The difference between language and speech

The main object of linguistics is the natural human language, in contrast to the artificial language or the language of animals.

Two closely related concepts should be distinguished - language and speech.

Language- a tool, a means of communication. This is a system of signs, means and rules of speaking, common to all members of a given society. This phenomenon is constant for a given period of time.

Speech- the manifestation and functioning of the language, the process of communication itself; it is unique for every native speaker. This phenomenon is variable depending on the speaker.

Language and speech are two sides of the same phenomenon. Language is inherent in any person, and speech is inherent in a particular person.

Speech and language can be compared to a pen and text. Language is a pen, and speech is the text that is written with this pen.

The main functions of the language are as follows:

1. Communicative function Language as a means of communication between people. This is the main function of the language.

2. Thought-forming function Language is used as a means of thinking in the form of words.

3. Cognitive (epistemological) function Language as a means of knowing the world, accumulating and transferring knowledge to other people and subsequent generations (in the form of oral traditions, written sources, audio recordings).

CONNECTION OF LANGUAGE AND MIND

1. Human thinking is verbal thinking. Its formation occurs in the process of communication between people. Formation specifically human thinking in ontogeny is possible only in the joint activity of the adult and the child.

Thinking as the highest mental function has four interrelated features, each of which in its own way characterizes the role of speech in its development:

human thinking - social, "divided" between people, has a public character labor activity, and its implementation requires speech as a means of communication;

· thinking arises as a process mediated first by material tools of labor, and then by a system of signs, including oral and written speech, i.e. means of consolidating and transferring socio-historical experience;

conceptual, logical thinking- arbitrary, speech acts as a system of means, mastering which a person can consciously control the thought process, organize joint mental activity;

extremely important and complex issue about the relationship between language and thinking is one of the central problems of general linguistics. It's not only deep theoretical problem related to general questions of linguistics. Possessing methodological significance, it determines the directions of linguistic research and its methods. Thus, it intrudes into many specific linguistic problems of semasiology, lexicology, morphology and syntax.

It is quite obvious that within the framework of one lecture there is no way to consider the problem of the relationship between language and thinking in the totality of its aspects and particular tasks. Such an attempt would either lead to its simplification, and thereby inevitable distortion, or to a dogmatically unsubstantiated formulation of a number of propositions that must be taken on faith. We will consider only some and, as it seems, the most relevant aspects of the problem of the relationship between language and thinking.

First general question, which needs to be resolved before proceeding to the consideration certain aspects the broad problem of language and thinking lies in clarifying the nature of the relationship between these two most important categories. One must clearly understand what lies behind those general formulas.

One of the authors of the collection "Thinking and Language" (V.3. Panfilov) points to the inconsistency in the interpretation of the question of the relationship between language and thinking (as well as the question of the forms of thinking among the deaf-mutes), which has recently been allowed in Soviet linguistic literature.

Dating back to Marx and Engels, the proposition about the unity of language and thought is one of the most essential methodological principles of Marxist linguistics. Marx called language "the immediate reality of thought", "practical, existing for other people, and only that existing and for myself a real consciousness." In these statements and in all others where Marx and Engels speak of the connection of thinking with language, they always speak of language as a whole, and not of its individual components that can enter into connection with thinking and perform in its processes certain role. Meanwhile, another point of view is possible (it was introduced by Stalin into Soviet linguistics), which, as it were, introduces a clarification into the methodological position of Marxist linguistics about the connection between thinking and language. According to this point of view, thinking always proceeds on the basis of linguistic terms or ("sound") words and expressions. If we correlate such an interpretation with the question of the forms of thinking in deaf-mutes, then this means that either they are not capable of thinking (since they are not able to rely on "sound" words and expressions), or their thinking, relying on language, uses some its other elements or forms, thanks to which the thinking of the deaf and dumb functions without relying on "sound" words and expressions.

All the evidence we have speaks against the above qualification, which actually identifies language with words. They unreservedly force us to accept the second of the indicated possible solutions to the question of the forms of thinking in the deaf and dumb. The deaf-mute, of course, think, although their thought is not clothed in verbal forms, human using spoken language. This means that the connection of language with thinking is not necessarily carried out through the mediation of "sound" words. The solution of this particular issue allows us to draw conclusions about the broader problem of the connection between language and thinking.

First of all, it should be noted that psychology distinguishes three types of thinking: figurative, technical and conceptual. As the name itself suggests, creative thinking is thinking in images and greatest strength artistic and creative work reaches manifestations in people: painters, sculptors, writers, etc. This type of thinking is carried out in extralinguistic forms. In the same way, a mechanic who examines a damaged motor, having made a series of tests and found out the causes of damage, and thereby making a definite judgment about what needs to be done to fix the motor, carries out this kind of thought process also in extralinguistic forms. In this second case, there is a technical type of thinking, and only a conceptual type of thinking, operating with concepts that are formed through generalization processes (this is primarily conceptual thinking differs from figurative and technical), proceeds in linguistic forms.

Both figurative and technical thinking, apparently, is also present in higher animals (monkeys, dogs, cats, etc.), but conceptual thinking is only in humans. Therefore, as it seems, it would be possible not to mention the first two (and extralinguistic) types of thinking and take into account only conceptual thinking. In order to distinguish from all side questions that may arise during a detailed consideration of the problem of the relationship between language and thought that interests us, the further presentation will follow this path. However, one should not lose sight of the fact that in human mental activity all three types of thinking are closely intertwined. In certain cases (as in deaf-mutes) they are able to provide mutual assistance, and that, finally, in many respects the diffuse forms of figurative and technical thinking of higher animals cannot be compared with the same types of thinking in humans, in whom they are disciplined by conceptual thinking and have a purposeful character. .

In conceptual thinking, in turn, it is necessary to distinguish between its connections with language and with words. The fact that these are not identical phenomena convinces us of the example already discussed above with the language and thinking of the deaf and dumb. Their thinking is based on those forms of language that are available to them, and does not proceed in verbal (verbal) forms. But at the same time, one should not assume that the language of the deaf-mute is a completely independent formation, that each deaf-mute creates his own own language. As evidenced by objective observations, the language of the deaf-mutes is a derivative of the language of the non-deaf-mutes, in whose environment they live. This is an inevitable consequence of the fact that deaf-mutes are in constant communication with people who speak a spoken language, and, therefore, must inevitably be guided by those features of a particular language that is in use by a given society.

Language is not only "sound" words, but also certain structural relationships between its elements, certain forms, certain schemes for constructing speech, certain types division of the world of concepts. And all these parts of the language are capable of perceiving the deaf-mute and actually perceive and build on them their own forms of language that do not have a "sound" character.

