Dialects and literary language. Literary language and vernacular, territorial and social dialects

The concept of “national Russian language” includes, on the one hand, a standardized literary language and, on the other, territorial and social dialects that are outside the literary norm, as well as vernacular. Therefore, along with the dominant literary “base”, there are “interspersed” in the form of dialectisms (v[o]da, kochet, basque, take, weather (bad weather), Middle Lit. v[a]da, rooster, beautiful, bad weather ), jargon (bucks - dollars, laces - parents, party - gathering, party, street gatherings of young people, fight, etc., cool - fashionable, business, arrogant, etc.), colloquial words and forms (kilometer, put, kolidor, stram, tubaretka, a lot to do, go, etc.).

Any social dialect has a narrow sphere of distribution (used only within a certain social group or stratum), is limited territorially and, moreover, is limited by the time of its existence. Social dialects are an objective and ancient phenomenon. The language of the nobility has always differed from the language of the common people, the language of the clergy from the language of the laity, the language of artisans from the language of merchants. Almost each of us is a member of a specific family, was a schoolchild, has his own social circle, is part of a certain social group or interest group, has mastered or is mastering any profession - and all this is somehow connected with familiarization with, or at least acquaintance with, one or another social dialect.

The specificity of a literary language, as noted above, is most clearly manifested in contrast to other forms of language existence. If we imagine these forms as a polynomial series of coexisting components, then the extreme positions, despite the diversity of specific situations, are occupied by the literary language and the territorial dialect. The opposition of these two forms is due to the entire system of their distinctive features, of which some are leading and unconditional, others can, under certain conditions, as will be noted below, be neutralized.

I. Dialect is a territorially limited form of existence of a language.

In the feudal era, its borders were correlated with the borders of feudal territories. But even in other historical conditions, the territorial limitation and coherence of the dialect remains strong, and it is most fully revealed in opposition to the literary language. Undoubtedly, modern Arabic dialects are primarily the spoken language of the population of every Arab country, but in recent decades significant literature has begun to be created in them. Thus, they represent different and significantly more complex linguistic entities than dialects medieval Europe, however, the territorial limitation and coherence of modern Arabic dialects appears, along with their other features, in contrast to the Arabic literary language, uniform and common in all Arab countries. This specificity of the dialect is preserved everywhere also in the era of the formation and development of national languages, although the system of structural features of the dialect can be eroded under the influence of the literary language, especially where the literary language has sufficient unity and regulation.

A literary language, in contrast to a dialect, is not characterized by such intense territorial limitation and coherence. Any literary language has a more or less definite supra-dialectal character. This applies even to an era of such intense fragmentation as the era of feudalism. So, in France XI-XII centuries. in the western Anglo-Norman-Angevin possessions, a written literary language was formed in such literary examples as the Song of Roland, the Pilgrimage of Charlemagne, and the works of Mary of France. Although some regional coloration is reflected in the phonetics and morphology of these monuments, none of them can be recognized as belonging to any particular dialect of the Western group: Norman, French, or any dialect of the North-Western or South-Western subgroup. Therefore, it turns out to be possible only in the most general form to associate local features in the language of these monuments with different dialect groups of that time.

A similar phenomenon is observed to a greater or lesser extent in other literary languages of the pre-national period, more precisely - before the period of development of a unified literary norm or national language standard. Thus, in Germany, where feudal fragmentation was especially significant and stable and the literary language appeared in several regional variants, which had differences not only in the phonetic-graphic system, but also in the lexical composition, and partly in morphology, already in the monuments of the literary language of the 12th century -XIII centuries, both poetic and prosaic, there is no direct reflection of the dialect system of the region to which this or that monument belongs: a conscious selection can be traced, the exclusion of narrow dialectal features. Given the existence of written records and (albeit limited) trade and cultural ties between individual territories in Germany starting from the 13th - 14th centuries. There was intensive interaction between the established regional variants of the literary language. Even the North of the country, the most linguistically isolated, did not remain isolated. Indicative in this regard is the penetration of southern forms and southern vocabulary, which often displaced local forms from the literary language of Central Germany, both in the West in the Cologne region (cf. the displacement of local -ng- under the influence of the more general -nd- in words like fingen ~ finden), Mainz (cf. also the displacement of the Central German pronominal forms her “he”, him “him” by the southern er, im), Frankfurt am Main, and in the East, in Thuringia and Saxony (cf. the same system of pronouns). A curious consequence of these processes was the numerous regional doublets in the language of the same monument; in Central German monuments of the 14th century. local biben “to tremble”, erdbibunge “earthquake”, burnen “to burn”, heubt “head”, coexisted next to the more southern pidmen, ertpidmen, brennen. Conscious imitation of a certain version of the literary language can be traced already in the 13th century, when most authors sought to write in a language close to the laws of the southwestern version, since the southwest was then the center of the political and cultural life of Germany.

The supra-dialectal nature of the literary language of the era of feudalism is also associated with the peculiarities of the system of literary language styles that was gradually taking shape already in that era. The formation of styles of philosophical-religious, scientific, and journalistic literature contributed to the development of layers of vocabulary that did not exist in dialects and were predominantly interdialectal in nature. In a number of countries (Western European countries, Slavic countries, many countries of the East), the formation of these styles specific to the literary language is carried out under the influence of someone else's literary language - in Slavic countries under the influence of the Old Slavic literary language, in Western Europe under the influence of Latin, in the Middle East under the influence of Arabic language, in Japan under the influence of the Chinese language, etc. This foreign language influence, in turn, contributes to the isolation of literary languages from territorial coherence and leads to the formation of supra-dialectal features in their system. Therefore, the language of Old Russian monuments, although it reflected certain features of the dialect areas, was characterized by a diverse mixture of Russian and Old Church Slavonic elements and thus did not have the territorial limitation that characterizes the dialect.

