other;/ this attaché. (junior diplomatic post.)

In the names of animals ( cockatoo, kangaroo, chimpanzee, pony) the masculine gender acts as the main one, and the feminine as an additional one, depending on the context.

In words - geographical names, the genus is determined by the genus of the reality they denote: deep Mississippi(river → f.r.), multimillion dollar / festive tokyo(city → m.r., capital → f.r.).

In abbreviations and complex abbreviated words, the norm is unstable. But in general, gender is determined by the main word: IGHTU(university → m.r.), UN(organization → f.r.). But there are exceptions here too: university(s.r. → m.r.), NATO– NorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization (f.b. → s.r.), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (s.r. → m.r.), etc. began to be perceived as independent words and "changed" the gender.

Noun case category. We can also meet various options in the case system of the Russian language. Nominative Variant endings may be seen S/I and AND I in plural forms of masculine nouns : agreements - contracta , locksmithand - locksmithI . The main one is the graduation rate S/I , while the option AND I most often acts as a colloquial. Genitive one). For example, some masculine nouns in the genitive singular vary in the main ending AND I (tea, sugar) with additional options U/S (tea, sugar). Usually endings U/S can be used in the following cases:

for nouns with a real value when indicating their number - that is, to designate a part of the whole ( a glass of teaYu , kilogram sugarat , piece of cheeseat ). However, if the noun is accompanied by a definition, you need to choose the form with the ending AND I (cup of hot teaI , pack of dried tobaccoa );

for collective and abstract nouns with the meaning of quantity ( little peopleat , a lot of noiseat );

in phraseological units ( without a yearat week, out of sightat by eye, with the worldat on a string);

in negative sentences pocoYu no, rejectionat did not have).

2) In the Genitive plural, masculine nouns have four variants of case endings: OV/EV(lot tableov , museev ), HER(lot pencilher ) and null ending(lot boot). The following groups of masculine nouns have a rare zero ending:

names of paired items ( shoe, boot, stocking /but sockov /, shoulder strap);

names of some nationalities, mainly in nouns with a base on letters - n and - R (British, Armenians, Bulgarians);

unit names ( amp, watt, volt, but coulombs, grams, kilograms).

Prepositional In the Prepositional case to the main variant - the ending E in some cases an ending is added At: to the workshope - to the shopat (in this case the option At - colloquial): grow into the forestat – know about the foreste (the ending distinguishes a shade in the meaning: circumstance and object), n and a checking accounte - be in good standingat (in expressions of a phraseological nature). Usually, when choosing an ending, one should take into account the context, that is, pay attention to what meaning is realized in the word.

Particular attention should be paid to the inclination of surnames of non-Russian origin..

1. Surnames on -ko such as Shevchenko, Sidorenko in official speech and in written form of the literary language are not inclined.

In colloquial speech and in fiction, these surnames are used in two versions, i.e. they can be inflexible, but they can also be inclined: he sent them to Semashka.

2. If the surnames coincide with common nouns, then female surnames do not decline (met Anna Sokol), but male ones decline (met Vladimir Sokol), while several cases are possible: surnames with suffixes -ets, -ek, -ok, -ate are better to incline without dropping a vowel: Ivan Zayats, Timofey Peretz; surnames ending in a soft consonant, denoting males, are declined as masculine nouns, although, being common nouns, they can be feminine words. Compare: lynx - female, but: Ivan Rys, distance - female, but: Vladimir Dal.

3. Surnames on -ko such as Shevchenko, Sidorenko in official speech and in written form of the literary language are not inclined.

Variants of endings R.p. units h. noun m.r.

# a glass of tea/tea, a bottle of lemonade/lemonade, a lump of sugar/sugar, a lot of people/people

At the same time, as mentioned above, there is a tendency towards unification in favor of ending -and I.

In the 19th century , normative for lit. language were considered forms on ~a/~i, the prevailing forms -u/-u were considered colloquial. And in modern literature, the wider use of forms on -a / -z: a glass of tea, a lot of people. In oral speech, young people prefer forms on -a/-i, a elder on -y / -y: a glass of tea, a lot of snow, a lot of air.

There is a gradual displacement of the form into -y/-th, the form into -a/-z. The degree of intensity of this process depends on: + the style of speech, + the frequency of using a lexical combination + the nature of the construction (verbal, nominal), + the type of syntactic construction, the degree of phraseology, expressiveness, etc.

Forms on -u/-u, most often stylistically colored (colloquial connotation), occur in the following cases:

1. At nouns with real value when indicating the quantity, i.e. to denote parts of the whole: a glass of tea(cf.: tea flavor) kilogram of sugar(cf.: taste of sugar) before-

become kerosene (wax, tesu, glue, poppy, chalk, turpentine); buy peas (fat, onions, peppers, rice, honey, cheese); same with accented ending; kilogram of sand, add boiling water, get the garlic.

With the end -y are used, as a rule, having in its composition diminutive suffix: drink tea (kvass); eat honey (sugar, cheese);

BUT: if with such a noun it costs definition, then the form is usually used on -a / -z: a glass of hot tea; a pack of dried tobacco;

2. For single collective noun with same quantitative value: a lot of people(cf.: people's history).

3. Do abstract entities with a touch quantitative About Meaning: a lot of noise, talk nonsense, catch up with fear, Perhaps this crazy girl will make a scandal(Pis.); This involuntary adornment gave me weight in his eyes...(M.G.)

4. During phraseological combinations, in expressions having adverbial character: a week without a year, no laughing matter, eye to eye, with the world on a string, #ont~there is no edge, give a blunder, give in a couple, confuse, our regiment has arrived, without clan and tribe, no doubt, speed up; Vasya, that was the spirit, set off to the kitten(L.T.).

5. After prepositions from, from, with when designating removal from anywhere or causes of action; after preposition before (in the attainable sense); after preposition without when indicating the absence of something; after particle neither (in all these cases, the expression may have a phraseological character): twenty years old, to die of hunger, to scream out of fright, to dance until you drop, you need to hurt yourself, to talk incessantly, not a step further, not a rumor, not a spirit, I have never been; I deliberately overlooked supervision(L.A.); Every more or less sensible person should have seen it the first time(T.); When the father died, the sons could not divide without a dispute...(L.T.)