To make it clear what we are talking about in this case, let's look at an example. In a proposal for any Indo-European“a peasant cuts a chicken” in fact, much remains unsaid, although we do not notice this, as we have grown accustomed to the peculiarities of our native languages. Having heard this proposal, we do not know whether the peasant (invisible to us, but standing outside the door, not far from me, and you are sitting over there, far from me) is cutting the chicken (belonging to you) or whether the peasant (who lives next door to you and now standing over there, we see him) a chicken (belonging to him). And in the language of the Quacutle Indians there are special "pointing" elements that communicate all this Additional information missing in our languages. Therefore, a deaf-mute living among this tribe of Indians and communicating with his fellow tribesmen in one way or another, just as mentally, for himself, must note all these additional and optional moments from the point of view of the structure of our languages, otherwise the sentence will be incomplete and incomprehensible. According to L. Levy-Bruhl, in many Australian languages ​​there are not two numbers, but four - singular, dual, triple (which is also subdivided into inclusive and exclusive) and plural. The deaf-mutes, "speaking" these languages, must differentiate this or that action according to these four persons. In the Ewe language (Africa) there is no verb for the process of walking at all. The verb is used only with additional characteristics (over 30), which convey various types of the walking process - quickly, hesitantly, dragging legs, small steps, jumping, important, etc. Therefore, the deaf-mutes associated with this language are not able to convey the process of walking in general, but only completely specific view this process (within the limits of the verbs of walking existing in the Ewe language). In other words, unless you count a small number of universal "pictorial" gestures, with the help of which you can "agree" only on the most elementary things (and even then not always, since many gestures have conditional value, the language of the deaf and dumb, who live a full-fledged spiritual life, although it does not have verbal forms, in many respects always relies on the structure of the sound language.

Extremely interesting data on the difference between verbal and linguistic forms of thinking are provided by studies on the inner speech of the remarkable Russian psychologist - L.S. Vygotsky. Vygotsky bases his research on inner speech, i.e., on linguistic forms of thinking, “speech for oneself, and not for others,” on a large experimental material and with extensive use existing literature question, which makes his conclusions particularly persuasive. The merits of his work also include a very careful and careful handling of the achieved facts, showing that he took to heart the words of L. Tolstoy that “the relation of the word to thought and the formation of new concepts is ... a complex, mysterious and gentle process souls."

Based on the premise that “a thought is not expressed in a word, but is accomplished in a word,” Vygotsky, as a result of his observations, comes to the conclusion that “inner speech is, in the exact sense, speech almost without words.” This conclusion is determined by the functions and forms of inner speech. “Inner speech,” he writes, “turns out to be a dynamic, unstable, fluid moment, flickering between the more formalized and persistent extreme poles of the speech thinking we are studying: between word and thought. Therefore, its true meaning and place can be clarified only when we take one more step inward in our analysis and manage to form at least the most general idea of ​​the next and firm plane of speech thinking.

This new plane of speech thinking is thought itself. The first task of our analysis is to single out this plane, to isolate it from the unity in which it always occurs. Every thought strives to connect something with something, has movement, section, deployment, establishes a relationship between something and something, in a word, performs some function, work, solves some problem. This flow and movement of thought does not directly and directly coincide with the unfolding of speech (i.e., its division into individual words, as Vygotsky writes above). Units of thought and units of speech do not match. One and the other processes reveal unity, but not identity. They are connected with each other by complex transitions, complex transformations, but they do not cover each other, like straight lines superimposed on each other.

The truncated, reduced, predicative, and virtually nonverbal nature of inner speech does not at all mean that thinking is carried out in extralinguistic forms. Language creates the basis for thinking in the forms of inner speech with its other aspects, the same ones that we meet in the thinking of the deaf and dumb: structural relations and types of articulation of its elements, forms, schemes for constructing speech. All these aspects of language undoubtedly leave their mark on the forms of inner speech of a person who speaks a certain language. This means that inner speech does not have a universal character, independent of the structural features of certain languages, but, on the contrary, is directly dependent on these latter.

At the same time, the above formulation of the question by no means deprives the word of all those necessary, extremely important, and essentially obligatory functions for the sound language that it performs. Outside of the word, there is no spoken language that has made its important contribution to the creation of human society, has accompanied mankind throughout its entire path, and has given it a powerful tool for its progress. Outside the word, thought has no real existence. Vygotsky also comes to these final conclusions after his subtle and careful analysis of the forms of the relationship between language and thinking. “A word devoid of thought,” he concludes, “is, first of all, dead word... But even a thought that is not embodied in a word remains a Stygian shadow, "fog, ringing and gaping," as the poet says. Hegel considered the word as being animated by thought. This being is absolutely necessary for our thoughts.”

The word is the repository of the treasures of human culture. Another poet is right when he says:

The tombs, mummies and bones are silent, -

Only the word is given life:

From the ancient darkness, on the world churchyard,

Only letters are heard.

And we have no other property!

Know how to save

Though to the best of my ability, in the days of anger and suffering,

Our immortal gift is speech.

(I. A. Bunin)

Concluding our consideration of this question, we thus have reason to conclude that the relation of language to thought can take on various forms and that conceptual thought necessarily takes place in linguistic forms, but not necessarily in verbal ones. This establishes the absolute correctness general position Marx and Engels on the unity (but not identity) of language and thought. More detailed studies of this issue based on experimental data, revealing the great complexity of these relationships, clarifying and concretizing them, not only do not contradict this position, but completely confirm it. On the other hand, the identification of language with "sound" words leads to an unjustified simplification of the whole problem and does not contribute to its deeper knowledge.

The concept of national and literary language

It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of the Russian national language and the Russian literary language. The national language is all spheres of speech activity of people, regardless of education, upbringing, place of residence, profession. It includes dialects, jargons, i.e. the national language is heterogeneous: it contains special varieties of the language.

Unlike the national language, literary language is a narrower concept. Literary language is a processed form of common mother tongue, which has more or lesser degree written rules.

The literary language is the highest form of the national language, taken by its speakers as an exemplary one, it is a historically established system of commonly used language elements, speech means that have undergone a long cultural processing in the texts of authoritative masters of the word, in oral communication educated native speakers of the national language. literary language serves various areas human activity: politics, legislation, culture, verbal art, office work, international communication, household communication.

Literary language is opposed to colloquial speech: territorial and social dialects used by limited groups of people living in a certain area or united in relatively small social groups, vernacular - supra-dialectal non-codified oral speech of limited subject matter.

There is a relationship between the literary language and these forms of existence of the national language. The literary language is constantly replenished and updated at the expense of colloquial speech. Such interaction with folk colloquial speech is also characteristic of the Russian literary language.
The development of the literary language is directly related to the development of the culture of the people, primarily its fiction, the language of which embodies best achievements national speech culture and the national language in general.