This feature of the literary language, and thus its most complete opposition to the dialect, manifests itself most fully in the era of national unity, when a single universally binding standard is drawn up. But other cases are also possible when, even in the pre-national era, an ancient written literary language moves so far away from the process of development of living dialects that it turns out to be isolated from their territorial diversity, as was the case in Arab countries, China and Japan, and reliance on an archaic tradition may occur in different historical conditions and in different periods of the history of specific literary languages. Thus, the medieval Chinese literary language of the 8th - 12th centuries. relied heavily on book sources of the 7th - 2nd centuries. BC, which contributed to its isolation from the spoken language style; under completely different conditions, similar patterns characterized the development of the Czech language in the 18th century. (see below).

II. Literary language is contrasted with dialect both in terms of the social functions that it performs, and thereby in terms of its stylistic capabilities.

From the moment of the formation of a literary language among a particular people, the dialect usually remains the sphere of everyday communication. Literary language can potentially function in all spheres of public life - in fiction, in public administration, in school and science, in production and everyday life; at a certain stage in the development of society it becomes a universal means of communication. This process is complex and diverse, since in addition to the literary language and dialect, intermediate forms of everyday life take part in it. colloquial speech(see pp. 525-528).

Within the framework of consideration of the distinctive features of the literary language, it is necessary to emphasize the multifunctionality and associated stylistic diversity of the literary language, in contrast to the dialect. Undoubtedly, these qualities are usually accumulated by a literary language in the process of its development, but the tendency of this form of language existence towards multifunctionality is significant; moreover, the very formation of a literary language occurs in the conditions of the development of its functional and stylistic diversity.

The functional load of literary languages varies in different historical conditions, and the determining role here is played by the level of development of society and the general culture of the people. The ancient Arabic literary language took shape in the 7th - 8th centuries. as the language of poetry, Muslim religion, science and school as a result of the high level of development that Arab culture then reached. The stylistic diversity of the ancient Greek literary language is inextricably linked with different genres of literature (epic, lyric poetry, theater), with the prosperity of science and philosophy, with the development of oratory.

A different picture is observed in Western Europe. At the origins of literary languages Western Europe there were poetic and prose genres of fiction, folk epic; in Scandinavia and Ireland, along with the style of epic poetry, the prose style of the ancient sagas stands out. The language of ancient runic inscriptions (V - VIII centuries), the so-called runic Koine, also adjoined the supra-dialect type of language. The 12th - 13th centuries - the heyday of knightly lyricism and knightly romance - provide high examples of Provencal, French, German, and Spanish literary languages. But these literary languages begin to serve science and education relatively late, partly as a result of the inhibited development of science, but mainly due to the fact that the conquest of other spheres of communication by the literary language was hampered in Western European countries by the long-term dominance of Latin in the fields of law, religion, public administration, education and the prevalence of the dialect in everyday communication. The displacement of Latin and its replacement by the literary language of a given people proceeded largely differently in different European countries.

In Germany since the 13th century. The German language penetrates not only into diplomatic correspondence, into private and state documents, but also into jurisprudence. The major legal monuments, the Sachsenspiegel and the Schwabenspiegel, enjoyed enormous popularity, as evidenced by the existence of numerous manuscript versions from different regions of Germany. Almost simultaneously, the German language begins to conquer the sphere of public administration. He dominates the imperial chancellery of Charles IV. But Latin remained the language of science virtually until the end of the 17th century; it dominated university teaching for a long time: back in the 17th century. lecturing in German met with fierce resistance. The Renaissance also contributed to a certain strengthening of the position of Latin even in some literary genres (drama) in Germany.

In Italy back in the 15th century. in connection with the general direction of the culture of the Renaissance, Latin turns out to be the only officially recognized language not only of science, but also of fiction, and only a century later the Italian literary language gradually gained citizenship rights as a multifunctional written and literary language. In France, Latin was also used in the 16th century. not only in science, but also in jurisprudence, in diplomatic correspondence, although Francis I already introduced the French language into the royal office.

Typologically similar features are also revealed in the functioning of literary languages in ancient Rus', Bulgaria and Serbia. For example, the development of the ancient Russian literary language also occurred under conditions of a kind of bilingualism, since the area of cult, science and some genres of literature was served by the Old Church Slavonic language. Until the end of the 17th century. this alien, although closely related, language was opposed to the literary language on a folk basis, i.e., the Russian literary language in the proper sense of the word, therefore the use of the Russian literary language, its stylistic diversity turned out to be limited: it appeared only in business writing, in such monuments , like "Russian Truth", and some genres of literature (lives of saints, chronicles and some other monuments). Only at the beginning of the 18th century. denotes the process of destruction of bilingualism and, as a consequence of this, the gradual functional and stylistic enrichment of the literary language.

In most literary languages of the USSR, the features of a universal means of communication are formed only after October revolution as a result of the conquest by the literary language of such areas as public administration, science, higher education. Associated with this are changes in the system of functional styles of these languages, in the composition of their vocabulary (cf. the formation of socio-political and scientific terminology) and in syntactic patterns. The above applies even to languages with a long written and literary tradition, such as the Georgian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Azerbaijani literary languages.

Consequently, such distinctive features of a literary language as multifunctionality and the associated stylistic diversity are not something absolute and stable. The nature of this multifunctionality, the rate of accumulation in a literary language of those features that turn it into a universal means of communication, depend on the historical conditions in which a given literary language functions, on its previous history.

In most literary languages, mastery of the sphere of everyday communication occurs later, if at all a given literary language in the process of its development becomes a universal language. Even in France, where the unity of the literary language took shape early, the sphere of oral communication retained significant local features until the 18th century. .