6. In negative sentences: do not show the mind, there is not enough spirit, there is no peace, there is no wear and tear, there is no end, there was no refusal; He did not show that he was pleased with me(Ax); Not knowing the ford, do not poke your head into the water(ate); Mosquito will not undermine the nose(pogov.).

In some cases possible differentiation of form meanings by -u/-u and on -and I. So, get out of the house means "to leave your home" (i.e. the place where a person lives), and to get out of the house- “leave a building of a certain type” or “leave a designated house”. Wed: And I ran out of the house(Dost.); Alexei came out of the house in a white linen shirt.(M.G.). Wed also: leave home for work(for a while) - leave home(leave family) walk home(take home) - take you home(up to a certain place); no forest(missing forest) - no forest(no building material).

plays a role and the presence of a definition; compare: The wolf ran from the forest to the village(Cr.); From the dark forest, an inspired magician comes towards him(P.).

ending in - at is retained longer in monosyllabic / disyllabic native Russian words # cottage cheese, cheese, kvass. For trisyllabic / borrowed, the form is used on -a.

An example that forms on -u/-u decrease: the famous saying of V.I. Dalia A spoonful of honey, and a barrel of tar modern Russian dictionaries we find: Spoon of tar in a barrel of honey and finally: A fly in the ointment.

The history of nominal declension is covered in detail in the works of the largest Russian linguists - A. A. Potebnya, A. I. Sobolevsky, A. A. Shakhmatov, V. A. Bogoroditsky, V. I. Chernyshev, S. P. Obnorsky, L. A. Bulakhovsky, P. S. Kuznetsov, F. P. Filina and others. In their studies, the historical fate of case forms is traced, cases of variation and some reasons that determined the mixing and change of case endings are indicated. A lot of study time is devoted to the study of these complex (and even controversial) facts of the Russian language in the school curriculum. However, the ratio of morphological variants in our days (especially their functional differences) is not always fully considered. This is partly due to the fact that the most fundamental works of a normative nature are built mainly on the material of the literary language of the 19th century, which no longer always reflects the modern correlation of morphological variants.

Extensive scientific literature is devoted to the history and competition of the genitive case forms in -а (-я) and in у (-ю): sugar - sugar, tea - tea. It is generally accepted that the following categories of names retain the gradually obsolete form in -u (-u) in the modern language: 1) real nouns when denoting a part of the whole (a mug of kvass, a piece of cheese) -, 2) some collective and abstract nouns (a lot of people, little heat) -, 3) some nouns in prepositional combinations (from the forest, with fright) and as part of stable phraseological turns (with the world on a thread. Our regiment arrived, go astray). In other cases, it is recommended to use the form on

A(-ya): the taste of tea, sugar production, among the people, etc. Usually, the stylistic difference between these case forms is also indicated (it was noted by M.V. Lomonosov): forms in -u(-u), in unlike neutral forms in -а(-я), stylistically somewhat reduced, they are colloquial in color.

These correct conclusions about the ratio of competing options still need some additions and clarifications.

Firstly, the genitive case forms in -u(-u) are retained longer in monosyllabic or two-syllable words (originally Russian or early borrowings): kvass, tea, wax, cheese, onion, sugar, cottage cheese, tobacco, etc. some of them even take the inflexion -y more often than -a. For example, in the literary language of the XIX century. the kvass variant completely dominated; recorded in modern literature: kvass (M. Gorky, V. Kataev, Nikitin, Zamyatin, Shukshin, German, Sayanov, Sartakov, Sokolov-Mikitov, Proskurin and many others), kvass (L. Leonov, Nilin, M. Alekseev , G. Markov). Variants of tea and tea among modern writers turned out to be equally probable. On the other hand, in three-syllable borrowed words (chocolate, lemonade, naphthalene, refined sugar, etc.), the forms on -а(-я) spread much more intensively. For polysyllabic words (disorder, commotion, pyramidon, etc.), the ending -y (-k>) is generally uncharacteristic.

Secondly, the dependence of the choice of forms on -у(-к>) or -а(-я) on syntactic constructions is clearly revealed. If in nominal phrases, when denoting a part of the whole, it is permissible to use both forms: a piece of sugar (sugar), a cup of tea (tea), etc., then in verb-nominal phrases (in the presence of a transitive verb) the natural and normative for the modern language continues to be form on -u(-u): put sugar, brew tea, chop cheese, pour soup, etc. It is noteworthy that in these cases, V.I. evaluating the new options as allegedly literate (see: Correctness and purity of Russian speech. Pg., 1915). Here are some examples from contemporary fiction where the application of form to

У(-ю) is conditioned by the controlling transitive verb, and -- forms in -а(-я) depend on the host name: You just sit down and eat soup... [She] poured him a full bowl of vermicelli soup (Lydia. Indian guest ); Zinovy ​​Semyonovich took another sip of tea... - Bring a glass of tea (German. I'm responsible for everything).

Thirdly, the -y (-k>) forms are firmly retained (and even preferred) when using diminutive names honey, seagull, sugar, coffee, etc. in the genitive case. This is obviously caused by typical syntactic and contextual conditions the use of diminutive names (the presence of a transitive verb, the emotionally expressive nature of the statement).

Finally, it should be noted that the choice of forms of the genitive case is also somewhat dependent on the characteristics of prepositions. For example, with the preposition from, which, denoting the external and internal motivation of an action, quality or state, contributes to a greater dismemberment of the representation, productive forms are used more often in -а (-я): from hunger, from laughter, etc. On the contrary, with the preposition s(co). denoting only the internal cause of the state and used in the circle of colloquial expressions, forms in -u (-u) turn out to be preferable: from hunger, from laughter, etc.

Lexico-syntactic conditionality is also observed in some variants of the genitive plural. As you know, the grammatical norm is especially unstable in individual names of units of measurement (grams - grams), in words denoting fruits, fruits, vegetables (oranges - orange), as well as in the names of paired objects (socks - sock).

