The main trends in the development of the modern Russian language. Russian literary language of the XX century. Characteristics of the communicative qualities of speech

The literary language is constantly transforming, the main forces of this process are all native speakers.

When characterizing the literary language of the twentieth century, two chronological periods should be distinguished:

The first - from October 1917 to April 1985;

The second - from April 1985 to the present.

The second stage is the period of perestroika and post-perestroika. At this time, branches of the functioning of the language, still carefully hidden by censorship, become obvious and tangible. Thanks to glasnost, jargon came to light ( lads, rollback, shmon, presenting), borrowings ( dealer, realtor, manager) and obscene language. In addition to new words, many words that seemed to have fallen out of use were brought back to life ( gymnasium, lyceum, guild, governess, department and others.).

Speaking about the replenishment of the vocabulary of the literary language, it should be noted: a striking feature of our current language development is the clogging of speech with borrowings. The “foreignization” of the Russian language causes concern among linguists, literary critics, writers, and many who care about the Russian language, who are concerned about its future fate. The Russian language throughout its history has been enriched not only at the expense of internal resources, but also at the expense of other languages. But, in some periods, this influence, especially the borrowing of words, was excessive, then the opinion appeared that foreign words do not add anything new, since there are Russian words that are identical to them, that many Russian words cannot compete with fashionable borrowings and are forced out by them. The history of the Russian literary language shows: reasonable borrowing enriches speech, gives it greater accuracy, while borrowing without measure clogs speech, makes it not understandable to everyone.

In connection with significant changes in the conditions for the functioning of the language, another problem is currently becoming relevant, the problem of language as a means of communication, language in its implementation, the problem of exemplary speech.

Literary speech has become not the only form of communication educated people. New forms of communication are emerging: not dialectal, not literary, and not colloquial. A new form of the Russian literary language is emerging, corresponding to the spirit of the development of the national language, but not always meeting the standards of literature - everyday, or the so-called "urban slang". Already today we can speak of at least two varieties of such a language. The first of them is called the "Russian party language", and the second - the "Albanian language". They are called literary varieties because they formally have all the characteristics of the modern Russian literary language, including the system of language norms, and are used in the speech of educated people. What are they?

Russian party- this is "a mixture of zablatnenny language with clerical clichés" (18, p. 7). The language got its name from the words " hangout, hang out". The etymology of these words has not been established, most likely, they come from the Russian “shuffle”, that is, shuffle the cards. The meaning of these words is associated with the name of groups of people (and their occupations) united by some interests (for example: hung out forty people: drinking beer, dancing. Alien in theirparty nothing to do or At the end of January, a major intellectual conference was held at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences.hangout "Russia in Search of Identity".

Philologists attribute the appearance of this language to the fact that “the carefully-clean, super-correct speech of the times of totalitarianism was replaced by the sharply liberated, free language of the new time. The undisputed leaders in language liberalization have become the mass media freed from censorship, which happily picked up speech innovations and invent their own with no less pleasure.

For the second decade, the "acrobats of the pen" have been celebrating the carnival of verbal freedom on the pages of the press. And, as for any carnival, certain extremes are characteristic here: the usual thresholds of courage, measures of permissibility change dramatically, decency and norms are forgotten, thieves music flows into the language, people merrily juggle words, absorbing foreign vocabulary and experimenting with their own. The norm is becoming more and more free both in politics, economy, culture, and in language. (18, p. 7).

The popularity of the Russian rave suggests that today phrases such as: The feature of this New Year's Eve is that all shops and restaurants are obliged to not only feed and drink us, but also to entertain us(Newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets", 22, 12, 00; What makes foreign young people sausage?(newspaper "AiF", 01.19)

Albany, or Padonkaff language, appeared in the new millennium, with the development of Runet. This language is called the "stepson" of our native language, which appeared on the Web. It is built on errative (deliberately distorted) spelling. And words like preved, crossaffcheg, rzhunemogu, hellish soton, have become commonplace.

Albansky was first "cashed out in the world", according to online sources, in 2000 at a rally against Lukashenka, when one of the banners flaunted the inscription "Afftar asshole, criatiff shit."

The phenomenon of this phenomenon, in our opinion, was correctly identified by a polyglot and translator, the author of the book "Magic of the Word" Dmitry Petrov, noting that Albany itself is "a linguistic surge generated by a certain period, place and type of people. I would, however, divide Albanian speakers into a very well-educated layer, which, while making fun of, uses these constructions for creative purposes, and a train of those who disguise elementary illiteracy under this form. Well, since you can write as you like - let's write like that. After all, originality is manifested practically only in writing. (11, p. 47).

- By the way, I even found an Albanian dictionary on the Internet, although this language form is less than ten years old. Small, true, but with its own "obligations" - the rules of writing.

- Notice, without a year a week, and already "obligations"! And if they are, then in a couple of years a new wave of radical thinkers will come, who will create their own "obligations". This is dynamics. This is life.

The last words of the dialogue characterize the language as a living phenomenon, and the emergence of new forms that pretend to be "literary" says that the existing norms need to be changed. But in what direction they will change depends on us - the bearers of exemplary speech.

Thus, we see that the named form of the literary Russian language has a number of common features that are the result of the influence of internal and external factors of development. national language. In everyday form, marked phenomena are not noticed as an alien phenomenon. This form of language is extremely expressive and phraseological.

Let's name some reasons for the appearance of "everyday" speech that developed at the turn of the third millennium?

Firstly, communication has acquired a truly mass character, its composition is more diverse and heterogeneous than ever.

Secondly, liberation from the shackles of censorship allowed speech to reach a qualitatively new level, to become open and unconstrained.

Thirdly, the change in the nature of communication made speech less official, democratized it, and practically abolished the practice of “reading from a piece of paper”. For public speakers, the measure of admissibility has changed, if not completely absent. Obscene language, "obscene language", "unprintable word", today can be found on the pages of independent newspapers, free publications, in the texts of works of art.