Unlike the literary language, the territorial dialect typologically does not know multifunctionality and stylistic diversity, since after the separation of the literary language, the main function of the dialect is to serve as a means of communication in everyday life, in Everyday life, i.e. his “functional style” is colloquial speech. The so-called literature in dialects most often represents regional variants of the literary language. The question of how the place of dialect literature in Italy should be determined is controversial. In this country, as a result of the late national unification (1861), for a long time, along with the common Italian literary language, each province flourished its own dialect, apparently not only as a means of everyday conversation among different segments of the population. It is usually indicated that from the XV - XVI centuries. There was regional fiction even at the end of the 19th century. - early 20th century in Genoa a workers' magazine was published in the local dialect. However, whether this is really dialect literature in the proper sense of the word, or whether these are regional variants of the literary language associated with existing regional and urban koine, is currently difficult to decide. However, it is significant that one of the greatest experts on this issue, B. Migliorini, does not identify the language of this literature with a dialect in the proper sense of the word: he calls the first italiano regionale (“regional Italian”), the second dialetto loсale (“local or territorial dialect” ), the common Italian literary language is simply called italiano "Italian". The question of Arabic dialects, which act as a means of communication in different Arab countries, is even more complex. In any case, their status is different from the status of dialects in the narrow sense of the word.

III. The nature of the distribution of the literary language and dialect across spheres of communication is to a certain extent related to the relationship between the written and oral forms of the language. One can often come across a statement about the primary connection between the literary language and writing, about the special role of book style in the development of literary languages. To a certain extent, this position is true. The processed form of most modern languages was created in variants of book-written styles and in fiction; the development of unity and universality, i.e. the formulation of a language standard, is often carried out earlier in the written form of the language, which is generally distinguished by greater stability than the oral form. Not only in countries such as Germany or Italy, where for a long time a single literary language was associated primarily with writing, but also in other countries the processes of normalization, that is, the codification of consciously fixed norms, are correlated in the first stages of this process mainly with written language. tongue. Along with fiction, in a number of countries (Russia, France, Germany), the language of business writing played a decisive role in this process. Moreover, in some countries there are literary languages, which, being sharply contrasted with the spoken language, represent a more ancient type of the same language than the spoken language and actually exist only in written form; in Ceylon, the Sinhalese literary language exists only in written form, retaining an archaic grammatical structure (inflectional) and differing sharply from the analytical language of oral communication; in China, Wenyan was a written literary language, the historical model of which was the literary language of medieval China in the 8th - 12th centuries; in Japan, bungo is a written literary language, the historical model of which is the literary language of Japan in the 13th - 14th centuries. , in India, written literary Sanskrit coexists with living literary languages; A similar situation exists partly in Arab countries, where the literary language, the historical model of which was classical Arabic, is mainly a bookish and written language.

However, the relationship between literary language and written form discussed above is not universal and cannot be included in its general typological characteristics. As noted above, the existence of an oral variety of a literary language is just as “normal” as the existence of written literary languages. Moreover, it can be argued that in certain epochs of cultural history, the processed form of language, as opposed to spoken language, exists primarily in the oral variety (cf., for example, the Greek literary language of the Homeric era). For many peoples, the literary language is practically older than writing, no matter how paradoxical it may sound, and in written form it is recorded later that what was created in the oral variety of the literary language. This was the case with the language of epic works among various peoples of Asia, Africa, America and Europe, with the language of oral law and religion. But even in a later era, in the conditions of the existence of writing and along with the development of written styles of the literary language, the literary language often appears in an oral variety; Wed the language of the Provençal troubadours of the 12th century, the German Minesingers and Spielmanns of the 12th - 13th centuries. etc. On the other hand, the system of styles of modern literary languages includes not only written styles, but also a spoken style, i.e. modern literary languages also appear in oral form. The status of literary and colloquial styles varies from country to country. Its competitors can be not only territorial dialects, but also various intermediate forms of the existence of the language, such as the everyday spoken language in Czechoslovakia, Umgangssprache in Germany, the so-called Italianized jargon in Italy. In addition, book styles are realized in oral form (cf. the language of official speeches - political, scientific, etc.).

Therefore, the relationship between the written and oral forms as applied to the literary language and dialect is expressed not in the fact that each of them is assigned only a written or only an oral form, but in the fact that the development of book and written styles, their diversity characterizes only the literary language, regardless depends on whether the literary language is unified or whether it is realized in several variants (see below).

IV. The social base of a literary language is a historical category, just like that of a territorial dialect; the leading role here is played by the social system under which this or that literary language was created and under which the literary language functions. The social base is understood, on the one hand, as the social sphere of use of the literary language or other forms of language existence, i.e. which social group or groups are carriers of this form of language existence, and on the other hand, which social strata take part in the creative process of creating this forms. The social base of literary languages is determined primarily by what linguistic practice the literary language is based on and whose patterns it follows in its formation and development.