Concerning the competing forms of the genitive plural word gram (one hundred grams or grams?), very contradictory opinions were expressed. In many manuals and style guides, the form with zero inflection (one hundred grams) is strictly prohibited. In modern dictionaries, preference is given to the traditional form - grams. For example, in the reference dictionary "Difficulties in word usage" (1973): grams and grams is acceptable. The softening of the normative assessment of the form of grams (vm. Grams) is caused by the massive occurrence of this option not only in oral, but also in written speech. The statistical data provided by the researcher L. K. Graudina are noteworthy: during the tape recording of oral speech, all 400 informants used the form of grams (and not grams). The rejected form of grams is also widely represented in modern fiction, in the works of Lavrenev, Bergholz, Vs. Vishnevsky, Herman, Ovechkin, Troepolsky, Soloukhin, V. Kozhevnikov, R. Rozhdestvensky, Luknitsky, F. Abramov, R. Kazakova, Vek, and others. An expert on the Russian language, writer K. Chukovsky, defended her. Here is what he wrote in the book “Alive as Life” (1962): “Now it’s even strange for me to remember how angry I was at first with the current phrase: his gram. “Not a hundred grams, but a hundred grams!” I shouted indignantly. But little by little I got used to it, got used to it, and now this new form seems completely normal to me.

No less common in colloquial speech is the oscillation in the genitive plural forms of the names of fruits and vegetables (especially in words with a stem on a sonorant consonant, which, as noted above, predisposes to formal variation). Recordings of oral speech (1962-1963) are very expressive: apricot - apricots - 45/2 (the number on the left indicates the number of forms with zero inflection, on the right - forms on -ob), orange - oranges - -100/0 , banana - bananas - 11/39, eggplant - eggplant - 100/0, pomegranate - pomegranates - 48/2. tangerine - tangerines - 47/3, tomato - tomatoes - 394/6 ("Russian language and Soviet society". M., 1968). The use of the forms orange, tangerine (meaning oranges, tangerines) is also found in fiction by M. Gorky, Yesenin and other Soviet writers.

However, it would be rash to recognize the equality of forms on -ov and forms with zero inflection. And the point here is not only the prestige of the traditional form of -ov, which is preferred in written (especially scientific and official business) speech. It is very significant that the morphological variants under consideration show a certain dependence on the meaning of the case and the nature of the word combinations. So, options with zero inflection are not only characteristic of colloquial speech, but are also usually used in standard quantitative combinations with words denoting units of measurement (one hundred grams, a kilogram of orange, a ton of tomato). When denoting, for example, individual, countable objects or in other meanings of the genitive case, only the -ov forms are used (five tangerines, the smell of oranges, a tomato box, etc.). Thus, in addition to the presence of stylistic coloring, the forms of the genitive plural with zero inflection gradually acquire special and syntactic specialization, being used mainly in countable phrases. This confirms the assumption of S. P. Obnorsky about the relationship of zero inflections in the genitive plural with the “notion of countability”, for example, two rake, but the sale of a rake (and a rake).

A truly dramatic page in Russian studies remains the fate of the nominative plural forms in -ы(-и) and -а(-я). Heated debates about the legality and limits of the use of new variants on -й(-А) have not subsided for more than a century and have gone beyond the walls of scientific institutions and classrooms.

The general direction of the development of the language and the reassessment of forms following it seems to be obvious here - this is an ever wider entry and normative recognition of productive forms in -й(-А). The shape of the house was the usual one for the literary language of the 19th century. (Gogol, Zhukovsky, Maikov, Polezhaev, Goncharov, etc.), she met in the poetry of the beginning of the 20th century. (Blok, Aseev), but is completely unacceptable today. It was considered a gross mistake at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. the shape of the train, now, on the contrary, it would be strange to hear the shape of the train recommended by gymnasium teachers. Purist-minded guardians of linguistic morality are still raising their voices of protest against such forms, already legalized even by dictionaries, as directors, professors, etc. But life takes its toll, and more and more new masculine names take on in the nominative plural stressed inflection -a .

In the reference dictionary "Difficulties in word usage" (1973), the forms of a locksmith, turner were qualified as colloquial variants, in the Spelling Dictionary (1974) and the "Dictionary of Difficulties" (1976), the forms of locksmith and locksmith, turners and turner are recognized as equal. Indeed, the form of a locksmith is widely represented in modern fiction (moreover, in the author's speech) in the works of Selvinsky, A. Green, Kassil, M. Koltsov, Paustovsky, Poltoratsky. Gaidar. Soloukhina, Kochetova and others. For example: Concrete workers and fitters, carpenters and diggers ... fled to the middle channel (M. Koltsov. Only one page);

Loaders, railroad workers, locksmiths with indelible shadows around their eyes... (Kassil. Goalkeeper of the Republic); Behind the partition ... foremen, locksmiths and steammen (One and a half c to and and. On the road and at home).

Normative-stylistic reassessment touched on a significant number of new formations on -a (-ya) - In 1944, S. P. Obnorsky considered only the forms editors, searchlights, boats, sectors, cruisers to be literary normalized. The new spelling dictionary (1974) legitimized not only the forms of the editor, searchlight, boat, sector, cruiser, but also the accountant, contract, proofreader, report card, etc., as a valid version of the written norm.

And yet, despite the massive entry of new forms in -а(-д) and even normative recognition, many of them (for example, accountant, contract, proofreader, etc.) give the impression of second-rate, stylistic decline. Moreover, even their penetration from professional speech into fiction cannot serve as reliable evidence of the stylistic equivalence of new formations in -а(-я) and traditional forms in -ы(-и). Most of the new variants in -й(-я) remain functionally limited: they should not, for example, be used in scientific, official, and even more so in solemn speeches.

Modern linguistic views on the correlation of the considered morphological variants are based mainly on their stylistic opposition (many forms in -а(-я) belong to the sphere of vernacular and professional speech), social confinement (forms in а(-я) are more often observed among workers. employees and students - non-philologists), as well as a semantic distinction: it is believed that words with an objective meaning are more free to accept inflection -а (-я) than, say, words denoting persons (Russian language according to a mass survey. M., 1974).

In addition, there are purely formal restrictions on the spread and recognition as the norm of inflections on -а(-я) in the nominative plural. It turns out that they are now received mainly by two-, three-syllable masculine nouns with a base for a sonorous (especially smooth) sound, for example: poplars, domes, clover, anchors, etc. On the contrary, many

monosyllabic words (soup, cake. plan, etc.), as well as polysyllabic ones (cf.: turner - turners and turners, but librarian, only librarians), retain traditional forms: soups, cakes, plans, etc. However, even among monosyllabic words there are quite a few in which a new inflection has been established: years, snow, volumes, etc.

When evaluating competing variants of case forms, one cannot ignore the influence and changes of social factors: the increase in the general educational level, the growth of the authority of the book and the literary and written tradition. So, in recent years, there has been a slight decline in the use of forms ending in -а(-я), caused by a reaction to the onslaught of the colloquial element, the active intervention of the school, a public sign and the approval of a protective language policy.