At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, the democratization of the language reached such proportions that it would be more correct to call this process liberalization and more precisely - vulgarization. On the pages of the periodical press, jargon, colloquial elements and other non-literary means poured into the speech of educated people ( grandmas, thing, piece, steward, Launder, unfasten, scroll and etc.). Common even in official speech are the words hangout, disassembly, gossip.

Obscene language has become unacceptably common. Advocates of such an expressive means even argue that swearing is a hallmark of the Russian people, its "brand name".

However, do not forget that Russian literary language- our wealth, our heritage, he embodied the cultural and historical traditions of the people, and we are responsible for his condition, for his fate. Educated people look with anxiety and hope into the future of their country and their language. And the words of I.S. Turgenev: “In the days of doubt, in the days of painful reflections on the fate of my Motherland - you are my only support and support, O great, powerful, truthful and free Russian language! Without you, how not to fall into despair at the sight of everything that happens at home? But it is impossible to believe that such a language was not given to a great people!”

The article is devoted to the analysis of the modern language situation. The main factors influencing the development of the modern literary language are determined, among which the central place belongs to the language of the media. The prospects and nature of the development of the modern Russian literary language are characterized.

Keywords: language situation, mass media language, mass culture, postmodernism, literary language, national language

In works devoted to the state of the modern Russian literary language, in reports and speeches by Russian linguists, the intonation is alarming. The Russian language is being invaded by foreign borrowings (primarily Americanisms). A stream of jargon, vernacular, even obscene vocabulary has poured into literary speech. Under the influence of these negative factors, our speech loses the quality of literature, needs urgent measures of salvation. The topic of discussion in the program of V. Tretyakov “What is to be done?” is typical. (Culture channel, February 21, 2010): “The Russian language is still great, but no longer powerful?”

Is the diagnosis correct and are fears about the state and fate of native speech justified?

Of course, the observations are correct, but it seems premature and unjustified to draw pessimistic conclusions from the observed processes. It is important to proceed from the peculiarities of the modern language situation and take into account the trends arising from it.

Let us turn from this point of view to foreign borrowings. Indeed, their number, as it seems to a superficial glance, exceeds the critical mass. But how to determine this mass, an acceptable measure of borrowing, after which satiety sets in, the abuse of foreign vocabulary? For example, according to French linguists, French more than 20,000 foreign words are poured in every year, which causes public concern, concerned that the French language may eventually turn into “French”.

As for the Russian language, two reference dictionaries “New Words and Meanings” were published based on the materials of the press and literature of the 60s. (M., 1971) and the 70s. (M., 1984). They also recorded English-language borrowings, which were more or less widespread. However, their number was not counted, and borrowings not recommended for use were not given, which seems to be especially important. After all, borrowings turn out to be ballast only when they do not denote new realities, do not express new meanings or their shades, do not differ stylistically from Russian equivalents (if any).

Therefore, the point is not even in the number of borrowings, but in their quality. When looking at the problem not in a normative, but in a functional sense, foreign borrowings will appear in a different light - as one of the leading trends in the development of the modern Russian literary language. At the same time, a feature of its current state is a sharp increase in the number of borrowings. With the development of science, economics, in connection with the course towards modernization, the Russian language is literally “doomed” to borrowings. Terms and concepts of computer science, economics, politics, etc. are poured into the Russian lexicon in a wide stream as the named industries form and develop on domestic soil (cf.: leasing, merchandising, nanotechnologies, innovations, innovation city, website, portal, web designer, user, hacker, marketing, etc.). They enter the language along with the development of the relevant branches of science and technology, which is promptly reflected in new dictionaries. New trends in popular culture, postmodernism are also accompanied by vocabulary replenishment (tribute, single, sequel, prequel, suspense, etc.).

The Russian lexicon is expanding quite significantly. This process is actively ongoing. And it would be wrong to complain about this, or even more so to try to look for Russian equivalents of new words. A powerful productive process of enrichment of the Russian dictionary is taking place before our eyes.

Foreign borrowings not only significantly expand the vocabulary, increasing the possibilities of nomination, expanding the national linguistic picture of the world. They also have a significant impact on the internal language development - on the enrichment of the semantics of many Russian words. So, under the influence of foreign words (semantic tracing), words such as a nail (season), challenge (to humanity), successful (man), etc. acquired new shades of meaning. Thus, borrowing foreign words is a very productive and progressive process. The activation of this process is one of the features of the modern language situation. Borrowings contribute to the expansion of verbal resources, the development of semantics, the intellectualization of the language (the number of concepts increases), the laconicism of speech (Russian equivalents, if possible, are, as a rule, longer than foreign neologisms).

Jargon and vernacular also have a generally positive effect on the literary language. They bring expression, evaluativeness into it, liberate official speech, saving it from excessive pathos, solemnity, bookishness. It is far from accidental that many jargons have entered the literary language (for example, partying, lawlessness, scumbags), while others are on the way to entering it (collision, roof, racketeering, arrow, throw). In any case, this source of enrichment of the literary language remains open. Of course, here there is a danger of oversaturation, so the linguistic taste of the writer (speaker), the assessment of specific texts, is very important. In the process of development of the literary language, the selection of the most relevant lexical units that meet social needs takes place.

If we evaluate the effect of all the named sources of replenishment of the dictionary (foreign vocabulary, jargon, vernacular), then the main and unifying function of them is that they contribute to the democratization of the literary language. L.V. wrote about this deeply and accurately. Shcherba:

“Before the revolution, technical words were almost not included in the literary language at all.<...>and did not even get into the pages of the daily press. This is an old European tradition of literary languages<...>. This was quite understandable: the literary language was then, first of all, the language of the salon, the language of high society, which was very far from any production<...>. In the future, there is a process of gradual democratization of the literary language, served by the literary language of significant sections of business people. In this regard, in each new edition of the Dictionary of the French Academy, a new and new number of production terms appears. The same process, but not in such a clear form, took place with us. The revolution changed things dramatically - and in the sense that real people from production they themselves constituted that “society”, the function of which is the literary language, but the ideology of society has changed. Non-working elements have lost weight in society. And the issues of production and its organization became the focus of attention” [Shcherba, 1957, p. 137-138].