During the heyday of feudalism in Europe, the development and functioning of the literary language was associated mainly with knightly and clerical culture, which led to a certain limitation of the social base of the literary language and its certain isolation from the spoken language of not only the rural, but also the urban population. The oral variety of literary language was represented by examples of knightly poetry with its inherent strict selection of narrow-class themes, with traditional plot cliches that also determined linguistic cliches. In Germany, where knightly culture developed later than in other European countries, and where knightly poetry was strongly influenced by French examples, the language of this poetry was literally flooded with borrowings from the French language: not only individual words that subsequently disappeared from the language along with the disappearance of knightly culture (cf. chancun “song”, garcun “boy”, “page”, schou “joy”, “fun”, amie “beloved”, rivier “stream”, “river”, etc.), but also whole revolutions. This style of the German literary language was opposed by two other functional styles associated with the book-written variety of the German literary language of the 13th - 14th centuries: the style of clerical literature and the style of legal literature. The first of them reveals a significant influence of Latin in vocabulary and especially in syntax (participatory "turns of phrases, turns of vin. p. with inf.), the second is closest to the spoken language. Apparently, however, in that oral form of the literary language, which was represented by church sermons (cf., for example, the sermons of Berthold of Regensburg in the 13th century or Guyler von Kayserberg in the 15th century), a convergence of the clerical-book style and the folk-colloquial style is revealed both in lexical layers and in syntax. Thus, it is possible. to determine not only the social basis of the German literary language of the 12th - 14th centuries, realized in a combination of different styles opposed to the everyday spoken language (represented by many territorial dialects), but also the social conditionality of stylistic differentiation within the literary language itself.

Characterizing the processes of development of the literary languages of China and Japan, N. I. Conrad wrote that the social significance of the medieval literary language in these countries “is limited to certain, relatively narrow, social strata, mainly the ruling class.” This explained the large gap that existed between the written literary and spoken languages.

In France since the 13th century. a relatively unified written and literary language is emerging, displacing other written and literary variants. The decree of Francis I (1539) on the introduction of French instead of Latin was also directed against the use of dialects in clerical practice. French normalizers of the 16th-17th centuries. were guided by the language of the court (see the activities of Vozhla in France.)

If for medieval literary languages their narrow social base is more or less typical, since the speakers of these languages were the ruling classes of feudal society, and the literary languages served the culture of these social groups, which, naturally, was reflected primarily in the nature of the styles of the literary language, then the process of formation and the development of national literary languages is characterized by increasing trends towards their democratization, towards the expansion of their social base, towards the convergence of book-written and folk-spoken styles. In countries where medieval written and literary languages dominated for a long time, the movement against them was associated with the development of a new ruling class - the bourgeoisie. The formation and design of the so-called “ordinary” language in China and Japan, which later developed into a national literary language, is correlated with the emergence of capitalist relations and the growth of the bourgeoisie. Similar social factors were at work in the countries of Western Europe, where the formation of nations took place under the conditions of nascent capitalism (see below).

The history of literary languages, changes in types of literary languages are associated with changes in the social base of the literary language and, through this link, with the processes of development of the social system. However, the progressive course of history is not always accompanied by a mandatory expansion of the social base of the literary language and its democratization. Much in this process depends on specific historical conditions. Interesting in this regard are the changes that have taken place in the history of the Czech literary language. XVI century - the golden age of Czech literature and the Czech literary language, which achieved a certain unity during this period. During the era of the Hussite wars, a certain democratization of the literary language took place, in contrast to its narrow class character in the 14th - 15th centuries. . After the suppression of the Czech uprising of 1620, the Czech language, as a result of the nationalist policies of the Habsburgs, was actually expelled from the most important public spheres, which were then dominated by Latin or German. In 1781, German became the official language. National oppression caused the decline of the culture of the Czech literary language, since the Czech language was used mainly by the rural population who spoke a non-literary language. The revival of the literary Czech language took place at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. in connection with the growth of the national liberation movement, but literary and scientific figures did not rely on a living spoken language, but on the language of literature of the 16th century, which was far from the spoken language of different layers of the Czech people. “The new literary Czech language,” wrote Mathesius, “thus became the most archaic member of the honorable family of Slavic languages and tragically moved away from the spoken Czech language.” Under these conditions, the social basis of the literary Czech language in the 19th century. turned out to be narrower than in the era of the Hussite wars.

The breadth of the social base of a territorial dialect is inversely proportional to the breadth of the social base of the literary language: the narrower the social base of the literary language, the more class-limited language practice it embodies, the wider the social base of non-literary forms of existence of the language, including the territorial dialect. Widespread dialects in Italy in the 19th and 20th centuries. confronts the limitations of the social base of the literary language; in Arab countries there was a limited social base of the literary language already in the 10th century. contributed to the widespread development of dialects; in Germany XIV - XV centuries. the predominant connection of the German literary language with book and written styles led to its use only among social groups who were literate in German, since literacy was then the privilege of the clergy, urban intelligentsia, including figures of the imperial, princely and city offices, partly the nobility, representatives which were often illiterate, the bulk of the urban and rural population remained speakers of territorial dialects.

In subsequent centuries the ratio changes. The dialect is displaced as a result of the onset of the literary language and different types regional koine or interdialects (see below), and it retains its strongest position in rural areas, especially in settlements more remote from large centers.

The stability of the dialect is differentiated among different age groups of the population. Typically, the older generation remains faithful to the territorial dialect, while the younger generation is predominantly a speaker of regional Koine. In the conditions of the existence of standardized literary languages, the relationship between the social base of the literary language and the dialect is a very complex picture, since the factors determining the social base are not only the differentiation of city and rural residents, but also age and educational qualifications.

Numerous works carried out in recent decades on the material different languages, showed approximately the same type of social stratification of literary and non-literary forms in those countries where the territorial dialect retains significant structural differences from the literary language and where the role of the language standard is relatively limited.

It is also very significant that even in modern conditions in different countries there is a kind of bilingualism, when someone who speaks a literary language and uses it in official spheres of communication uses a dialect in everyday life, as was observed in Italy, Germany, and Arab countries. Social stratification thus intersects with stratification by spheres of communication. The use of literary language in everyday life is perceived in some parts of Norway as a certain affectation. This phenomenon is characteristic not only of modern linguistic relations: wherever the functional system of the literary language was limited to book styles, the dialect turned out to be the most common means of oral communication, initially competing not with the oral-colloquial styles of the literary language, which did not yet exist, but with everyday -colloquial koine, the latter are formalized at a certain stage in the development of society and are associated primarily with the growth of urban culture. Apparently, typologically, oral-conversational styles of the literary language develop at a later historical stage than everyday colloquial Koine; those social strata that used the literary language in such public spheres, as public administration, religion, fiction, in everyday life they previously used either a dialect, which in these conditions had the status of a regionally limited, but socially popular means of communication, or regional koine.