The literary language, including the Russian literary language, has a number of features that distinguish it from other forms of existence of the national language. Among them are the following:

1. Tradition and written fixation (almost all developed literary languages ​​are written).
2. Obligatory nature of norms and their codification.
3. Functioning within the literary language of colloquial speech along with book speech.
4. An extensive polyfunctional system of styles and in-depth stylistic differentiation of means of expression in the field of vocabulary, phraseology, word formation,.
5. The category of variance is inherent in the literary language, which finds its expression, first of all, in synonymous rows language units and their variants having stylistic and semantic nuances.
6. With all the evolutionary changes experienced by the literary language as any living socio-cultural formation, it is characterized by flexible stability, without which exchange is impossible cultural property between generations of native speakers of a given literary language.

The characteristic features of the literary language are:

polyfunctionality, those. the ability to convey the experience accumulated by people in various fields their activities, and as a result be used in all speech spheres. The consequence of polyfunctionality is the presence of a developed system of functional styles;

normalization and binding standards for everyone who uses the language, regardless of the social, professional, territorial or national affiliation of the speaker. Public approval of the norm (ie the totality of the most stable and unified language means and rules for their use, consciously fixed and cultivated by society) occurs through its codification in grammars and dictionaries;

processed by masters of the word, suggesting a wealth of expressive means: a variety of ways and options for naming objects, phenomena and their evaluation, differing in semantic, stylistic or emotionally expressive shades. Literary Russian is the language of literature, science, periodicals, schools, theater, radio and television, oral communication educated people. This is a language that is the subject of attention and care on the part of both state bodies, masters of the artistic word, philologists, and a huge army of lovers of the native word.

To a certain extent, folk dialects are opposed to the literary language, which is a public property. Dialects are common in limited areas and have their own specific, local language features at the level of phonetics, vocabulary and grammar.

Literary language	An exemplary version of the language used in television and radio, in periodicals, in science, in public institutions and educational institutions. It is a standardized, codified, supradialectal, prestigious language. It is the language of intellectual activity. There are five functional styles of the literary language: bookish - scientific, official business, journalistic and artistic; The literary version also includes the colloquial style, which makes special demands on the construction of spontaneous oral or subjective written speech, an integral feature of which is the effect of easy communication.
Dialects	A non-literary variant of a language used by people in certain areas in the countryside. Nevertheless, this variant forms an important lower stratum of the language, its historical base, the richest linguistic soil, the repository of national identity and creative potential of the language. Many prominent scientists speak in defense of dialects and urge their speakers not to forget their roots, and not to consider their native language unequivocally “wrong”, but to study, preserve, but at the same time, of course, to be fluent in the literary norm, the high literary version of the Russian language. Recently, a special concern of a number of highly civilized states has become the education of respect for the people. dialect speech and desire to support her. A well-known lawyer, author of articles on judicial eloquence A.F. Koni (1844 - 1927) told a case when a judge threatened responsibility for a false oath to a witness who, when asked what the weather was like on the day of the theft, stubbornly answered: “There wasn’t any weather” . The word weather in the literary language means "the state of the atmosphere in this place at this time" and does not indicate the nature of the weather, good or bad. That is how the judges perceived this word. However, according to V. I. Dahl, in the southern and western dialects weather means “good, clear, dry time, a bucket”, and in the northern and eastern dialects it means “bad weather, rain, snow, storm”. Therefore, the witness, knowing only one of the dialectal meanings, stubbornly answered that "there was no weather." A.F. Koni, giving advice to justice officials on oratory, pointed out that they should know local words and expressions in order to avoid mistakes in their speech, to understand the speech of the local population and not create such situations.
Jargon	A non-literary variant of a language used in the speech of certain social groups for the purpose of linguistic isolation, often a variant of the speech of the poorly educated strata of the urban population and giving it an incorrect and rude character. Jargon is characterized by the presence of specific vocabulary and phraseology. Jargons: students, musicians, athletes, hunters, etc. As synonyms for the word jargon, the following words are used: slang - a designation of youth jargon - and slang, which denotes a conditional, secret language; historically, such a language that is incomprehensible to others is spoken mainly by representatives of the criminal world: earlier there was an argo of merchants, walkers, artisans (tinsmiths, tailors, saddlers, etc.) Ignorance of various forms of the national language, inability to switch to the form used by the interlocutor , creates speech discomfort, makes it difficult to understand talking friend friend. An interesting description of some conditional (artificial languages) can be found in V.I. Dahl: “The capital, especially St. Petersburg, swindlers, pickpockets and thieves of various trades, known under the names of mazuriks, invented their own language, however, very limited and relating exclusively to theft. There are words in common with the Offenian language: klyovsh - good, crook - knife, lepen - handkerchief, shirman - pocket, propull - sell, but there are few of them, more of their own: Butyr - policeman, pharaoh - alarm clock, arrow - Cossack, eland - boar, reed warbler - scrap, boy - bit. This language, which they call flannelette, or simply music, all the merchants of Apraksin's court also speak, as one might suppose, according to their connections and according to the type of craft. Know the music know this language; walk on music engage in thieves' trade. Then V.I. Dal gives a conversation in such a "secret" language and gives its translation: - What did you steal? He cut down a bumblebee and nurtured it from a kurzhan pelvis. Strema, dropper. And you? - He stole a bench and blew it on freckles.- What did you steal? He pulled out a purse and a silver snuffbox. Choo, cop. And you? “I stole a horse and traded it for a watch.” Let's turn to more contemporary example. D. Lukin in the article “What language do they speak?” writes: “I go to one of the numerous Moscow state ... Teachers, students are all so important ... One student (you can’t make out her face: only powder, lipstick and mascara) says to her friend: “I’m clean, I scored for the first pair. Fuck it all! He again drove a blizzard ... I approached and asked: is it possible in Russian? Fortunately, the girl had good mood, and I didn’t “fly off” a hundred meters, she didn’t “shave off” me, but “shooting a bird” from a friend, put a cigarette in her bag and answered: “Well, is it possible to speak normally while living in an abnormal society?<...>I speak normally with my parents, otherwise they will dig in and won’t move in. (Lit. Gaz., 27.01.99).
vernacular	Vernacular is a non-literary version of the language used in casual communication between representatives of certain social groups. This form of language does not have own signs systemic organization and is characterized by a set of linguistic forms that violate the norms of the literary language. Moreover, the carriers of vernacular do not realize such a violation of the norm, do not catch, do not understand the difference between non-literary and literary forms (traditional question: What, didn't I say that?) In phonetics: * driver, * put, * sentence; *ridiculitis, *colidor, *rezetka, *drushlag. In morphology: * my callus, * with jam, * business, * on the beach, * driver, * without a coat, * run, * lie down, * lay down. Vocabulary: * pedestal, * semi-clinic.