Although the morphological norms of the Russian literary language have been studied and described in grammars in sufficient detail and, being presented in writing, are relatively easier to regulate (than, say, stress norms), in this area we constantly encounter hesitations and doubts. The fact is that, despite the stability of the written tradition, morphology also turned out to be an arena of struggle between differently directed attractive forces. generating new variants and creating a conflict of norms. Suffice it to recall such words as holodina or tsunami, for which the fluctuation in the grammatical gender is caused by the confrontation between form and content.

Consequently, the relative decrease in the number of variant pairs in the morphological structure of the modern language in comparison with the 19th century. does not at all mean that the variation of forms has been finally overcome. The eternal evolution of the language undermines even the rules of formation of forms fixed in writing and protected by grammatical manuals. On the other hand, doublets in the morphology of the modern Russian literary language no longer seem entirely redundant.

accurate. Many variant forms have acquired one or another functional load, while becoming an important stylistic resource of the language (cf.: on vacation and in colloquial speech on vacation; sons and sons in solemn speech, for example: sons of the fatherland). It is very significant that parallel morphological forms are attached to certain syntactic constructions (cf .: a cup of tea, a bowl of soup, but in combination with transitive verbs usually: pour tea, soup). Such confinement of forms, indicating their functional originality, cannot but be taken into account in normative practice and when teaching the Russian language at school.