Democratization continues in modern era. This is the main path of development of the literary language from its classical state (XX century) to the modern one. This is the way from its litraturocentric quality, when the literary language was the flesh of the flesh of the language fiction, to its current state, when its main features are determined by the language of the media (more details below). And for the first time in the entire history of its existence, the literary language becomes the property of not the elite, not an insignificant part of its speakers, but the property of the people, the masses. This is one of the main features of the modern language situation, which determines the direction of development of the literary language.

The nature of culture (cf. noble, raznochinskaya, peasant, proletarian) is determined by its bearers. The homogeneous language environment determines the conservative nature of the development of the language, the weak role of borrowings from various sources. Changing the composition of native speakers leads to dramatic shifts in the standard language. New groups, layers of native speakers introduce their language skills, favorite means into literary speech, which affects the qualities of the entire literary language. A period of stability gives way to a period of more or less dramatic changes.

The period we are experiencing (the end of the 20th - the beginning of the 21st century) is characterized by a serious change in the composition of native speakers. So, with the spread of the Internet, the rapid development of mass communication, the base of the literary language is expanding dramatically. Native speakers get the floor and begin to actively express themselves, not constrained by the norms of the former speech culture and often opposed to culture. These are, as a rule, carriers of urban vernacular, slang. There is a further democratization of the literary language, stimulated by social changes (“perestroika”, political and economic reforms, the formation of a middle class).

Factors that have a strong influence on the development of the literary language, on the process of its democratization, also include such phenomena as mass culture, postmodernism (modernism), and the language of the media.

In linguistic reality, everything is interconnected: poetry, prose, art, media, science, folk culture, mass culture, the Internet. But far from all these factors are equivalent, and their mutual influence does not always proceed clearly, openly. It is often done implicitly. The principle operates, and its implementation takes different forms in different areas. It is necessary to distinguish between the direct external and open influence of extralinguistic factors and their internal influence.

A feature of the modern cultural situation is a radical change in the very system of culture. “Mass culture is becoming its main, dominant element. Elite (the former cultural dominant) and folk culture are pushed to the periphery, find themselves in new system secondary cultures” [Romanenko, 2009, p. 265].

Mass culture is one of the factors of strong influence on the literary language. Powerful criticism that falls on mass culture is conducted from the standpoint of the educational role of art and literature, while mass culture is opposed to the elite, mass classical literature. But in linguistic terms - from the point of view of the development of the literary language, the formation of the norm - the very fact of the existence of mass culture (primarily literature) is important. And no matter how subjectively we treat this phenomenon, such is the linguistic reality. Mass culture has an impact on the literary language already by virtue of its mass character. Classical literature and modern literature close to it in terms of prevalence are much inferior to mass literature, and therefore the impact of serious literature on the literary language is much weaker.

Mass culture changes and complicates the linguistic reality. And the analysis of the modern language situation is impossible without taking into account mass culture (literature). The prevailing negative assessment of mass culture simplifies and eliminates its role in the public consciousness and in the development of the literary language. The time has come for a deeper and more realistic analysis of mass culture (literature). Unfortunately, there are no works investigating the influence of mass culture on the literary language. It is not uncommon for those who write about popular literature to be carried away by examples of stylistic errors. However, the issue is not limited to errors. There is, if not competition, then interaction between mass literature and literature that inherits the traditions of the classics. And this interaction requires deep reflection.

It can be assumed that mass literature, designed for significant layers of native speakers, contributes to the development and introduction into the literary language of a wide range of colloquial means, urban vernacular. Of course, negative trends are also noticeable in popular literature (decrease in linguistic taste, frequent glamour, etc.). However, it is not always true to evaluate mass literature by the standards classical literature. Mass literature has other tasks, a different aesthetic ideal. And the characteristics of the modern language situation, state of the art literary language will be incomplete without taking into account the language of popular literature.

“Mass literature (mass art in general) acts as one of the forces that unite society. Through mass culture, its symbols and signs, the individual has the opportunity to adequately, as it seems to him, evaluate himself and correctly identify himself. It does this by reinforcing the figurative system of national identity, the corpus of national traditions, through the constant transmission of existing stereotypes and the introduction of new ones, intelligible for an unprepared “consumer”. In many ways, it is thanks to mass literature that a single system of ideas, images and ideas is being formed in society” [Kupina et al., 2010, p. 57].

The impact of mass culture on the literary language is not least connected with the general postmodern situation in culture. Having arisen as a phenomenon of art (postmodernism covers the second half of the twentieth century and is relevant for early XXI c.), postmodernism has penetrated all spheres human activity and became a sign of the era [Kaminskaya, 2008, p. 94)]. S.I. Smetanina, who considers the media text in the system of culture, sees the specifics of Russian postmodernism “in experiencing the monstrous impasse of Soviet civilization”, and the features of the new journalistic text “in mixing documentary and artistic discourse”, “including it in a conditional context that is much more interesting than the actual information” [Mediatext , 2002, p. 79]. The text, therefore, does not so much tell about reality as it creates it. And the authors of not only literary texts, but also texts of mass communication turn to the postmodernist style of writing.

Characteristic signs of such a manner are the spread of the technique of “quoting writing”, the game element, intertextuality, the combination of the voices of the author, character and narrator. “The dominance of the author of the text of mass communication over the “alien word” and even over the “cultural background of the era” allows linguists to imagine the period we are considering as the “era of cultural interpretation of the finished word”, in which there are entire interpretative models of the most important national and cultural stereotypes” [Annenkova, 2006, With. 69-78].