V. Since the literary language, no matter what historical varieties it appears in, is always the only processed form of the existence of a language, opposed to raw forms, the specificity of the literary language, as noted above, is associated with a certain selection and relative regulation. Neither the territorial dialect, nor the forms intermediate between the territorial dialect and the literary language, are characterized by such selection and regulation. It should be emphasized that the presence of selection and relative regulation does not mean the existence of standardization and codification of strict norms. Therefore, one cannot unconditionally accept the statement made by A.V. Isachenko (see p. 505) that the literary language is contrasted with other forms of language existence as a normalized language type to an unstandardized one. Both the form of this statement and its content raise objections. The norm, although not conscious and not codified, but making unhindered communication possible, is also characteristic of the dialect, as a result of which it is hardly possible to accept the opposition of the normalized type of language to the non-standardized type. Irregularity, a certain instability characterizes rather different interdialects, about which see in detail below). On the other hand, if by a normalized type we mean the presence of a consistent codification of conscious norms, i.e. the presence of normalization processes, then these processes develop only in certain historical conditions, most often in the national era, although exceptions are possible (cf. the system of norms presented in Panini's grammar), and characterize only a certain type of literary language (see below). Selection and the associated relative regulation of language precede normalization processes. Selection and regulation are expressed in stylistic standards, so specific to the language of the epic, in the use of certain lexical layers, which is also characteristic of the language of epic poetry among different peoples. These processes are very intense in the language of chivalric poetry in Western Europe, where a unique layer of class vocabulary is taking shape. What is common to the language of knightly poetry is the desire to avoid the use of everyday vocabulary and colloquial expressions. In fact, the same trends are indicated in the ancient literary languages of China and Japan, in Arab countries, in the Uzbek written literary language; The ancient Georgian literary language also shows strict selection and regulation (monuments from the 5th century. n. BC), reaching a high degree of processing. One of the manifestations of this selection is the inclusion of a certain layer of borrowed book vocabulary.

Selection and relative regulation characterize, however, not only the vocabulary of a literary language. Predominance in certain periods the history of many literary languages, book and written styles is one of the incentives for the implementation of selection and regulation in syntax and phonetic-spelling systems. Syntactic disorganization, characteristic of spontaneous spoken speech, is overcome in literary languages through the gradual formation of an organized syntactic whole. Models of book-written and spoken syntactic structures coexist in the language system: this primarily relates to the design of a complex syntactic whole, but may also apply to other structures. Literary language is not only a creative factor in the creation of new syntactic models associated with the system of book and written styles, but also carries out their selection from the existing syntactic inventory and thereby relative regulation.

In contrast to the era of strict consistent codification in the literary language, in the pre-national period the possibility of relatively wide variability prevails in it, despite selection (see chapter “Norm”).

In the pre-national period, selection and relative regulation are clearly visible in cases where the literary language combines the features of several dialect regions, which is observed especially clearly in the history of the Dutch language in the 13th - 15th centuries, where there was a change in the leading regional variants of the literary language: in the 13th - 14th centuries . In connection with the economic and political prosperity of Flanders, first its western and then eastern regions became the center of development of the literary language. The West Flemish version of the literary language is replaced in this regard in the 14th century. the East Flemish variant, characterized by a significantly greater leveling of local features. In the 15th century, when Brabant, with its centers in Brussels and Antwerp, began to play a leading political, economic and cultural role, a new version of the regional literary language developed here, combining the traditions of the older Flemish literary language and the generalized features of the local dialect, achieving a certain unification. Such a unification of different regional traditions of the literary language is realized only as a result of selection and more or less conscious regulation, although not codified. The development of literary languages is partly carried out in connection with a change in the principle of selection. Characterizing the processes of development of the Russian literary language, R.I. Avanesov wrote, in particular, about the phonetic system: “The phonetic system of the literary language develops by discarding some variants of one or another link and replacing them with other variants,” but this process is due to a certain selection, due to which is why not all new phonetic phenomena characterizing the development of the dialect are reflected in the literary language.

Due to the fact that selection and regulation are the most important distinguishing features of literary languages, some scientists have put forward the position that a literary language, in contrast to the “national language” (see below for the concept of “national language”), does not have internal development. at all levels of its system. So, for example, the development of the phonetic and morphological subsystems is carried out, according to this concept, outside the boundaries of the “literary language”. “Internal laws of development,” wrote R.I. Avanesov, “are inherent in a literary language, primarily in such areas as enriching the vocabulary, in particular, word formation, syntax, and semantics.” In this regard, he comes to the general conclusion that it is not internal development, but selection and regulation that primarily characterize literary language. Such a general statement requires some critical remarks.