The history of the nominal declension is covered in detail in the works of the largest Russian linguists - A. A. Potebnya, A. I. Sobolevsky, A. A. Shakhmatov, V. A. Bogoroditsky, V. I. Chernyshev, S. P. 06-
Norsky, L. A. Bulakhovsky, P. S. Kuznetsov, F. P. Filin and others. Their studies trace the historical fate of case forms, indicate cases of variation and some reasons that determined the mixing and change of case endings. A lot of study time is devoted to the study of these complex (and even controversial) facts of the Russian language in the school curriculum. However, the ratio of morphological variants in our days (especially their functional differences) is not always fully considered. This is partly due to the fact that the most fundamental works of a normative nature are built mainly on the material of the literary language of the 19th century, which no longer always reflects the modern correlation of morphological variants.
An extensive scientific literature is devoted to the history and competition of the genitive case forms in -а (-я) and in -у (-ю): sugar - sugar, tea - tea. It is generally accepted that the following categories of names retain the gradually obsolete form in -u (-u) in the modern language: 1) real nouns when denoting a part of a whole (a mug of kvass, a piece of cheese); 2) some collective and abstract nouns (many people, little heat); 3) some nouns in prepositional combinations (from the forest, with fright) and as part of stable phraseological turns (with the world on a string, our regiment arrived, go astray). In other cases, it is recommended to use the form in -а (-я): the taste of tea, the production of sugar, among the people, etc. Usually, the stylistic difference between these case forms is also indicated (it / was noted by M. V. Lomonosov): forms in -у (-ю), in contrast to the neutral forms in -а (-я), are stylistically somewhat reduced, they are colloquial in color.
These correct conclusions about the ratio of competing options still need some additions and clarifications.
Firstly, the genitive case forms in -u (-u) are retained longer in monosyllabic or two-syllable words (originally Russian or early borrowings): kvass, tea, cheese, onion, sugar, cottage cheese, tobacco, etc. At the same time, some of these, the inflexion -y is more often accepted than -a. For example, in the literary language of the XIX century. the kvass variant completely dominated; recorded in modern literature: kvass (Gorky, Kataev, Nikitin, Zamyatin, Shukshin, German, Sayanov, Sartakov, Sokolov-Mikitov, Proskurin and many others), kvass (L. Leonov, Nilin, M. Alekseev, G. Markov ). Variants of tea and tea among modern writers turned out to be equally probable. On the other hand, in three-syllable borrowed words (chocolate, lemonade, naphthalene, refined sugar, etc.), the forms on -а (-я) spread much more intensively. For polysyllabic words (disorder, commotion, pyramidon, etc.), the ending -u (-u) is generally uncharacteristic.
Secondly, the dependence of the choice of forms on -у (-ю) or -а (-я) on syntactic constructions is clearly revealed. If in nominal phrases, when denoting a part of the whole, it is permissible to use both forms: a piece of sugar (sugar), a cup of tea (tea), etc., then in verb-nominal phrases (in the presence of a transitive verb) the natural and normative for the modern language continues to be form on -y (-y): put sugar, brew tea, cut cheese, pour soup, etc. It is noteworthy that in these cases V.I. new variants as allegedly literate (see: Correctness and purity of Russian speech. - Pg., 1915). Here are some examples from modern fiction, where the use of the form in -u (-u) is due to the controlling transitive verb, and - the forms in -a (-я) depend on the control name: You just sit down and eat soup u ... [She ] poured him a full bowl of soup with vermicelli (Lidin. Indian guest); Zinovy ​​Semyonovich took another sip of tea ... - Bring a glass of tea (Herman. I'm responsible for everything).
Thirdly, forms in -u (-u) are firmly retained (and even preferred) when using diminutive names honey, seagull, sugar, coffee, etc. in the genitive case. This is obviously caused by typical syntactic and contextual conditions of use diminutive names (the presence of a transitive verb, the emotionally expressive nature of the statement).
Finally, it should be noted that the choice of forms of the genitive case is also somewhat dependent on the characteristics of prepositions. For example, with the preposition from, which, denoting the external and internal motivation of an action, quality or state, contributes to a greater dissection of the idea, the productive forms -а (-я) are used more often: from hunger, from laughter, etc. On the contrary, with the preposition с (co), denoting only the internal cause of the state and used in the circle of colloquial expressions, forms in -u (-u) are preferred: from hunger, from laughter, etc.
Lexico-syntactic conditionality is also observed in some variants of the genitive plural. As you know, the grammatical norm is especially unstable in individual names of units of measurement (grams - grams), in words denoting fruits, fruits, vegetables (oranges - orange), as well as in the names of paired objects (socks - sock).
Concerning the competing forms of the genitive plural word gram (one hundred grams or grams?), very contradictory opinions were expressed. In many manuals and style guides, the form with zero inflection (one hundred grams) is strictly prohibited. In modern dictionaries, preference is given to the traditional form - grams. For example, in the reference dictionary "Difficulties in word usage" (1973): grams and grams is acceptable. The softening of the normative assessment of the form of grams (vm. Grams) is caused by the massive occurrence of this option not only in oral, but also in written speech. The statistical data provided by the researcher L. K. Graudina are noteworthy: during the tape recording of oral speech, all 400 informants used the form of grams (and not grams). The rejected form of grams is also widely represented in modern fiction, in the works of Lavrenev, Bergholz, Vs. Vishnevsky, Herman, Ovechkin, Troepolsky, Soloukhin, V. Kozhevnikov, R. Rozhdestvensky, Luknitsky, F. Abramov, R. Kazakova, Beck, and others. An expert on the Russian language, writer K. Chukovsky spoke in her defense. Here is what he wrote in the book Living Like Life (1962): “Now it’s even strange for me to remember how angry I was at first with the current phrase: one hundred grams. “Not a hundred grams, but a hundred grams!” "- I shouted indignantly. But little by little I got used to it, got used to it, and now this new form seems completely normal to me. " In Russian grammar (1980) it is indicated that the form of the genitive plural with zero inflection is formed by the names of measures and units of measurement: ampere, watt, volt, hertz, gram, kilogram, hectare, roentgen, erg (p. 499.) In the note on p. 500 it is noted: “The names of measures and units of measurement form forms of generic items also with inflection -ov: grams, kilograms, hectares. In oral speech, these forms are uncommon.
No less common in colloquial speech is the oscillation in the genitive plural forms of the names of fruits and vegetables (especially in words with a stem on a sonorant consonant, which, as noted above, predisposes to formal variation). Recordings of oral speech are very expressive: apricot-t-apricots - 45/2 (the number on the left indicates the number of forms with zero inflection, on the right - forms on -ov), orange - oranges - 100/0, banana - bananas - 11/39, eggplant - eggplant - 100/0, pomegranate - pomegranate - 48/2, mandarin - tangerines - 47/3, tomato - tomatoes - 394/6 (Russian language and Soviet society - M., 1968). The use of the forms orange, tangerine (meaning oranges, tangerines) is also found in fiction by Gorky, Yesenin and other Soviet writers.