In conclusion, we emphasize that the literary version of the national Russian language is a normalized language processed by masters of the word. Just one live communication in the appropriate social environment is not enough for its complete assimilation, its special study and constant self-control over the literary character of one's oral and written speech are necessary. But the reward for mastering the high style and all the functional variants of the native language will be a high status, respect for a person who has high culture communication, trust, freedom, self-confidence and personal charm.

The national language is not one of the forms of existence of the language and a component of that series of opposing language formations, which were discussed above. This term refers to a certain historical stage in the development of the forms of existence of a language, correlated with the process of the formation of national unity. The national language in this aspect is opposed to the language of pre-national periods. Defining the national language as a stage in the development of the forms of existence of the language, we consider it as a multifaceted system that provides communication in all spheres of the social life of a given nation. Continuity in the development of the forms of the existence of a language determines the diversity in the implementation of this multidimensionality: depending on the nature of the literary language of the pre-national period, on the degree of its unity, on the presence or absence of coexistence of two types of literary languages, one’s own and another’s, especially on the status of different regional entities, including territorial dialects, a system of forms of the language of the national period is also taking shape. This primarily refers to the position of regional forms of communication. In this regard, the general formulation, stating that the dialect is in the era<530>the existence of a nation as a survival phenomenon,12 is hardly fair, since real situation in different national languages ​​it is by no means identical: if, as applied to the modern Russian language, there is really an almost complete displacement of the dialect, and intermediate formations such as regional Koine or semi-dialects are blurred by regionally poorly differentiated non-literary colloquial forms, if in France the former local dialects of central France (otherwise the situation is in the south) gradually disappear, leaving, however, a long trace in pronunciation and grammar, the position of the dialect and other regionally differentiated forms in such countries as Italy and Germany or the Arab countries is such that it is hardly possible to consider them simply as remnants of the pre-national period possibly.

The formation of the distinctive features of the national language is a long and gradual process, therefore the ratio of the common literary language and regional forms of communication changes in the history of national languages. Neither in Russia XVIII in., nor in France XVII in. the literary language did not occupy that dominant position of the universal and popular form of communication, which it is at the present time. In this regard, the periodization of the history of the Bulgarian national language proposed by Lyuben Todorov is of general theoretical interest, where the first period is characterized by the process of the formation of the literary language as the main form of existence of the national language, and the second by the process of the emergence of its oral developed form and, as a result of this process, “the formation of the literary language, living and complex language system".

The ratio of literary and non-literary forms (including regional and regionally poorly differentiated or completely undifferentiated) changes so much in the process of development of national languages ​​and varies so diversely that for the language of a nation, a general type distinction between the forms of language existence into “included in the national language” and “ not included in the national language” is not possible. None of these forms, including the literary language, develops in isolation, and the interaction of book-written (literary) and oral-colloquial (literary and non-literary) styles in certain periods the history of national languages ​​is so significant, and affects all levels of the literary language, that<531>it is impossible to break such a complex whole as the language of a nation according to the principle of “national forms of the existence of a language” and “non-national forms of the existence of a language”13. This was perfectly shown by V. V. Vinogradov, noting that the literary and written language of the national period, “feeding on the living juices of colloquial speech, absorbing the most valuable and expedient for the needs of certain spheres of speech communication, dialect means, is formed into a kind of stylistically differentiated semantically developed normalized system within the national language "(my detente. - M. G.).

In the process of the formation of national languages, qualitative changes also take place in the structure of the forms of existence of the language. The general direction of these changes is due to and associated with the formation of a single multifunctional normalized literary language as the main, generally recognized form of communication. given people.

In the era of the existence of developed national languages, this new type of literary language gradually crowds out other forms of language existence, contributes to the reduction of their social significance and becomes the spokesman for the national norm, the highest form of existence of the national language, and the universal means of linguistic communication. In different periods of the history of national languages, the degree of achievement of this position by the literary language is different, and the very pace of the formation of this type of literary language is not the same in the history of different nations (see below).

The system of forms of language existence in the pre-national period was also a hierarchical structure, but at the same time, none of the forms of language existence occupied a peripheral position, although the development of urban culture, the emergence of a certain layer of urban "intelligentsia" (persons of offices, schools, universities, in Western Europe already from the 14th century), which determined the development of regional and city koine, limited the use of the dialect, which in the earlier period of feudalism occupied a leading position among oral forms of communication; at the same time, the written and literary language of a given people had the most limited use, even if it did not have a competitor in the form of a “foreign” written and literary language.<532>.

In the era of the existence of a nation, the literary language, acquiring the functions of a means of oral communication, not only gradually pushes territorial dialects to the periphery, but also other regional forms, partially enriching itself by incorporating elements of the pushed forms into its style system. This is accompanied in a later period in the history of national languages ​​by a general convergence of bookish-written and folk-spoken styles, which were sharply opposed earlier, and thereby a general democratization of literary languages; from a means of linguistic communication of privileged groups, they become an instrument of communication of the whole people.

Thus, both the functional structure of the national language, i.e. the entire system of forms of existence of the language, and the status of the national literary language do not remain stable, they change in connection with the changes taking place in the history of the people themselves. So, for the French national literary language of the late XVIII - early XIX century. huge role played by the changes that took place in French society after the French Revolution. The literary language, previously focused on the language of the royal court, far from the vernacular language in its various manifestations, is “democratized” in connection with the general democratization of French culture, which is reflected in the expansion of the social base of the literary language, as well as in the changes that have affected it. lexico-phraseological and syntactic elements and thus - his system of styles. It was the historical events of this era that turned out to be a powerful catalyst for the decline in the role of the dialect in oral forms of communication, the spread of the literary language to this area as well, i.e., a radical change in the structure of the forms of existence of the national language14.

Only in the national period does the literary language fully realize the potentials that were laid down in it back in the pre-national era - multivalency and stylistic diversity, selection and relative regulation, supradialectal character: multivalency develops into the use of language in all areas of communication, the style system now includes colloquial literary style, selection and relative regulation developed into a codified system of norms with a limited and also normalized range of variation, supra-dialect specificity took the form of the general obligatory nature of a single territorially unrelated norm (see Ch. "Norm"). Thus, national<533>The formal literary language is the most broken type of the literary language.

Such a characteristic of the national literary language is given on the basis of its typical features, but in specific historical conditions, significant discrepancies are found in the status of national literary languages, due to a number of factors such as extralinguistic (the conditions in which the design is carried out national unity, political and economic centralization, the level of development of the entire culture of the people, especially fiction), and linguistic ones proper (see above). Below we consider some variants of the process of formation of a single national literary language and related varieties of the status of the literary language in the system of forms of existence of the national language.