Undoubtedly, as has been repeatedly noted in this work, it is selection and relative regulation that are the most general, one might say, typological features of literary languages. But they should hardly be opposed to the internal laws of development. Therefore, in general, the fair remark of R.I. Avanesov that, when applied to the phonetic system in a literary language, selection dominates, but not organic development, requires certain reservations. Indeed, in those cases where a change in the phonetic system is carried out, it would seem, regardless of the usage of the spoken language, this position does not remain valid. For example, the accentological system of the German language has undergone significant changes due to the inclusion of foreign language vocabulary of predominantly book origin, i.e. vocabulary that originally functioned only in a literary language. If, in relation to ancient periods of history, the accent type of the German language can be characterized as having an accent assigned to the first syllable, then the emergence of productive lexical groups with stress at the end of the word, for example, verbs ending in -ieren (like spazieren), formed according to the French verb model, makes such a characterization inaccurate. However, it is indisputable that when applied to units of other linguistic levels, including the morphological subsystem, the specific structural features of the literary language manifest themselves more strongly. In particular, in the German language the design of a special form bud. vr. with werden, as well as the second bud. vr., paradigms of conditionalis and infinitive perfect of action. and suffering voices occurred mainly in literary language. In Finnish, some forms of the passive (passive with the verb to be) are apparently formed under the influence Swedish and are associated primarily with the book and written tradition.

Normalization processes and codification - the distinctive features of mainly national literary languages - are prepared in previous periods by less strict, less consistent, less conscious selection and regulation, coexisting with wide variability. The acceptability of variants coexists with the norm in the national period of the history of languages, but in the pre-national period the very concept of the norm was broader, allowing for a different range of variation.

VI. The relationship between the literary language and dialect - the degree of their closeness and divergence intersects with the relationship between the literary language and colloquial forms of communication. Obviously, the maximum discrepancy is between old written literary languages (in those cases where they continue to function along with developing new literary languages) and dialects, as was the case, in particular, in China, Japan, Arab countries, etc. However, in other historical conditions in those countries where there is significant dialect fragmentation and the position of the dialect is relatively stable, the discrepancies between individual dialects and the literary language can be quite significant. Thus, in Norway, one of the variants of the literary language bokmel (see below) differs from the dialect not only in the phonetic system, but also in other aspects of the linguistic structure: a comparison of the North Norwegian dialect Rana melet on the shores of the Ranafjord with riksmel or bokmel reveals for example, the following features: plural. Some nouns like haest "horse" have the ending -a in the dialect, and -er in bokmel; present vr. the verb “to come” in the dialect is gaem, in Bokmmel - komer; pronoun “I” in the dialect - eg, in Bokmmel - je; question pronoun “who”, “what” in the dialect - kem, ke, in bokmel - vem, kem, etc. .

When determining the degree of divergence between the literary language and the dialect, it is necessary to keep in mind the fact that a number of structural elements characterize exclusively the literary language. This applies not only to certain layers of vocabulary, including its foreign language layer, political and scientific terminology, etc., but also to the structural elements of morphology and syntax (see p. 522).

The literary language in some cases turns out to be more archaic than the dialect. Thus, in the Russian literary language the system of three genders is firmly maintained in the entire nominal paradigm, in dialectally colored speech cf. R. is supplanted by feminine forms. R. (cf. my beautiful dress). In the German literary language the form gender is preserved. etc., whereas in dialects it has long become uncommon, etc. But at the same time, the dialect often retains elements that have disappeared in the literary language.

It is also significant that different territorial dialects of the same language show different degrees of proximity to the literary language: in Italy, the dialects of Tuscany were closer to the common literary language than the dialects of other regions, which is associated with the processes of formation of the Italian literary language; in France, during the era of the formation of the unity of the literary language, the closest thing to it was the French dialect, which served as the basis for the formation of the literary language; in China, the northern dialect stands out in this regard, etc.

In this regard, the closeness of territorial dialects to those regional variants of literary languages (mainly in the feudal era) that are associated with the linguistic characteristics of certain dialect territories is also noted. When applied to the Russian language, the literary and written traditions of Kyiv, Novgorod, Ryazan, Pskov, and Moscow were highlighted. G. O. Vinokur therefore even pointed out that “the language of Old Russian writing, no matter what stylistic features it may differ, is, in principle, a dialect language.” While not agreeing with this formulation, since in principle it was the stylistic features, the combination of Old Church Slavonic and Russian linguistic elements that determined the supra-dialectal nature of the language of Old Russian monuments, we note, however, the certainly greater proximity of these variants of the written literary language to the characteristic features of the corresponding dialect areas.

Closely related to the question of the relationship between the structural characteristics of a literary language and a dialect is the problem of the dialect base of national literary languages. Without dwelling on this issue here, since it is discussed in more detail in other sections, we only note that, as material from the history of different languages shows, the process of formation of a single literary language of the national period is so complex, the patterns of this process are so specific in comparison with the life of a territorial dialect and the forms of combination in this process of the features of spoken koine of a certain territory (and not just a dialect) and the features of different intersecting traditions of a book language are so diverse that in the history of literary languages with a long written tradition, rarely is a single norm of a literary language a codification of a system of dialect features of one particular locality . This was noted in studies on material from different languages by many authors; this point of view was most consistently developed on material from the Russian language by F. P. Filin. In this regard, R. A. Budagov identifies two ways of development of a literary language on the basis of a dialect: either one of the dialects (usually the capital or metropolitan in the future) turns into the basis of a literary language, or the literary language absorbs elements of different dialects, subjecting them to certain processing and melting into a new system. France, Spain, as well as England and the Netherlands are given as examples of the first path, and Italy and Slovakia as examples of the second path. However, in the context of the existing change in the dialect base and the interaction of different written and literary traditions, it is unlikely that the English and Dutch literary languages are suitable illustrations for the first path, since it was here that the “absorption by the literary language of elements of different dialects” took place, which were processed and melted into a new system . There is also doubt about the extent to which urban Koine (Paris, London, Moscow, Tashkent, Tokyo, etc.) can be considered territorial dialects in the proper sense of the word. In any case, when applied to the dialect of Moscow, London, and Tashkent, their interdialectal nature seems very likely. Apparently, in most cases, for the processes of formation of unified norms of literary languages, the decisive role was played not by the system of construction features of territorial dialects, but by urban koine, which have a more or less interdialectal character.