So, the modern language situation is very complicated. The literary language is influenced by such heterogeneous factors as social changes (“perestroika”, reforms), mass culture, postmodernism, the Internet, etc. As a result, means of different, often opposite stylistic coloring are poured into the literary language. This leads, as many researchers rightly write, to the democratization of the literary language. But the question arises: how are such heterogeneous stylistic streams united in the literary language? And here we come to the main, central feature of the modern language situation.

Under the conditions of functional-style stratification, each functional style manifests a literary language. In each of them, with greater or lesser relief, certain features of the literary language are found. However, the linguistic consciousness of society needs a visual model of the literary language, which implements unity in diversity on the basis of any one style, acting as a kind of ideal representative of the literary language. Multi-style to one degree or another weakens the idea of ​​the unity of the literary language, therefore, in each of the periods of development, society needs a style that would model, represent the literary language in its integrity and unity. This situation is especially acutely felt in our days, when heterogeneous stylistic streams that have poured into the literary language literally “blur” literary speech.

If in the 19th, partly in the 20th century, the concept of literary language was associated primarily with the language of fiction, then in our time the language of the media claims this role, which is associated both with its polythematic nature and with the changed conditions for its functioning. Television, radio, newspapers, magazines, movies have penetrated into all “pores” of human life. In terms of the strength of its influence on society, on the formation of linguistic tastes, linguistic behavior, and literary norms, the language of the media cannot be compared with the language of fiction, or with any other style. It is no accident that back in the 50s of the twentieth century. Academician N.I. Konrad called the language of the media the general, average language of the nation [Konrad, 1959, p. 12].

“Media language today,” writes Yu.N. Karaulov, - gained a dominant position among all functional varieties, absorbing, absorbing, assimilating the resources of all functional styles. In other words, the language of the media today is, whether we want it or not, a generalized model, an aggregate image of the national language, the collective user of which is all Russians” [Karaulov, 2001, p. 12].

The language of the media, by its very nature and functions, is intended to be a model of the national language. Journalism does not consciously seek to become such a model. Journalists did not and should not have such a goal. Journalism becomes a model of the national language spontaneously. Like the national language, journalism covers all spheres of life. And in this regard, it is commensurable, comparable to the national language. The language of the media reflects, analyzes, evaluates all spheres and phenomena of life, but from a special angle. The journalist “deals with mass consciousness (for him it is both a product and material) and, according to the same logic, he must probably transform this mass consciousness from its previous state into some new one. And in this way justify the necessity of one's profession” [Muratov, 2009, p. 207].

No other kind of national language has such a power of mass influence and such an important role in society as the language of the media. Therefore, by its very nature, functions and qualities, the language of the media acts as a factor that unites all layers, groups of native speakers.

For the linguistic consciousness of society, it is the language of the media that embodies ideas about the national language. intelligentsia, urban, rural population, carriers of dialects and jargons - the speech of all these groups proceeds to a certain extent in isolation. And only in the language of the media, all these stylistic streams are combined, forming a new functional and stylistic unity, representing the national language - the language of the media.

Being polythematic, spreading to all spheres of life, the language of the media, unlike any other kind of language, is able to include almost all linguistic means. However, this process does not have the character of a simple transfer from one language sphere to another. The language of the media masters, processes, and literalizes the means of various functional areas, changing their stylistic quality, giving them a uniform average coloring within the language of the media. This is what happens with foreign borrowings, which, due to repeated repetition in the media, lose to a large extent the coloring of bookishness, special speech, which contributes to their adaptation, development and significantly expands the lexicon, the scope of book-neutral means.

Jargon and vernacular undergo a similar process. Widely using them, the language of the media neutralizes their non-literary status, but emphasizes their appraisal, enhancing the pragmatic potential of the word, enriching its semantic structure.

Thus, the language of the media becomes “a source for the development and testing of new language tools, both informative and expressive (flash drive, online trading, ecotour, google, digitize, protest voting). Introducing them into a journalistic dialogue and reinforcing them with repeated repetition, the language of the media “patches holes” in the Russian language picture of the world” [Trofimova, Kuznetsova, 2010, p. 188].

Absorbing various stylistic streams, averaging and unifying them, the language of the media acts as a kind of laboratory in which new linguistic means are mastered, as the main language creator, shaping and fixing literary norms, as a means of maintaining the unity of the literary language. The role of the mass media language in modern language processes is exceptionally large and multifaceted. This is the main feature of the modern language situation. The development of the language takes place in the depths of functional styles and other areas of the national language. But the results of these processes are finally fixed in the language of the media.

If earlier the processes of language development were determined by the ratio “national language - literary language” (the latter was actually equated with the language of fiction), then in our time these processes are powerfully invaded by the language of the media and language development is determined by the triad “national language - language of the media - literary language". The language of the media is a kind of bridge between the national and literary language. Before becoming the property of the literary language, the means of the national language are processed in the language of the media. Ultimately, the language of the media becomes the main factor in the development of both the national and the literary language.

There was a time when the language of the newspaper was attributed to the “lower literary formations” (A.M. Peshkovsky), and the top of the style pyramid was occupied by artistic speech. But those times are gone. In the modern era, the language of the media has come to the forefront of language development. And it remains for us to study the incalculable consequences of the new linguistic situation. In our time, the source of literary norms lies in the media. It is here that new words, usages, turns of phrase, etc. are tested and approved. The role of fiction and authoritative writers in these processes tends to zero. And no matter how subjectively we may relate to such a situation, such is the linguistic reality, a sign of the times. Being literary at its core, the language of the media pushes, expands the boundaries of literature, mastering dialects, jargons, and vernacular.