Regarding the norm for the use of such words, Russian Grammar (1980) gives the following recommendations: “In colloquial speech, the form genus. items with zero inflection are common with words - the names of vegetables and fruits: apricots - apricot, - oranges - orange, eggplant - eggplant, bananas - banana, tangerines - tangerine, tomatoes - tomato. In written speech, the use of gender forms. items with zero inflection for the listed words are not recommended” (p. 500). It is noteworthy that the strict prescriptions of editors and proofreaders in recent years have significantly reduced the appearance in print of forms with zero inflection for such words (which, however, does not mean at all that the tendency to establish plural forms with zero inflection in the genitive case has turned).
So, it would be rash to recognize the equality of forms on -ov and forms with zero inflection. And the point here is not only the prestige of the traditional form of -ov, which is preferred in written (especially scientific and official business) speech. It is very significant that the morphological variants under consideration show a certain dependence on the meaning of the case and the nature of the word combinations. So, options with zero inflection are not only characteristic of colloquial speech, but are also usually used in standard quantitative combinations with words denoting units of measurement (one hundred grams, a kilogram of orange, a ton of tomato). When denoting, for example, individual, countable objects or in other meanings of the genitive case, only the -ov forms are used (five tangerines, the smell of oranges, a tomato box, etc.).
Thus, in addition to the presence of stylistic coloring, the forms of the genitive plural with zero inflection gradually acquire special and syntactic specialization, being used mainly in countable phrases. This confirms the assumption of S. P. Obnorsky about the relationship of zero inflections in the genitive plural with the “notion of countability”, for example, two rake, but the sale of a rake (and a rake).
A truly dramatic page in Russian studies remains the fate of the nominative plural forms in -ы (-и) and -й (-я). Hot debates about the legality and limits of the use of new variants on -a (-k) have not subsided for over a century and have gone beyond the walls of scientific institutions and classrooms.
The general direction of the development of the language and the reassessment of forms that followed it seems to be obvious here - this is an ever wider entry and normative recognition of productive forms on a (-z). The shape of the house was common for the literary language of the 19th century. (Gogol, Zhukovsky, Maikov, Polezhaev, Goncharov, etc.), she met in the poetry of the beginning of the 20th century. (Blok, Aseev), but is completely unacceptable today. It was considered a gross mistake in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. the shape of the train, now, on the contrary, it would be strange to hear the shape of the train recommended by gymnasium teachers. Purist-minded guardians of linguistic morality are still raising their voices of protest against such forms, already legalized even by dictionaries, as directors, professors, etc. But life takes its toll, and more and more masculine names take on in the nominative plural stressed lexicon -a .
In the reference dictionary "Difficulties in word usage" (1973), the forms of a locksmith, turner were qualified as colloquial variants, in the Spelling Dictionary (1974), "Dictionary of Difficulties" (1976) and the Orthoepic Dictionary (1983), the forms of locksmith and locksmith, turners and turner are recognized as equal . Indeed, the form of a locksmith is widely represented in modern fiction (and in the author's speech) in the works of Selvinsky, A. Green, Kassil, M. Koltsov, Paustovsky, Poltoratsky, Gaidar, Soloukhin, Kochetov, etc. For example: Concrete workers and locksmiths, carpenters and diggers ... fled to the middle channel (M. Koltsov. Only one page); Loaders, railroad workers, locksmiths with indelible shadows around their eyes... (Kassil. Goalkeeper of the Republic); Behind the partition ... foremen, mechanics and steamers (Poltoratsky. On the road and at home).
The normative-stylistic reassessment affected a significant number of neoplasms in -a (Chya). In 1944, S.P. Obnorsky considered only the forms editors, searchlights, boats, sectors, cruisers to be literary normalized. The new spelling dictionary (1974) legitimized not only the forms of the editor, searchlight, boat, sector, cruiser, but also the accountant, contract, proofreader, report card, etc., as a valid version of the written norm.
And yet, despite the massive entry of new forms into -а (-я) and even normative recognition, many of them (for example, accountant, contract, proofreader, etc.) give the impression of second-rate, stylistic decline. Moreover, even their penetration from professional speech into fiction cannot serve as reliable evidence of the stylistic equivalence of new formations in -а (-я) and traditional forms in -ы (-и). Most of the new variants in -а (-я) remain functionally limited: they should not, for example, be used in scientific, official, and even more so in solemn speech. And, of course, non-normative, unacceptable in the literary language are forms on -а (-я) from nouns with an accent on the last syllable, for example: engineer - engineer, officer - officer, driver - driver. Although, however, such forms are often found in everyday speech and even in fiction, of course, with deliberate stylization. For example:
And at a halt, the guy will touch the tool with his mouth - and right there the regiment will moan in anguish at home,
The officer will wipe away a tear.
(E. Vinokurov. Music team.)
- The professor lived with me, remained grateful, and even added more than the pay ... Engineers also lived more cultured than others (Yu. Kazakov. House under a steep slope).
And now the tires are grinding
The driver is pressed on the pedals,
The avalanche stops
Be careful, kids!
(Yu. Drunina. Be careful - children!)
Modern linguistic views on the correlation of the considered morphological variants are based mainly on their stylistic opposition (many forms in -й (-к) belong to the sphere of vernacular and professional speech) and social confinement (forms in -й (-я) are more often observed among workers, employees and students-non-philologists) (Russian language according to the data of a mass survey. - M., 1974). In addition, there are purely formal restrictions on the spread and recognition of the norm of inflections on -а(-к) in the nominative plural. It turns out that they are now received mainly by two-, three-syllable masculine nouns with a base for a sonorous (especially smooth) sound, for example: poplars, domes, clover, anchors, etc. On the contrary, many monosyllabic words (soup, cake, plan, etc.), as well as polysyllabic ones (cf .: turner - turners and turner, but librarian, only - librarians), retain traditional forms: soups, cakes, plans, etc. However, among monosyllabic words there are there are many who have established a new inflection: years, snow, volumes, etc.
When evaluating competing variants of case forms, one cannot ignore the influence and changes of social factors: the increase in the general educational level, the growth of the authority of the book and the literary and written tradition. So, in recent years, there has been a slight decline in the use of forms ending in -а(-я), caused by a reaction to the onslaught of the colloquial element, the active intervention of the school, public recognition and approval of the protective language policy.