However, for a large part of Russian residents, the language of everyday communication is dialect. A dialect is the smallest territorial variety of language spoken by residents of one village or several nearby villages. Dialects, like literary languages, have their own linguistic laws. This means that every speaker of a dialect knows what to say in his dialect and what not to say. “Our villagers say this way, but Zhytitsy has a (completely) different gavorka (dialect, adverb),” they note in the village of Kashkurino, Smolensk region. True, these laws are not clearly understood, much less have a written set of rules. Russian dialects are characterized by only an oral form of existence, unlike, for example, German dialects and the literary language, which have oral and written forms of existence.

The scope of the dialect is much narrower than the literary language, which is a means of communication (communication) for all people who speak Russian. It should be noted that the literary language constantly influences dialects through school, radio, television, and the press. This partly destroys traditional speech. In turn, dialect norms influence the literary language, which leads to the emergence of territorial varieties of the literary language.

The contrast between the Moscow and St. Petersburg literary norms is widely known (the latter was formed under the influence of northwestern dialects), for example, the pronunciation of the words [ch'to], kone[ch'n]o in St. Petersburg with [shto], kone[sh]o in Moscow , St. Petersburg residents pronounce hard labials in some words and word forms: se[m], eight[m]ten and other cases. In addition, the Northern Russian and Southern Russian variants of literary pronunciation differ. Thus, the first is characterized by partial preservation of okanya, and incomplete okanya, that is, the distinction between o and a in the first pre-stressed syllable, in unstressed syllables (for example, in Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Vladimir, etc.), and for the second - the pronunciation of [g] fricative (in Ryazan, Tambov, Tula, etc.) in contrast to literary [g] explosive.

Sometimes a literary language borrows words and expressions from dialects. This applies primarily to everyday and industrial-trade vocabulary: zhban - “a vessel like a jug with a lid”, gingerbread - “a kind of gingerbread, usually made with honey”, kosovitsa - “the time when bread and grass are cut”, shell - " side wall various cylindrical or conical vessels, drums, pipes." Especially often, a literary language lacks “its own” words to express feelings, that is, expressive vocabulary, which “grows old” faster than other words, losing its original expressiveness. That's when dialects come to the rescue. From the southern dialects the words came into the literary language: valandatsya - fuss, waste time pointlessly, grab - grab, greedily take, from the northeastern - joke, which means to talk, joke, and the word goof, which has spread in the colloquial slang language, is most likely origin is northwestern. It has the meaning - a slob, a slut.

It should be noted that the dialects are heterogeneous in their origin: some are very ancient, while others are younger. The dialects of primary formation are those that were widespread in the territory of the early settlement of East Slavic tribes from the 6th century to the end of the 16th century, where the language of the Russian nation was formed - in the center of the European part of Russia, including the Arkhangelsk region. In the spaces where Russian people moved, as a rule, after the 16th century, from the most different places- northern, central and southern provinces of Russia, arose

dialects of secondary education. Here the population mixed, which means the local languages they spoke also mixed, resulting in a new linguistic unity. This is how new dialects were born in the Middle and Lower Volga region, in the Urals, Kuban, Siberia and other parts of Russia. The talk of the Center is “motherly” for them.

Currently, dialect-speaking people tend to have an ambivalent attitude towards their language. Rural residents, on the one hand, evaluate their native language, comparing it with surrounding dialects, and on the other hand, with the literary language.

In the first case, when one’s own dialect is compared with the language of one’s neighbors, it is considered good, correct, beautiful, while “foreign” is usually assessed as something absurd, clumsy, and sometimes even funny. This is often reflected in ditties:

Like Baranovsky girls

They speak with the letter "ts":

"Give me some soap and a towel.

And tsulotski on petz!”

Here attention is drawn to a very common phenomenon in Russian dialects - “tsokane”, the essence of which is that in place of h, villagers in a number of places pronounce ts.

A large number of proverbs are also associated with ridiculing the speech characteristics of neighbors. “Kurisa laid the eggs on the street” is one of the teasers of this kind. In this case, another dialect feature is played out: the pronunciation of the sound [c] in place of [ts], inherent in some dialects of the Oryol, Kursk, Tambov, Belgorod, Bryansk regions. In the Russian language, the sound [ts] (affricate) consists of two elements: [t+s] = [ts], if the first element - [t] - is lost in the dialect, [s] remains in place of [ts].

Peculiarities of neighbors' pronunciation are sometimes fixed in nicknames. In the village of Popovka, Tambov region, we heard a saying: “Yes, we call them “shmyaki”, they say in shch: schishchas (now) I’ll come.” Villagers are sensitive to the differences between one dialect and another.

But when compared with the literary language, it often has its own

dialect is assessed as bad, gray, incorrect, and literary language is assessed as good, which should be imitated. Our language is so bad - like a fur coat (Voronova Valentina Efimovna, born in 1928, Yezhovskaya village, Syamzhensky district, Vologda region). We don't speak well here. And not [ce], and not [ch’e]. We lost [tse] and didn’t find [ch’e] (Kuzmicheva Ekaterina Egorovna, born in 1925, Ulyakhino village of Gus-Khrustalny district, Vladimir region).

We find similar observations about dialects in M.V. Panov’s book “The History of Russian Literary Pronunciation of the 18th-20th Centuries”: “Those who speak dialectally began to be ashamed of their speech. And before, it used to be that they were ashamed if they found themselves in an urban, non-dialectal environment. Now even in their families, the elders hear from the younger ones that they, the elders, speak “wrongly”, “uncivilized”. The voice of linguists who advise maintaining respect for the dialect and using local speech in the family, among fellow villagers (and in other conditions using the speech taught at school) - this voice was not heard. And it sounded quiet, not broadcast.”