THE PROCESS OF FORMATION OF THE NATIONAL LITERARY LANGUAGE
AND POSSIBLE VARIETIES OF THE STATUS OF THE LITERARY LANGUAGE
THIS PERIOD

I. Accumulation qualitative features The formation of a national literary language among peoples with a long written tradition occurs even in the pre-national period and, as already noted, largely depends on the linguistic relations that developed in this era. The initial stage in the formation of a new quality was the conquest by the literary language of a given people of the position of a single and unified literary language. This process proceeded in two directions. The first is overcoming the dominance of the written and literary language on a foreign basis (Latin in Western European countries, Old Church Slavonic in Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Latin and German in Czechoslovakia, a Danish-based literary language in Norway, etc.), as well as the displacement of their own old written languages ​​(as happened in China, Japan, Armenia , Georgia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, partly in the countries of the Arab East). The second direction is the elimination of regional diversity, which is first associated only with the bookish-written form of the literary language itself, and then with folk colloquial forms. Both processes are correlated with awakening national identity, but the first takes place to a large extent in the bowels of feudalism and reflects the ideals and aspirations of the young bourgeoisie, while the second characterizes a later stage in the formation of national unity. Depending on the historical conditions, on the tasks facing the developing nation, one or another process of development came to the fore.<534>

Thus, the struggle against the Latin language in various Western European countries proceeded in various forms. In England, where, as a result of the conquest of this country by the Normans, bilingualism existed for a long time (even in the 14th-15th centuries, the feudal aristocracy preferred to use French), a protest against the French language comes to the fore. In Germany, however, the struggle against Latin dominance was in the 16th century. one of the components revolutionary movement populace against the Catholic Church and the clergy and took on a particularly harsh character: the displacement of Latin as the language of Holy Scripture and its replacement by German turned out to be the most important link in the revolutionary movement. In France, the brilliant activity of the Pleiades, one of whose representatives delivered the treatise "Protection and glorification of the French language", was a struggle for the rights of the national language against the desire to subordinate the French language to Latin. It was not so much about conquering the spheres of application of the native language, as was the case in Germany, but about preserving the specifics of the French literary language - a problem that only arises in Germany in the 17th century. and associated with cleansing German language from French loanwords.

In France, as well as in Italy, in the conditions of the relative proximity of the systems of both languages, this process received a special refraction. Numerous Latinisms (lexical, phonetic and syntactic), so characteristic of the Italian literary language of the 16th century, are the result of the coexistence of the Latin and Italian literary languages, and these processes were decisively influenced not only by the objective proximity of the languages, but also by the widespread belief in direct and immediate their succession.

In Norway, even in the pre-national period, a written and literary language was formed on the basis of Danish, which later received the name Bokmål. Gradually, the oral variety of this language crystallizes on the basis of interaction with the Koine of the city of Oslo. This Danish-Norwegian literary language takes shape as a result of the conquest of Norway by Denmark and the subsequent long existence of Norway as a subordinate unit of the Danish kingdom. Literary language on a foreign, although closely related basis, is used both in written and oral communication. Moreover, national literature was created on it: Ibsen and Bjornson wrote in this language. But in the 19th century in the process of the struggle for the national independence of Norway, the question of the need to create "their own national" language on the Norwegian basis, using the material of local dialects, is sharply raised. This language, which received the name "landsmall", also received citizenship rights, but did not supplant "bokmål". Both languages ​​in modern Norway perform the same functions: they are state languages,<535>they work both in fiction, journalism, and in teaching and in oral communication (even at universities there are parallel language departments); "bokmål" is mainly used in the east of the country, "landsmall" - in the west. The proximity of the grammatical structure (although there are differences in morphological system), a significant commonality of vocabulary makes it possible to use both languages ​​in parallel. Their mutual influence is also indisputable; but still in Norway even now there is no single, obligatory national literary language, and the struggle against the literary language on a foreign basis did not give the results that take place, for example, in Italy, France, or the East Slavic countries, where a foreign literary language is also was close to the literary language on a folk basis.

special shapes had a process of formation of national languages ​​where the medieval written and literary languages ​​were, for one reason or another, isolated from the folk spoken forms, as was the case, for example, in Japan and China, in Armenia and Georgia, in Tajikistan and Azerbaijan, partly in countries of the Arab East. In Japan, as the studies of N. I. Konrad show, the formation of the modern national literary language took place in the process of fighting the old written and literary language, which was invariably regarded as the language of "feudal", "reactionary". It was a struggle against the isolation of the written form of communication from its oral form, the desire to create a single, polyvalent means of communication. The content and direction of this struggle allow us to consider it as a “democratization” of a processed form of language, book and literary styles, a trend characteristic of the era of the formation of many national literary languages, but which received a specific refraction here due to the nature of the literary language inherited from the pre-national period. In the XVII - XIX centuries. Japan was dominated by a kind of bilingualism16: old language was the language of the state, the language of science, high genres of literature, everyday colloquial language, in addition to oral communication, was the language of the "lower" genres of literature. The advent of the new literary language embraced, first of all, fiction, for the longest time this language was kept in official use. The question of the influence of the old written language, its system of styles on the style norms of the new literary language deserves special attention, but it cannot be touched upon in this article. In Armenia and Georgia, the struggle against the dominance of the old written languages<536>persisted until the 19th century. As for the countries of the Arab East, as noted above, there is still no single, polyvalent, obligatory system of the national language that would provide all the most important areas of communication. A kind of "bilingualism" reigns here in the absence of any foreign literary language. Bilingualism is created by the coexistence of two types of language: literary-classical Arabic, mainly associated with book-writing styles, which is used in the press, official correspondence, science, literature, in relations between Arab countries as a common Arabic language, while in everyday life in everyday life, regional everyday colloquial forms are used, peculiar folk colloquial koine, close to territorial dialects (the term "Arabic dialects" is commonly used in Soviet literature). It is significant that General Arabic is not only a language classical literature, but also in the language of modern national literatures. This turned out to be possible due to the fact that the vocabulary and phraseology of this ancient written literary language was intensively enriched, so that it can serve as a means of expression. modern concepts Sciences, state practice, technology, etc., although its structure remained almost the same as in the VIII - X centuries. These potentialities of the Arabic literary language distinguish it from the status of the ancient Japanese and Chinese literary languages. The social base of this language is limited in all Arab countries. Everyday spoken languages ​​penetrate the radio, the cinema, the theatre, and attempts are being made to create fiction based on them.

The relevance of the fight against regional forms during the formation of the national language, the degree of their stability in different linguistic styles depend on the nature of the literary language of the pre-national period. In France, where a unified system of the literary language developed early in book and writing styles, the problems of its regulation were determined primarily by the norms of certain style varieties, due, in particular, to the long-standing opposition between the style of writing and the style of speech17, "high" style and "low" styles. , the struggle against dialectal elements in writing and book styles was not relevant here. Another thing is everyday conversational styles. Back in the era french revolution in the convention they opposed the dialect as a relic of feudal slavery.