Racterized with a stylistically reduced, dismissive connotation and are outside the literary language. Fluctuations in the gender of invariable nouns are characteristic primarily for words of foreign origin, which are an exception to the general rules. This includes masculine words denoting the names of languages ​​(Hindi, Swahili, Urdu, Bengali), winds (sirocco, tornado), the word penalty, as well as feminine nouns such as kohlrabi, salami, avenue, ivasi, tsetse, etc. Exceptions to the rules are explained here by the active influence of a word with a generic concept: Hindi (language), penalty (penalty kick), kohlrabi (cabbage), etc. Invariable loanwords denoting the names of animals and birds, usually masculine, but if they indicate a female, then in the context they are used as feminine nouns: the Kangaroo jumped slowly, since she had a cub in her bag. One exception to the rule is the word coffee, which fell into the category of masculine nouns due to its association with an older form of coffee. In modern colloquial speech and even in print, this word is used in the middle gender: Brazilian coffee, condensed coffee with milk. Certain abbreviations ending in a consonant and containing a core word of a feminine or neuter gender (TASS, NOT, ZhEK, VTEK), as well as initial and mixed types with a stem in a vowel (ROE, district , oblono, gorono, general store). The norm for a number of abbreviations of this type is unstable, here we can only talk about the trend of its development. The history of language shows that in such conflict situations, the external grammatical form wins. An example is the abbreviations university, registry office, NEP, BAM and others, which have firmly passed into the category of masculine words. Variation of case endings. The most frequent fluctuations are in the case endings of masculine nouns with a hard consonant. In the prepositional case of the singular for masculine nouns, the main ending is -e. The variant ending -у is possible only in combination with the prepositions в and на in the adverbial meaning of the place, less often the state or time of action: in the workshop, in the snow, on the shore. Difficulties usually arise in the use of nouns that equally easily accept the endings -е and -у: on vacation/y, in the shop/y, at the airport/y, etc. The literary norm in this case allows both forms, but the forms in the shop, on vacation they have a neutral color, and in the workshop, on vacation - colloquial; forms on the shore, at the ball, in the garden, in a stack, on board, on a closet, etc. items wear a shade of obsolescence. Formation of nominative plural forms. Fluctuations are most often observed in two-syllable borrowed (and some Russian) words: boat, bunker, promissory note, tunic, tenor, cruiser, tractor, sector, turner, etc. For most three-syllable words, the normatively traditional ending -ы( -and); first of all, words of Latin origin with -tor (inspector, proofreader, searchlight) are subject to vibrations. Forms ending in -а(-я) of two- and three-syllable nouns are fixed in the Russian language unevenly, selectively, the norm should be checked in dictionaries. Therefore, the forms encountered in speech on -а(-я) nouns with a fixed type of stress cannot be recognized as normative. This includes words with the prefix you- (reprimand, departure, pasture, exit, etc.) and words of French origin in -er, -er (driver, actor, director, officer, etc.). For monosyllabic nouns, variants within the literary norm are noted only in individual words: workshops / workshops, years / years. For the rest of the monosyllabic words, the normative ending is either -a (sides; houses, meadows, etc.) or -s (plans, cakes, ports, fronts, etc.). In polysyllabic words, under the influence of a tendency towards rhythmic balance, as a rule, the traditional ending -ы (-и) is preserved: architects, librarians, transformers, condensers, etc. In the genitive plural, normative variants are characteristic of those nouns in which generic variants are equal: stack / stacks and stack / stack. Variant forms also form nouns, in the gender of which fluctuations are observed: dahlia / dahlias and dahlia / dahlia, rail / rails and rail / rail, etc. The first of these forms are general literary, the scope of the second is limited to vernacular, professional speech . Fluctuations in the formation of forms of the genitive plural are observed in certain groups of masculine nouns with a hard consonant, which serve as the names of measures and units of measurement, vegetables, fruits, fruits, as well as paired objects. Most of the units of measurement in the genitive case have a strong zero ending (ampere, watt, volt, coulomb, hertz, erg, etc.). Variant forms are observed in nouns grams, kilograms, 42 hectares. Forms on -ov are used mainly in written speech, while the zero ending is acceptable in colloquial speech. For nouns - the names of vegetables, fruits, fruits, the ending -ov is common literary (oranges, eggplants, bananas, lemons, etc.). d.). However, in oral speech, the zero form is common, especially for the nouns orange, tangerine, tomato. The scope of its use is limited to colloquial speech, and here it is permissible only in standard quantitative combinations with words denoting units of measurement: a ton of tomato, a kilogram of orange. In other combinations and in colloquial speech, the normative ending for these words is -ov: buy tangerines, the smell of oranges, a box of tomatoes. For nouns - the names of paired items or items consisting of two or more parts, the zero ending is the norm: boots / boots, shoulder straps / shoulder straps, shorts / shorts, etc.; exclusion of socks/socks. In modern speech, the shape of the sock is widely used, which does not contradict the language system, and therefore can be recognized as normative. As a colloquial version, it is already included in some dictionaries. Errors in the formation and use of forms of adjectives. The forms of adjectives are rich in a system of synonymic correspondences: the synonymy of simple (synthetic) and complex (analytical) forms of comparative and superlative degrees (deeper - deeper, deepest - the deepest - the deepest of all - the deepest); possessive adjectives and forms of indirect cases of nouns (raspberry jam - raspberry jam, wind from the north - north wind); synonymy of possessive adjectives differing in suffixes (fathers - paternal, husband - husband, enemy - enemy). When using synonymous forms in speech, one should take into account their semantic and stylistic shades. Thus, the simple form of the comparative degree (more interesting, stronger) is stylistically neutral, it is used in all styles; complex (more interesting, stronger) is characteristic of book speech. The simple form of the superlative degree has a book coloring, the complex form has a neutral one. The sphere of use of constructions such as Lermontov's poems, fathers' mandate, men's suit is limited to colloquial speech, while in neutral, especially in book, constructions Lermontov's poems, father's mandate, men's suit are used. Sometimes parallel revolutions diverge in their values ​​so much that their mutual replacement is impossible. Compare: the elder brother's family is fraternal help, a mother's love for her son is maternal love. The use of parallel phrases without taking into account their semantic and stylistic differences leads to speech errors. Outside the literary norm, there are forms of a simple comparative degree found in speech such as smarter, louder, richer, sweeter, sweeter, more beautiful, longer, etc. These are colloquial forms, their literary variants are smarter, louder, richer, sweeter, prettier, longer. Forms of the comparative degree with the prefix po-, which introduces an additional meaning "somewhat, a little" (larger, stronger, taller), are permissible only in colloquial speech, but in bookish one should use constructions a little more, a little stronger. When using forms of comparative degree, the object of comparison should be indicated: And there is nothing more complicated than the inner world of a person (V. Tendryakov). Suggestions like This room is cleaner and lighter do not correspond to the norms of the literary language. Common mistakes are the formation of: 1) comparative and superlative degrees of comparison by combining analytical and synthetic forms: stronger, the strongest; 2) redundant combinations of the type somewhat in more detail (the form in more detail already has the meaning "a few, a little"); 3) forms of comparative degree from relative adjectives: more synonymous, more colloquial. Such forms are allowed in works of fiction, where their use is stylistically motivated: On such an impenetrable blizzard evening, success was decided not by those who were more iron or more accurate, but who was luckier (L. Leonov); 4) superlative forms by attaching to adjectives in the form of a positive prefix most-: most beneficial, most pleasant. Variance in combinations of numerals with nouns. In combinations of numerals with nouns, variant forms, usually differing in stylistic coloring, and deviations from literary norms are observed in constructions: etc.) residents (bookish) - residents (colloquial); 2) “two (three, four) or more + noun”: in accordance with the literary norm, the noun depends on the numeral and is used in the genitive case of the singular, not the plural: two or more meters, three or more windows, four and more sheets. Permutations are possible: two meters or more, three windows or more; 3) “a compound numeral ending in two, three, four (22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34, etc.) + a noun that has only a plural form. numbers." If necessary, synonymous expressions should be used (twenty-two sledges were repaired, twenty-second days have passed, twenty-two days have passed, etc.), since these nouns are used only in combination with collective numerals (two days , three trousers, four jeans); 4) “collective numeral + noun or substantiated adjective”: two wounded / two wounded, three sons / three sons, four orphans / four orphans. In combinations with adjectives formed from nouns, nouns of the general gender (when designating several males or males and females) and masculine nouns in -a in the nominative case, it is recommended to use collective numerals: two passers-by, three brothers - Dyag, four men. In indirect cases, along with the collective, it is permissible to use cardinal numbers: two / two men, three / three children, four / four vacationers. In combination with masculine nouns with the meaning of a person ending in a consonant, both quantitative and collective numerals are used: two friends / two friends, seven / seven commanders. In some cases, the