Of course, it would be an oversimplification to reduce all development processes to the functioning of the media language. Literary language is a multidimensional formation. The complexity of the modern language situation lies in the action of many factors, such as functional styles, areas of the national language, genres. They continue to act, influencing the literary language, making it multi-register, polyphonic. However, all these processes are combined, acquire a common vector due to the language of the media, which implements unity in diversity.

“The language of the media is not one of the varieties of the national language, but is an independent full-fledged model of the national language. To describe and study the language of the media means to analyze and evaluate the degree of use of resources and satisfaction of the basic needs of this phenomenon, to assess the degree of objectivity and completeness of the picture of the world reproduced in it, the nature and degree of compliance with the national ideals of those possible worlds that are constructed in the language of the media” [Karaulov , 2007, p. 138].

Each of the spheres of the national language develops and functions relatively independently, which determines the linguistic (stylistic) status of these spheres. But only in the language of the media all these areas appear interconnected, transformed, manifesting the national language as its model.

This, in particular, explains the high prestige of the mass media language, which performs the function of a reference language in public practice, influencing politics, literature, and culture in general. The prominent role of the language of the media is increasingly beginning to be realized by researchers. “Today, the media are the main instrument of political influence in modern society. They are capable of being an effective means of influencing the social climate.” "Now almost all Slavic languages as a “reference speech” the language of the mass media, journalism is approved” [Nemishchenko, 2004, p. 107].

Acquiring aesthetic qualities, aesthetic originality, the language of the media begins to influence the language of fiction, even the language of lyric poetry. One of the striking examples is the work of Blaise Cendrars, which Soviet literary criticism attributed to the direction of poetic realism.

“Approximately around 1910, several lyric poets, primarily in France, as if undertaking to compete not only with the objectivity of painting, but with a newspaper, announcement, poster, advertisement, poster, strive to include maximum visual information in poetry. They are ready to present it in a catchy, undivided, direct way, without generalizing typification. As if to give it just the way life breaks into their work. Often - in the form of chains or clusters of facts, events, experiences and their metaphorical reflections” [Balashov, 1971, p. 191]. Entire newspaper genres are often borrowed. The use of the reporting form in literature has become a stable tradition.

Thus, the language of the media becomes a powerful aesthetic factor and changes the overall linguistic picture of culture.

So, the modern language situation is complex, multidimensional and multifactorial. All spheres and varieties included in the national and literary language retain their significance and continue to operate. However, this does not lead to the emergence of many independent "languages". And the main unifying factor is the language of the media. The unifying function of the language of the media reflects the situation that exists in modern society, in which the middle class is being formed, the role of which, according to sociologists, will increase. If in the previous era the literary language was associated primarily with the elite, then present stage literary language is the average speech of the whole society, especially its middle class.

The leading role of the media language in the development of the literary language does not mean a complete cessation of other factors (mass culture, classical and modern serious literature, the Internet, etc.). All these factors continue to operate, but act indirectly, indirectly. In this case, the language of the media acts as an intermediary, a filter. So, fiction (not mass) literature, if it continues to influence the literary language, then mainly through the language of the media. Before becoming the property of the literary language, diverse means of various stylistic affiliations must pass through the language of the media. The language of the media becomes a standard, a kind of legislator of literature.

What are the consequences and prospects of the described modern language situation?

If we try to generalize the effect of the factors mentioned above and outline the trends in the development of the literary language, then we can say that modern literary speech is moving towards neutralization, averaging, intellectualization (cf. the massive influx of foreign borrowings, the entry and partial neutralization of jargon and vernacular). And this is primarily due to the unusually increased role of the language of the media. At the present stage, the media form not only public opinion, but also in many respects the literary language. The democratization of the literary language, noted by many researchers, is nothing more than the assimilation by the literary language of areas that previously did not have such an important meaning and were outside the literary language.

In the “cauldron” of the language of mass communication, these means are processed, assimilated and begin to be used on a par with traditionally neutral and bookish ones. At the same time, the vector of development is shifting from bookiness to neutrality. If we use the old Lomonosov terms, then we can say that the “middle” style comes to the fore. "High" is losing its positions, "low" is approaching the middle, providing the means for the "medium" style. The aesthetic ideal of literary speech as a whole is difficult to formulate - it changes in relation to certain varieties of literary language, genres, etc. However, for all spheres of literary speech, there is a tendency to reduce or eliminate pathos, to adequately convey information using minimal linguistic means.

The modern period of development of the literary language is characterized by the influence of many factors. The field of action of the literary language is expanding, capturing almost the entire national language. The development of the literary language takes place under the sign and under the decisive influence of the language of the media. This is the main feature of the modern language situation. And no matter how one treats it - for example, to regret the sharp decline in the role of classical and modern serious (not mass) literature in the formation of literary norms, such is the objective reality. And it does not give grounds for subjective conclusions about the deterioration of the literary language, even about its death.

We are experiencing a new period in the development of the literary language. And what is often regarded as a corruption, in fact, these are new qualities of the literary language, due to new social conditions and a new language situation. Boris Strugatsky answered very well to those who are preparing for a memorial service in their native language: “Anything can happen to the Russian language: perestroika, transformation, transformation - but not extinction. It is too big, powerful, flexible, dynamic and unpredictable to take and suddenly disappear. Unless - together with us.

Bibliography

Annenkova I.V. The language of modern media in the context of Russian culture // Russian speech. 2006.

Balashov N.I. Cendrars and poetic realism of the twentieth century. // Blaise Cendrars. Around the world and deep into the world. M., 1971.

Kaminskaya T.L. Addressee in mass communication. Veliky Novgorod, 2008.

Karaulov Yu.N. Media language as a model of a national language // Media language as an object of interdisciplinary research. Abstracts of reports of the international scientific conference. M., 2001.

Karaulov Yu.N. Russian language and linguistic personality. M., 2007.

Konrad N.I. About “linguistic existence” // Japanese Linguistic Collection. M., 1959.