In Germany, where the influence of regional variants penetrated book and writing styles until the 18th century, and the 16th century. was represented by several fairly clearly differentiated options, the problem of delimiting general literary and<537>regional elements acquired paramount importance in the works of grammarians-normalizers and compilers of dictionaries.

Finally, in Italy, even Gramsci considered it necessary to fight for a common Italian language against regional fragmentation, arguing that "a great culture can be translated into the language of another culture, but this cannot be done in a dialect."

II. Consideration of the modern language situation in Norway, on the one hand, and on the other hand, in the Arab countries, shows that, as has been mentioned more than once above, even in the conditions of a developed national culture, the literary language may not have that set differential signs, which was included in typological characteristics national literary language. In Norway, there is no single, universally binding literary language; the existence of two literary languages ​​continues, despite a number of normalization decisions, despite repeated spelling reforms in order to bring them closer together. In the Arab countries, one has to talk about the presence of, as it were, two functional types of the Arabic language, therefore, such a feature as polyvalence, to Arabic not applicable. But other cases are also possible when there is no such, it would seem, the most important feature of the literary language of the national era, as its unity.

The historical destinies of the Armenian people were reflected in the development of the Armenian language. The Armenian national literary language took shape in mid-nineteenth in. in two versions: Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian as a result of the territorial disunity of the Armenian people: the southern and southwestern part was then part of Turkey, the northeastern part was within Russia. The development of the Armenian language in the previous period is associated with the complex relationship of the ancient Armenian language, the Grabar, which became already in the 10th century. predominantly in written language, with different regional language forms reflecting live speech. In subsequent centuries, two languages ​​coexisted in the written language: Grabar, which became incomprehensible to the majority of the people, and Ashkharabar, a civil language close to the colloquial element of regional language forms. Grabar until the 19th century. maintains the position of a generally recognized written and literary language - a position similar to the situation in China or Japan. Relatively early in Ashkharabar, which reflected the structural features of different dialects, two leading lines were identified: in the writing of eastern Armenia, the regional features of the Ararat dialect dominate, in contrast to Western Armenia, where the Constantinople dialect had a leading role; in both cases, however, it was not just a written dialect, since it widely used the traditions of the book and writing styles of the Grabar, and themselves<538>dialectal elements ascended to different dialectal systems; and here, as in other countries, regional variants of the written and literary language tend to interfere with different dialect systems and thereby acquire supra-dialect features. In the second half of the XIX century. both versions of Ashkharabar - eastern and western - were finally formed and codified, retaining their specificity to this day.

Differences between both variants can be traced in phonetics, morphology, vocabulary: for example, in the Eastern Armenian version of the literary language of Soviet Armenia, present. and past. imperfect temp. express, incl. formed analytically - grum em "I write", grum es "you write", grum e "writes", and in Western Armenian they are formed synthetically with the particle kq added to the optative forms common to both variants: kqgrem, kqgr es, etc. d.; in Western Armenian verbs have three conjugations - on -e, -a, -I, in the eastern - two conjugations on -e and -a; in the Eastern Armenian version there is a special local case, in the Western one it is absent, etc. However, all these differences do not prevent mutual understanding, just like, however, the differences between the two literary languages ​​in Norway.

As a similar example of deviation from the typical scheme of the national literary language, one can cite the Albanian language, which had its own written and literary traditions even in the pre-national period. The linguistic situation in Albania is determined by the coexistence of two historically established variants of the literary language, one of which is based on the southern (Tosk) and the other on the northern (Gheg) dialect. Both are the result of a relatively long processing, a distraction from sharp dialectal differences. These two variants, and at the same time the two norms of the literary language, have been developing in parallel for a long time, interacting and drawing closer to each other. After the victory of the Albanian people in the national liberation struggle, the southern norm gained notable predominance, although it did not become the only one. And here this linguistic situation is generated by the conditions of existence and development of the Albanian people, a consequence of the foreign yoke, partly by the difference religious cult, the long disunity of the south and north, the lack of a single political, economic and cultural center.

III. Variants of a typical scheme of a different nature arise in those cases when the polyvalence of the national literary language is violated by the fact that its use in the sphere drops out of its functional system. government controlled, office work, and sometimes - in the field of science and university education. This situation persists in ethnically heterogeneous states, where there are several literary languages, of which only one has the entire set<539>the importance of the social functions of the national literary language. This creates an extremely difficult linguistic situation, especially in the ethnically heterogeneous states of Asia and Africa. In Indonesia, there are several literary languages ​​in which newspapers and magazines are published, legal proceedings are conducted, teaching in schools, fiction is published: it is a Javanese language with a long written and literary tradition, which is spoken by 40 million people, Sundanese, Madurese, Balinese, Indonesian . But the national language is only Indonesian. Thus, in public spheres the use of the literary language creates a kind of bilingualism, since the distribution of the functions of the literary language is assigned to two different literary languages. Even more complex relationships have developed in India, where the language policy has become extremely acute. By the time of the conquest of India by the British, there existed, in addition to the ancient written normalized literary language - Sanskrit, several local literary languages. During the period of long English domination of the language state apparatus and office work, trade and economic relations, schools and universities, and consequently - and science, becomes English. The function of a single national language is a foreign language, while the scope of local living literary languages ​​is extremely limited. The vast majority of the Indian population does not know in English. It is fluently spoken by about 2% of the population. Therefore, the need to replace English was recognized as early as the beginning of the 20th century. and becomes one of the slogans of the national liberation movement. And here, as in European countries, the struggle against the dominance of a foreign language turns out to be one of the components of the processes associated with the awakening of national self-consciousness. After the overthrow of foreign domination, the question of the "rights" of different literary languages, that is, of their social functions, retains its former acuteness. Although, according to the Constitution in India, the fourteen most important literary languages, including Bengali, Urdu, Punjabi, Tamil, Hindi, Kashmiri, Telugu, Sanskrit, are recognized as equal, the functions of the national language are transferred to Hindi instead of English (since 1965). However, this decree provokes fierce resistance in different states, especially in Bengal and Madras, as it was seen as an infringement of the rights of the population speaking other languages. But since in such a multilingual state as India, it is absolutely necessary to have some common and common language, then the opponents of Hindi again turn to English: English retains in this connection the position of the second official language, and in some states it dominates . In such a situation, even a "full-fledged" national literary language - Hindi is not<540>has the quality of a single literary language, since its competitors, on the one hand, are other local literary languages, and on the other hand, a foreign literary language - English.

in different multinational states historically, conditions arise that determine the coexistence, sometimes peaceful, sometimes very conflicting, of two national literary languages, the centers of development of which are located outside these states: cf. language situation in Canada or Belgium. The linguistic situation in Luxembourg is quite specific, where in a small area with a small population in the function of the literary language, partially delimited, partially coinciding, German, French and their own literary language, which is a processed form of the local Low-Frankish dialect, appear; The only official languages ​​are German and French. Finally, in Switzerland, in different cantons, different literary languages ​​dominate - French, German, Italian, and from 1933-1934. and Romansh.