use of only quantitative numerals is general literary, since the collective ones introduce a stylistically reduced shade of meaning: two marshals (not two marshals), three professors (not three professors). In combination with nouns that have only the plural form, the collective numeral is used in the nominative case (two railings, five jeans), and in the oblique cases the quantitative one (about two days, about three jeans, with four sledges). In combination with masculine nouns denoting animals and feminine nouns, the literary norm is the use of cardinal numbers (two friends, three bears, four wolves). Combinations of collective numerals with the names of young animals (two chickens, three wolf cubs), paired objects in the meaning of “so many pairs” (two stockings, three socks), as well as in oblique cases with the names of women’s faces do not correspond to the literary norm. - 45th floor (two sisters, three students); they have a colloquial-colloquial coloring. Errors in the use of pronouns. It is undesirable in speech to duplicate the same pronoun: When he received a vacation, he went to the village (better Having received a vacation, he left. .. or He got a vacation and left...). The pronoun they should not be correlated with collective or abstract nouns that have a singular form. For example: The youth responded vividly to this call, and they are already on their way to explore the virgin lands; Student youth went on vacation, where they will rest for two months. In such cases, it is advisable to replace the collective or abstract noun with a specific one (students instead of student youth). A common mistake in speech is the confusion of the possessive pronouns mine, yours, his and others with the reflexively possessive one: I did not find use for my hands (necessary for mine); The mother always had a kind word for her daughters and sons (necessarily her own). Excessive use of pronouns in cases where the demonstrative meanings expressed by pronouns are taken for granted: She has developed good relations with all her colleagues at work; Before leaving for work, the mother woke her son up. The use of verb forms 1. The verbs rinse, sway, purr, splash, scour, and some others form two forms of the present tense: with alternating consonants (rinsing, swaying, etc.) and without alternating (rinsing, swaying, etc.) .). The first are general literary, the second are characteristic of the colloquial style. Stylistically, the present tense forms of the verbs meow (meow / meow), syt (scatter / spit), pinch (pinch / pinch); imperative mood of the verbs to go (go / drive / go), put (put / put), put (put / put), lie down (lay down / lay down), go (go / go), etc. General literary are the first of them, the second, are colloquial in nature and are not used in literary speech. 2. Variants of forms such as condition / condition, focus / focus, empower / empower differ as bookish (with the vowel o in the root) and colloquial (with the vowel a). 46 3.5. Syntactic norms Modern language norms at the syntactic level allow many variant forms: wait for a vacation / vacation, did not read a book / books, two came / came, etc. Although all of them are described in reference literature with sufficient completeness and consistency, nevertheless less in speech practice, there are a number of difficulties in choosing the desired syntactic construction. Variants of coordination of the main members of the proposal. Modern norms of coordination of the main members of the sentence, as is known, often allow variant forms of the gender and number of the predicate: five (most, several) students left / left; three voted / voted; engineer spoke / spoke, etc. e. The choice of one form or another of the predicate depends on a number of factors that must be taken into account in each specific act of communication. Use of adverbial turnover. A gerund in a sentence denotes an additional action of a creature or object named as the subject in the nominative case of a noun or pronoun: Grandmother, putting on glasses, read the letter; The ball bounced off the wall and hit the window. Therefore, it is unacceptable to use a single gerund or participle in the following cases: a) in sentences without a subject expressed in the form of the nominative case: Grandmother felt sad after reading the letter; correction options are possible: Grandmother felt sad after reading the letter; When grandmother read the letter, she became sad; b) if the adverbial turnover denotes the action of a creature or object that is not expressed by the subject: Even with a map in hand, the route was found with difficulty (the subject route, and the map, obviously, was held in hand by a traveler not indicated in the sentence) ; correction option: Even with a map in hand, we hardly found the route; c) if the main action of the object or creature is not named in the sentence: Having celebrated the seventieth anniversary, our veteran is mobile and cheerful (the main action of the veteran is not named, instead signs are indicated - mobile and cheerful). Correction option: Having celebrated his 70th anniversary, our veteran continues to be active, he is full of vigor and strength. 47 Difficulties in the transfer of someone else's speech. Foreign speech in communication is most often transmitted: a) with the help of a non-union complex sentence with a special intonation - it is made out as direct speech: The students told the professor: “We need a consultation before the exam”; b) complex sentence - indirect speech: The students told the professor that they needed advice before the exam; c) accurate quoting or introductory construction with the meaning of the source of information (in book styles); d) improperly direct speech (mainly in fiction). An error caused by mixing direct and indirect speech is extremely common when transmitting someone else's speech: The students told the professor that we needed a consultation before the exam; The parents told the children that we would go to the dacha. Such constructions are not only incorrect from the point of view of syntactic norms, but also lead to ambiguity and ambiguity of the message. 48 Lecture 4 LEXICAL STANDARDS OF THE RUSSIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE 4.1. The word and its meaning. Ways of formulating the meaning of a word The word is the basic unit of the language, the most diverse and complex. It is the word that primarily reflects all the changes taking place in the life of society. The word not only names an object or phenomenon, but, as we have already noted, it performs emotionally expressive and aesthetic functions. That is why, when choosing words, we must pay attention to their meaning, stylistic coloring, usage, compatibility with other words: after all, a violation of at least one of these criteria can lead to a speech error. The meaning of a word is its subject-logical correlation with any class of phenomena of the external or internal world. There are words in Russian that name only one thing. For example, the word pencil refers to a thin stick of graphite embedded in a wooden or plastic sheath. Only this object, with which we write, draw, draw, is called a pencil. The word pencil has no other meanings. The same can be said about the words pavement, bicycle, kefir - they have only one meaning. Such words are called unambiguous. These words are opposed to another group of words, no less extensive in modern vocabulary - polysemantic words, and the very property of words to have several meanings is called polysemy, or polysemy. For example: model - 1) an exemplary copy of a product, as well as a sample for making something (exhibition of models of women's dresses); 2) a reproduction or diagram of something, usually in a modified form (machine model); 3) type, brand, sample, design (new car model); 4) what serves as material, nature for artistic representation, reproduction; 5) a sample from which a mold is removed for casting or for reproduction in another material. Polysemy is a convenient way to store information about the world, it is a common law for all languages. Polysemy is more represented in the languages ​​of those peoples who have reached higher levels of progress: in the languages ​​of nations, polysemy is more widely represented than in tribal languages. Polysemy is not only one of the most important ways of developing the vocabulary of a language, but also the basis of language figurativeness and expressiveness. It should be taken into account, however, that the possibilities of using figurative language tools are not the same for different language styles. Imagery, descriptiveness, non-standard language is one of the main advantages of works of fiction and some types of journalism. Business and scientific speech has different traditions and norms. They are focused on the unambiguous use of words, on the standardization and terminology of the language. A word taken in isolation is always perceived in its basic meaning, in which it is usually most often used in speech. Derived meanings are revealed only in combination with other words. For example, the verb to go can receive more than forty different meanings in speech, but the main thing is the one that comes to mind first - “to move around with feet”. Ways of formulating the meaning of a word. In the process of verbal communication, it is very important to agree with your partner on the exact meaning in which you use this or that word: if the participants in communication will, without suspecting it, use the same word, but in different meanings, then the process of communication will be significantly complicated. Partners think that they speak the same language, but they cannot reach mutual understanding until it becomes clear that they put different meanings into one sound shell. Therefore, any person striving for effective, productive communication should be able to formulate the meaning of this word. As the famous philosopher Descartes wrote: “Define the meanings of words, and you will rid the world of half of the delusions.” 1. A logical definition involves two operations: a) correlation of the word being defined with a broader, generic concept, for example, pine is a ‘tree’, a chair is a ‘piece of furniture’; b) correlation of the defined word within the found generic with other specific concepts and identification of the sum of features (or one feature) that distinguishes the defined concept from all the others within the generic, for example, pine - 'coniferous evergreen tree with a rounded crown' , and a chair is 'a piece of furniture for sitting in one place with a back, without armrests'. Definitions formulated in this way meet the requirements of the scientific and educational style.