Kupina N.A., Litovskaya M.A., Nikolina N.A. Mass Literature Today. M., 2010.

Media text in the system of culture: dynamic processes in the language and style of journalism at the end of the 20th century. St. Petersburg, 2002.

Muratov S. Television in search of television. Chronicle of author's observations. M., 2009.

Neshimenko G.P. Language and culture in the history of the ethnos // Language. Ethnos. Culture. M., 1994.

Romanenko A.P. Soviet and post-Soviet mass verbal culture: common and different // Soviet past and present culture. T. 2. Ekaterinburg, 2009.

Trofimova O.V., Kuznetsova N.V. Journalistic text: linguistic analysis: Proc. allowance. M., 2010.

Shcherba L.V. Literary language and ways of its development (in relation to the Russian language) // Shcherba L.V. Selected works on the Russian language. M., 1957.

Received May 14, 2010

Wed a similar neologism is Denglish (Deutch + English).

Dictionary Russian language XX! century. Current vocabulary / Ed. G.N. Sklyarevskaya. M., 2008; Krysin L.P. Explanatory dictionary of foreign words. 3rd ed. M., 2001.

Of course, this process may have costs. Not all new words will receive citizenship rights. The borrowing of some words is dictated by fashion (cf. the widespread use of the word trends instead of trends, approaches: “new trends in the teaching of literature”. Often foreign words are used for the sake of a falsely understood prestige, although it would be quite possible to get by with Russian words. The Russian language, like any other, needs to be protected for its purity. As an example, we can cite the “Official Dictionary of Neologisms”, periodically republished in France, containing more than 2500 foreign words not recommended for use. Unfortunately, we do not have such lexicographic publications.

Here is a typical example: "... High art educates, but mass culture corrupts and gradually removes the problem of humanism in principle? 2010).

Vartanova E.L. Terrorism is not a sensation // Media Trends. 2010. No. 4.

A strong impetus to democratization was also the repulsion from the odious language of the stagnant period, sinning with bookishness, burdened with clichés, and extremely ideological (see the works of N.A. Kupina).

E.A. Zemskaya points out the following trends in the development of the modern Russian language:

• -- The list of participants in mass and collective communication is expanding dramatically.
• - Censorship and auto-censorship are sharply weakened, one might even say collapsing.
• - The personal beginning in speech, dialogical communication, both oral and written, increases.
• - The sphere of spontaneous communication is expanding, not only personal, but also oral public.
• -- Important parameters of the flow of oral forms of mass communication are changing: it creates the possibility of a direct appeal of the speaker to the listeners and feedback from the listeners to the speakers.
• - Situations and genres of communication are changing both in the field of public and in the field of personal communication. Rigid limits of official public communication are weakened. Many new genres of oral public speech are born in the field of mass communication (various conversations, discussions, round tables, new types of interviews, etc.).
• - There is a lot of new and in the field of personal communication between strangers. Relations between speaking subjects change.
• -- The psychological rejection of the bureaucratic language of the past (Newspeak) is growing sharply.
• - There is a desire to develop new means of expression, new forms of imagery, new types of appeals to strangers.
• - Along with the birth of the names of new phenomena, there is a revival of the names of those phenomena that return from the past, banned or rejected in the era of totalitarianism.
• - The syntactic construction of speech is changing, especially sharply in the field of management and some types of coordination.
• - The unpreparedness of public speech often leads to the loosening of old norms, contributes to the manifestation of development trends embedded in the language system. The intonation of oral public speech is changing.

Summarizing the main trends in the development of the modern Russian language, we can note the following:

• - In modern Russian society, there is change of socio-political paradigm, that is, a system of concepts that define the dominant system of political values ​​in society.
• - In Russian society, there was change of communication paradigm, that is, the type of communication that dominates in social practice. The most noticeable consequences of the change in the communicative paradigm in society are several interconnected processes that have arisen in the Russian language. These processes are: oralization of communication; dialogization of communication; pluralization of communication; personification of communication.

Oralization of communication is manifested in a significant increase in the role oral speech, expanding its functions, increasing its share in communication.

Dialogization of communication is manifested in an increase in the share of dialogue in communication, an increase in the role of dialogue in the communication process, an expansion of the functions of dialogic speech in the structure of communication, the development of new types and forms of dialogue, the formation of new rules for dialogic communication, and an increase in the social effectiveness of dialogic communication in comparison with monologue.

The pluralization of communication is manifested in the formation of a tradition of coexistence of different points of view when discussing a particular problem.

The personification of communication lies in the growth of individual uniqueness of personal discourse.

These processes have a decisive influence on the development of the Russian language and lead to numerous particular consequences and changes. Characterizing the system of the Russian language as a whole from this point of view, it can be stated that in a number of aspects it is undergoing significant quantitative, qualitative and functional changes, but it does not undergo any revolutionary changes (especially leading to its destruction or disintegration), while maintaining the systemic and structural integrity, sustainable functioning and internal identity.

Traditionally, the Russian language has been modern since the time of A. S. Pushkin. Modern Russian is one of richest languages peace. It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of the Russian national language and the literary Russian language. The national language is the language of the Russian people, it covers all spheres of speech activity of people. In contrast, literary language is a narrower concept. Literary language is the highest form of language existence, exemplary language. This is a strictly standardized form of the national national language, which is perceived as a reference. The signs are: processing, normalization, universally binding norms and their codification, the presence of a written form, widespread and universally binding, the development of a functional and stylistic system

Lomonosov's theory of three calms: High (tragedy, ode), Medium (elegy, drama, satire), Low (comedy, fable, songs). High calm borrowed from the ancient Russian language

938 - the creation of Cyrillic by Cyril and Methodius in Thessaloniki for the southern Slavs, the eastern ones borrowed it.