IV. The national literary language, as it is clear from the name itself, presupposes the obligatory connection of a given literary language with a given nation. However, in the process of the complex development of literary languages ​​and peoples, speakers of these languages, the existence of one literary language in two nations is a special case: German in Germany and Austria, English in England and America, Spanish in Spain and South America, Portuguese in Portugal and Brazil. The question of whether there is here one common literary language for two nations, or in each case the existence of two variants of the same literary language should be accepted, or, finally, the existence of two different national literary languages ​​should be approved - remains controversial and not entirely clear. , since the criteria for the volume of those differences that allow us to assert the existence of two separate systems of the literary language are not defined. This question is closely connected with the definition of the ratio of the norm and the range of its variation. Because of this, it is very difficult to decide where is the threshold of variation, beyond which variation becomes a different norm and thus is already correlated with the system of another literary language. The essence of the problem is not to find a suitable term for this phenomenon, but to consider the situation prevailing in these countries18. The German literary language in Germany and Austria under demon<541>disputable significant commonality of the main structural core and the most important components of the dictionary differs in certain lexical layers and phraseology, in the pronunciation norm, in some morphological particulars: cf. belonging to the vocabulary of the Austrian literary language of oral-dialectal Bavarian words such as Anwert ~ Wertschätzung, aper ~ schnee = frei, es apert ~ der Schnee schmilzt, Hafner ~ Tцpfer, Ofensetzer, etc.; significant discrepancies in the semantic system individual words; specifically "Austrian" vocabulary, especially in the sphere of everyday life, cf. Hendl ~ Huhn, Heustadel ~ Sheune, Zwetschke ~ Pflaume, heuer ~ in diesem Jahr, etc.; other layers of borrowings (Slavicisms, borrowings from French and Italian); the specific prevalence of diminutive suffixes -l, -erl (i.e. suffixes found in Germany only in dialect speech); significant discrepancies in the gender of nouns, etc. (for details, see). It is characteristic that lexical differences almost do not concern the vocabulary of book-writing styles: everyday colloquial forms with which each literary language is more or less associated, those regional and urban koine that surround and nourish it, are completely different in Austria and Germany ( in particular for Austria special role plays the so-called Viennese dialect), so literary and colloquial forms here differ more than book and written ones. It was the everyday colloquial language that Kretschmer had in mind when he argued that between the language of Berlin and Vienna, differences exist in almost every third word. At the same time, it is especially significant that in Austria, unlike, for example, the USA, there is actually no “own” Austrian standard. pronunciation norm. In 1957, in an appendix to Zibs's dictionary, the need to focus on the traditional Bühnendeutsch in the field of orthoepic norms was emphasized.

In the United States, by contrast, during the 19th century. there is a separation from English standard and the creation of their own version of the literary language, with codified pronunciation variation. The quantitative discrepancies between English in England and the USA and German in Germany and Austria may not be the same: the separate development of the English language in the USA was longer, the originality of the conditions for the development of the English language in each country is more significant, but here, too, comparing the language systems in both territories, it is necessary to distinguish more clearly than it was done in the past between the book-written and oral-colloquial style of the literary language. Differences weaken in the book-written language, they increase in the oral-colloquial style of the literary language, especially in cases where it uses colloquial speech, elements of slang, which occupies such a significant place in oral forms of communication in the United States.<542>

Literary language - the national language of writing, the language of official and business documents, schooling, written communication, science, journalism, fiction, all manifestations of culture, expressed in verbal form(written and sometimes oral), perceived by native speakers of a given language as exemplary. Literary language is the language of literature in broad sense. The Russian literary language functions both in oral form and in written form.

Signs of literary language:

• 1) the presence of writing - affects the nature of the literary language, enriching its expressive means and expanding the scope;
• 2) normalization - a fairly stable way of expression, which denotes the historically established patterns of development of the Russian literary language. Normalization is based on the language system and is fixed in the best examples of literary works. This mode of expression is preferred by the educated part of society;
• 3) codification, i.e. fixed in the scientific literature; it is expressed in the presence grammar dictionaries and other books containing rules for the use of the language;
• 4) stylistic diversity, i.e., the variety of functional styles of the literary language;
• 5) relative stability;
• 6) prevalence;
• 7) general usage;
• 8) general obligation;
• 9) compliance with the use, customs and capabilities of the language system.
• 10) the dialectical unity of book and colloquial speech;
• 11) close connection with the language of fiction;

The protection of the literary language and its norms is one of the main tasks of the culture of speech. Literary language unites the people in terms of language. The leading role in the creation of the literary language belongs to the most advanced part of society.

Each of the languages, if it is sufficiently developed, has two main functional varieties: the literary language and live colloquial speech. Each person masters live colloquial speech with early childhood. The assimilation of a literary language occurs throughout the development of a person, right up to old age.

The literary language should be generally understandable, that is, accessible to perception by all members of society. The literary language must be developed to such an extent that it can serve the main areas of human activity. In speech, it is important to observe the grammatical, lexical, orthoepic and accentological norms of the language. Based on this, an important task of linguists is to consider everything new in the literary language from the point of view of compliance with the general laws of language development and the optimal conditions for its functioning.

The modern Russian literary language, expressing the aesthetic-artistic, scientific, social, spiritual life of the people, serves the self-expression of the individual, the development of all forms of verbal art, creative thought, the moral revival and improvement of all aspects of society at a new stage of its development.

The national language is the language of the nation, which has developed on the basis of the language of the people in the process of the development of the people into a nation. The intensity of this process depends on the pace and special conditions for the development of a nationality into a nation. different peoples. The national language is a system of several forms of language existence: the literary language (oral and written forms), the colloquial language (varieties of language and dialects). In the process of the formation of the national language, the relationship between the literary language and dialects changes significantly. The national literary language is a developing form that occupies a leading position, gradually replacing the dialects that dominated the early stages of language development, especially in the field of oral communication. At the same time, the formation of new dialect features ceases, and under the influence of the literary language, the sharpest dialect differences are leveled. At the same time, the scope of the literary language is expanding, and its functions are becoming more complex. This is due to the complication and development of the national culture of the people, as well as the fact that the literary form of N. Ya., which develops on a folk basis, displaces those alien to the people. written languages(for example, Latin in Western Europe, Church Slavonic in Russia). The national literary language also penetrates into the sphere of oral communication, where the dialect previously dominated. The most important feature of the national literary language is its normalized character. In connection with the need to satisfy the increasingly complex and diverse needs of society, caused by the development of fiction, journalism, science and technology, as well as various forms of oral speech, the syntactic system and vocabulary national literary language. In the era of existence bourgeois society the national literary language serves mainly the ruling stratum of society, that is, its educated part. The rural population, as a rule, continues to use dialects, and in cities, urban pronunciations compete with the literary language. Under the conditions of the development of socialist nations, a single normalized nationwide literary language becomes, in connection with democratization and the widespread dissemination of education, the property of every member of the nation.