Pushkin first mixed East Slavic and southern languages. - The emergence of diglossia (bilingualism)

The modern language in the narrow sense is the language of the end of the 20th century, the language of today. In a broad sense, the language of the era from Pushkin to the present day, mainly written. We understand the language of this period without the obligatory involvement of additional means - dictionaries, etc.

The literary language is constantly transforming, the main forces of this process are all native speakers.

When characterizing the literary language of the twentieth century, one should distinguish between two chronological period:

The first - from October 1917 to April 1985;

The second - from April 1985 to the present.

The second stage is the period of perestroika and post-perestroika. At this time, branches of the functioning of the language, still carefully hidden by censorship, become obvious and tangible. Thanks to glasnost, jargon (fraternization, rollback, shmon, presentation), borrowing (dealer, realtor, manager) and obscene language came to light. In addition to new words, many words that seemed to have gone out of use forever were brought back to life (gymnasium, lyceum, guild, governess, department, etc.).

At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, the democratization of the language reached such proportions that it would be more correct to call this process liberalization, or, more precisely, vulgarization. On the pages of the periodical press, jargon, colloquial elements and other non-literary means (grandmothers, piece, piece, steward, launder, unfasten, scroll, etc.) poured into the speech of educated people. Even in official speech, the words get-together, disassembly, get along became common.

Obscene language has become unacceptably common. Advocates of such an expressive means even argue that swearing is a hallmark of the Russian people, its "brand name".

However, we should not forget that the Russian literary language is our wealth, our heritage, it embodied the cultural and historical traditions of the people, and we are responsible for its condition, for its fate.

Communicative qualities of speech.

The communicative qualities of speech are a set of properties of the words and expressions we utter, which make communication effective, understandable from all sides, more harmonious and enjoyable. They are as follows: expressiveness, purity, consistency, correctness, accuracy, richness, accessibility, relevance, clarity, effectiveness. A harmonious combination of these ten properties allows us to talk about a perfect culture of communication. The communicative qualities of speech began to be studied in the 18th century. In all educational institutions of that time, rhetoric existed, being, by the way, one of the seven main sciences.

Characteristics of the communicative qualities of speech

2. Expressiveness. This means that everyone should understand what he is talking about, and also he should not be indifferent to his words. If the speech is built in an artistic style, then properly selected metaphors, comparisons, and others will give expressiveness. artistic means. Expressiveness in a journalistic style will be given by questions, exclamations (however, you should not overload your speech with these communicative qualities), pauses. In a scientific or official business style, oral emphasis on the main words, raising and lowering the tone, and pauses give expressiveness.

3. Logic. This property characterizes the correct and understandable presentation of thought and the construction of the text, that is, speech must obey the basic methods of logic - induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis, etc.

4. Correctness. It represents the correspondence of what we say to the generally accepted norms of the literary language. If we consider all the communicative qualities of speech, this property will be one of the main

5. Accuracy. This is, first of all, the correct presentation of the meaning of the text, the absence of "water". Accuracy is also determined by the degree of understanding who says that what he speaks about, the correct use of the conceptual apparatus.

6. Wealth. Quality is characterized by wealth vocabulary speaker, as well as the variety of language means that he uses to express thoughts.

7. Availability. This is the ability of the speaker to correctly and accurately convey all the information to the audience, as well as his attitude towards it. Everything that the basic qualities of speech are said to people should be clear to them.

8. Relevance. Speech should correspond to a specific situation, always be “out of place” and correspond to the necessary stylistic coloring.

9. Clarity. It characterizes the presence in what was said of the necessary clarifications, if this is required by the context or a specific situation.

10. Effectiveness. This quality is characterized by the relevance of speech (the quality is more applicable to the journalistic, scientific style of speech), the ability to reflect reality. These basic qualities of speech can be presented in the literature in a different quantity, depending on the author or the time of writing.

The concept of style

Stylistics - ("stylo", "stylus" - a stick with which they wrote on wax tablets). A small digression into history: stylistics as an independent science arose in the 50s, “singled out” from rhetoric, on the basis of verbal expression. Over time, the concept of style expanded. At first it was the science of expressive means (tropes and figures), then - about functional styles. Now we understand style as the science of the functioning of language and speech.

The young section of linguistics, the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, connection with fr. Stylistics (Charles Balli).

The first stylists grew up - Vinogradov, Shcherbin, Potebnya.

Stylistics- section of linguistics, in the cat. the system of styles of a particular language is studied, the norms and methods of using the literary language in various conditions of the language are described. communication, in various types and genres of writing, in various spheres of public life.

S. Bally (fr). The style is:

1) general, exploring the general stylistic problems of speech activity relating to all or most languages,

2) private, studying the stylistic structure of a particular national language, and

3) individual, considering the expressive features of the speech of individual individuals.

Vinogradov:

1. “Language stylistics studies the stylistic structure of the language as a “system of systems”, functional language styles, stylistic. Wed language means, regardless of the specific conditions of their use "

Speech is a specific implementation of language in a given specific situation.

2. “The style of speech analyzes the features of the functioning of language media in the specific conditions of their use associated with certain genres, forms, types of oral and writing(discussion speech, lecture, report, press conference, conversation; editorial in the newspaper, scientific review, humorous story, welcome address, etc.)"

3. "The stylistics of the art literature has all the elements of the style of the art work, the style of the writer, the style of the whole literature as the subject of its study"

Stylistics is the science of language that studies the theory of language styles, lexical and grammatical synonymy, expressive and visual possibilities of language means. Stylistics studies the language in dynamics ("the queen of the language"). Explores shades of meaning. It is necessary to have a linguistic flair (stylistics is practically inaccessible for foreigners). The problem of choice is the main problem of style.

There is, but is not a completely generally accepted division of stylistics into literary and linguistic (see below). Linguistics examines the functional styles of speech, literary criticism studies the system of images, plot, plot, etc. in a separate work.