It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of the Russian national language and the Russian literary language.

The national language is all spheres of speech activity of people, regardless of education, upbringing, place of residence, profession. It includes dialects, jargons, i.e. the national language is heterogeneous: it contains special varieties of the language.

Unlike the national language, literary language is a narrower concept. The literary language is a processed form of the national language, which has, to a greater or lesser extent, written norms.

The literary language is the highest form of the national language, accepted by its speakers as an exemplary one, it is a historically established system of commonly used language elements, speech means that have undergone long-term cultural processing in the texts of authoritative masters of the word, in the oral communication of educated native speakers of the national language. the literary language serves various spheres of human activity: politics, legislation, culture, verbal art, office work, interethnic communication, everyday communication.

Literary language is opposed to colloquial speech: territorial and social dialects used by limited groups of people living in a certain area or united in relatively small social groups, vernacular - supra-dialectal non-codified oral speech of limited topics. There is a relationship between the literary language and these forms of existence of the national language. The literary language is constantly replenished and updated at the expense of colloquial speech. Such interaction with folk colloquial speech is also characteristic of the Russian literary language.

The development of the literary language is directly related to the development of the culture of the people, especially its fiction, the language of which embodies the best achievements of the national speech culture and the national language as a whole.

The literary language, including the Russian literary language, has a number of features that distinguish it from other forms of existence of the national language. Among them are the following:

1. Tradition and written fixation (almost all developed literary languages ​​are written).

2. Obligatory nature of norms and their codification.

3. Functioning within the literary language of colloquial speech along with book speech.

4. An extensive polyfunctional system of styles and in-depth stylistic differentiation of means of expression in the field of vocabulary, phraseology, word formation,.

6. With all the evolutionary changes experienced by the literary language as any living socio-cultural formation, it is characterized by flexible stability, without which the exchange of cultural values ​​between generations of speakers of a given literary language is impossible.

Literary language as a kind of national language

The culture of speech as a branch of linguistics

Language and Society

Language as the main tool human communication exists only in human society. The connection between language and society is two-way: there is no language outside of society and there is no society without language. During the period of emergence and development of society, language contributed to the implementation of joint activities of people, etc.

Language is primarily a social phenomenon, so it cannot but be influenced by social factors. All changes in the social structure are reflected in the language. Any society is heterogeneous in its composition: people differ in their social status, by level of education, by place of residence, by age, gender, etc. But the social differentiation of the language is not limited to this in the speech of people united by one profession, there are words that are incomprehensible to the uninitiated - professional jargon.

science studying social stratification language - sociolinguistics. Within its framework, linguistic variability, its causes and role in the process of language development are investigated. Determined that social status of a person largely depends on how much in his speech the norms characteristic of people of the corresponding circle are observed. To make a good impression, to succeed in business, it is necessary to know the features of the functioning of the language in society, as well as the norms inherent in each variety of language.

Common (or national) language- the language of a given people, taken in the totality of its inherent features that distinguish it from other languages.

Any national language is not uniform in composition, since it is used by people who differ in their social status, occupation, level of culture, etc., and use it in different situations ( business conversation, lecture, etc.). These differences are reflected in the varieties of the common language.

In each national language, the main varieties:

· literary language,

· territorial dialects,

· vernacular,

· jargon.

Literary language as a kind of national language

Literary language - the main means of communication between people of the same nationality . It is characterized by two main properties: processing and normalization.

Processedness literary language arises as a result of purposeful selection of all the best that is in the language.

normalization expressed in the fact that the use of linguistic means is regulated by a single universally binding norm. The norm as a set of rules of word usage is necessary to preserve the integrity and comprehensibility of the national language, to transfer information from one generation to another.

Unity and intelligibility − these are the basic requirements that a literary language must meet. Other varieties of the vernacular do not meet these requirements.

The modern Russian literary language is multifunctional, used in various fields human activities. In this regard, the means of the literary language (lexicon, grammatical constructions, etc.) are functionally delimited. The use of certain means depends on the type of communication. So The literary language is divided into two functional varieties: colloquial and bookish.. In accordance with this, there is colloquial speech and bookish language.

Colloquial speech used in informal situations. Main features:

Oral form of expression

Implementation predominantly in the form of a dialogue

Unpreparedness, unplanned, spontaneity

Direct contact between communicants.

The norm in colloquial speech is the result of a speech tradition, determined by the appropriateness of using an expression in a given situation. In oral colloquial speech, there are three styles of pronunciation:

1. Full style- distinct articulation, careful pronunciation of all sounds, unhurried pace.

2. neutral style - a fairly distinct articulation, but at the same time some reduction of sounds, a faster, average rate of speech.

3. Conversational style - characteristic of situations of communication in everyday life, in a relaxed atmosphere, fuzzy articulation, "swallowing sounds" and syllables, fast pace.

[now] - [now] - [right now].

Book language - the second functional variety literary language. The main features are a written form of expression and implementation mainly in the form of a monologue. The main property of the bookish language is to preserve the text and thus serve as a means of communication between generations. Because bookish language serves different areas life of society, it is divided into functional styles.

Functional style is a kind of bookish language that is characteristic of certain area human activity and has a certain originality in the use of linguistic means.

Everyone functional style implemented in speech genres. Genre- a specific type of texts that have specific features that distinguish genres from each other, as well as commonality, which is due to the fact that certain groups of genres belong to the same functional style.

The scientific style is characterized abstraction, strict logic of presentation, a large number special terms, certain features of the syntax. It uses bookish, special, stylistically neutral vocabulary. The following genres are distinguished: article, monograph, dissertation, textbook, review, review, abstract, etc.

Formal business style is distinguished by the accuracy of wording, impersonality and dryness of presentation, high standard, a large number of oral turns, clichés. Genres: law, resolution, note, agreement, instruction, announcement, complaint, etc.

Journalistic style primarily for the media. The specificity consists in the combination of two functions of the language: informational and propaganda. It is characterized by the use of expressive-evaluative vocabulary (along with neutral and general functional vocabulary), as well as phraseology. Genres: editorial, report, essay, reportage, feuilleton, etc.

Creatures-t yet the language of fiction. For artistic speech, it is characteristic that all language means can be used here: not only words and expressions of the literary language, but also elements of vernacular, jargon, territorial dialects (in the 3rd section of this manual, the issue will be discussed more fully).