Aspects of style:

1. Expressive means of the language and their resources (language capabilities) - 1st aspect of stylistics.

2nd aspect - the definition of style. extralinguistic factor. (selection of language means in accordance with the situation in which a person finds himself) is a non-philological factor.

3. The quality of speech (accuracy and correctness) is the third important aspect of stylistics.

Speech should be literate, accurate, literary and, if possible, figurative. For style, it is not what is said, but how it is said.

Style areas:

Practical style - regularity, expediency, appropriateness of use grammar basics, turns, etc.

Stylistics of language resources - deals with synonymy

Stylistics of fiction - individual styles writers historical development language styles.

Decoding style - there are various possibilities for interpreting the author's intentions.

The style of the text is the patterns of construction and functioning of the text ( compositional construction)

Phonosylistics - deals with human associations with the use of a particular sound

2. The subject and tasks of practical stylistics

Subject Stylistics is a language in the broadest sense of the word (including speech as a form of language beings), but from other areas of linguistics.

Stylistics explores ways of expressing complement (stylistic) info that accompanies the main subject content of speech. In this regard, one of the main objects style the synonymic system is recognized. Wed-in and the possibilities of the language at all its levels.

concept norms very important for the lit language. In practical stylistics, the norm is the set of the most suitable (correct, preferred) for serving the general public in the language, which is formed as a result of the selection of linguistic elements (lexical, pronunciation, morphological, syntactic) from among the existing ones.

Practical style is close to the culture of speech.

1) general information about language styles

2) assessment of expressive-emotional. language means coloring

3) synonymy of language means

The central place in stylistics is given to the problems of synonymy. In this problem, for practical stylistics, it is important:

1) in the language, as it is correct, there are no absolute synonyms

2) synonymous variants should not go beyond the literary norm

3) it is permissible to compare synonyms in the conditions of their simultaneous existence and in the conditions of their evolutionary development

For practical style, it is also important to use lexical and grammatical means of the language. Less attention to phonetics and word formation, more attention to grammatical syntax.

Figurative means of language (tropes and figures) - the style of fiction.

The tasks of stylistics: 1) the definition of stylist. norms for the use of the language, the definition of patterns in accordance with which the language. media are organized into a system. 2) classification and description of the media and techniques included in the language system. 3) identification of patterns of interaction between the stylist. norms of the language and the objective system of the language.

functional styles- this is the central problem and the main subject of stylistics.

Among the issues addressed by practical stylistics are issues related to the correctness and normativeness of speech.

The richest synonymy of the means of the Russian literary language on all the “tiers” of its system raises the question of the criteria for the optimal choice of options needed in a particular situation (in particular, the normative nature of these options today) before practical stylistics.

The main trends in the development of the modern Russian literary language

The creator of the modern literary language is Alexander Pushkin, whose works are considered the pinnacle of Russian literature. This thesis remains dominant, despite the significant changes that have taken place in the language over the almost two hundred years that have passed since the creation of his major works, and the obvious stylistic differences between the language of Pushkin and modern writers. Meanwhile, the poet himself points to the paramount role of N. M. Karamzin in the formation of the Russian literary language, according to A. S. Pushkin, this glorious historian and writer “liberated the language from an alien yoke and returned its freedom, turning it to the living sources of the folk the words".

Literary language is a form of existence of a national language, which is characterized by such features as normativity, codification, polyfunctionality, stylistic differentiation, high social prestige among native speakers of a given national language. The literary language is the main means of serving the communicative needs of society; it is opposed to non-codified subsystems of the national language - territorial dialects, urban koine (urban vernacular), professional and social jargons.

The concept of a literary language can be defined both on the basis of the linguistic properties inherent in a given subsystem of the national language, and by delimiting the totality of carriers of this subsystem, separating it from the general composition of people who speak given language. The first way of definition is linguistic, the second is sociological.

Properties of literary language:

1. consistent normalization (not only the presence of a single norm, but also its conscious cultivation);

2. the general obligatory nature of its norms for all speakers of a given literary language;

3. communicatively expedient use of means (it follows from the tendency to their functional differentiation)

4. Consistent functional differentiation of means and the associated permanent trend towards a functional differentiation of options;

5. polyfunctionality: the literary language is able to serve the communicative needs of any field of activity;

6. stability and well-known conservatism of the literary language, its slow changeability: the literary norm must lag behind the development of live speech

The literary language, as a rule, is divided into two functional varieties: book-written and colloquial. Book language is an achievement and heritage of culture. It is the main carrier and transmitter of cultural information. All types of indirect, distant communication are carried out by means of the book language. Modern literary language is a powerful means of communication. Unlike another variety - the colloquial literary language (and even more so unlike such subsystems of the national language as dialects and vernacular), it is multifunctional: it is suitable for use in various areas of communication, for various purposes and for expressing the most diverse content. The colloquial variety of the literary language is an independent and self-sufficient system within the general system of the literary language, with its own set of units and rules for their combination with each other, used by native speakers of the literary language in conditions of direct, unprepared communication in informal relations between speakers.

Trends:

1) convergence of the litas of the language with the folk

2) the interaction of the styles of the literary language (especially important: the influence of the colloquial style on the literary one)

3) the desire to save language means in speech (as Chekhov bequeathed to us, brevity is the sister of talent)

4) the desire for uniformity and simplification of individual forms and designs

5) strengthening of analytical elements in the language system (such as “beige bag” instead of “beige bag”, “three-meter-high building” instead of “three-meter building”, etc.)

(According to V.I. Chernyshev) source of stylistic norms must be:

1) generally accepted modern usage

2) works of exemplary Russian writers

3) the best grammars and grammatical studies of literary Russian language

(According to Rosenthal ) source of norms may also be :

1) data from a survey of native speakers (specially representing different generations)

2) questionnaire data

3) comparison of similar linguistic phenomena among classic writers and contemporary writers (in works of the same genre)