A respectful attitude towards the literary language is natural and quite understandable: thereby its value and significance for the whole society is realized and emphasized. However, a disdainful attitude towards one’s own dialect and dialects in general as “backward” speech is immoral and unfair.

It is worth paying attention to the fact that in many countries of Western Europe they treat the study of local dialects with respect and care: in a number of French provinces, the native dialect is taught in elective classes at school and a mark for it is put on the certificate. In Germany, literary-dialectal bilingualism is generally accepted. A similar situation was observed in Russia XIX centuries: educated people, coming from the village to the capital, spoke a literary language, and at home, on their estates, when communicating with peasants and neighbors, they used the local dialect. Dialects arose in the process of historical development of the people, and the basis of any literary language is a dialect. Probably, if Moscow had not become the capital of the Russian state, our literary language would also be different. Therefore, all dialects are equivalent from a linguistic point of view.

Irina BUKRINSKAYA, researcher at the Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Olga KARMAKOVA, Candidate of Philological Sciences, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences

By clicking on the "Download archive" button, you will download the file you need completely free of charge.
Before downloading this file, think about those good essays, tests, term papers, dissertations, articles and other documents that are lying unclaimed on your computer. This is your work, it should participate in the development of society and benefit people. Find these works and submit them to the knowledge base.
We and all students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

To download an archive with a document, enter a five-digit number in the field below and click the "Download archive" button

Similar documents

Development of the Russian literary language. Varieties and branches of the national language. Function of literary language. Folk-colloquial speech. Oral and written form. Territorial and social dialects. Jargon and slang.

report, added 11/21/2006

Classification of styles of modern Russian literary language. Functional varieties of language: bookish and colloquial, their division into functional styles. Book and colloquial speech. Main features of newspaper language. Varieties of conversational style.

test, added 08/18/2009

Concept, properties, forms of existence of the national Russian language. Dialects, jargons, vernacular, literary language are forms of the historical existence of the national language. Vernacular is a stylistic means for giving speech a specific nuance.

abstract, added 10/27/2014

The position of the Russian language in modern world. The nature of perception of oral and written speech. Territorial and social dialects, vernacular, jargons. Signs, norms and features characterizing the functioning of a literary language at the beginning of the 21st century.

course work, added 05/19/2015

Review of functional styles of literary language. Characteristics of forms of colloquial speech, dialects of the Russian language and vocal systems in them. The main features of vernacular at the phonetic level. Features of social and professional jargon.

abstract, added 10/09/2013

Varieties of literary language in Ancient Rus'. The origin of the Russian literary language. Literary language: its main features and functions. The concept of the norm of a literary language as the rules of pronunciation, formation and use of linguistic units in speech.

abstract, added 08/06/2014

Subject and tasks of speech culture. Language norm, its role in the formation and functioning of a literary language. Norms of the modern Russian literary language, speech errors. Functional styles of modern Russian literary language. Basics of rhetoric.

Any national language (i.e., the language of the entire nation) is a collection of various phenomena, such as a literary language, territorial and social dialects, jargons, and vernacular.

Literary language - This is an exemplary language, its norms are considered mandatory for native speakers. According to the definition of M. M. Gukhman, a literary language is the main, supra-dialistic form of the existence of a language, characterized by more or less processing, multifunctionality, stylistic differentiation and a tendency towards regulation.

Territorial dialects(local dialects) - an oral variety of the language of a limited number of people living in a certain territory. Dialects often retain linguistic features that characterize previous periods of language development; they are the guardians of historical linguistic memory. Territorial dialects, like the literary language, have their own phonetic and grammatical system and can serve as the only means of communication for speakers of these dialects. In the Russian language, there are northern and southern dialects, between which lies a strip of Central Russian dialects that combine the features of both dialects.

Literary language And dialects - main varieties of the Russian language.

These varieties are in many ways opposite to each other.

1. Dialects are territorially confined, and the literary language is characterized by non-territoriality.
2. Literary language is the language of statehood, politics, science, art, and culture. In its special form it is also the everyday language of educated people. The dialects serve as the spoken language of the predominantly rural population. Works of folklore are also created on a dialect basis.
3. Literary language has both written and oral forms, but dialects have only oral forms.
4. The norms of the literary language are enshrined in textbooks, dictionaries, reference books, and the norms of dialects are supported by tradition.
5. The variety of functions of the literary language corresponds to the richness of its styles. Dialects are characterized by weaker stylistic differentiation.

Meanwhile, the literary language and dialects are closely related, and the nature of their interaction has changed throughout history.

The Russian literary language arose on the basis of the Moscow dialect and subsequently experienced a strong influence of dialects, which became weaker the more clearly the norms of the literary language were formalized and more strictly protected. After the orthoepic norms of the literary language begin to take shape, the influence of dialects on the literary language is limited mainly to lexical borrowings from dialects ( rustle, bagel and etc.). The influence of the literary language on dialects, on the contrary, increases throughout history and becomes especially intense with the development of the media. Dialectal features are best preserved in the language of the older generation, especially women.

In russian language vernacular - This is a historically established speech system (based on the Moscow Koine), the formation and development of which is closely connected with the formation of the Russian national language. The term “vernacular” appeared in the 16th-17th centuries. from the phrase “simple speech”. For the first time, the vernacular was recorded in the Great Biographical Encyclopedia of the “Russian-German-French Dictionary” by I. Nordstet (1780).

Vernacular- this is the spoken language of people who do not speak or deliberately ignore literary norms under certain conditions, but is not limited to a certain territory. Vernacular language is used in literary speech for the purpose of a reduced, rough assessment of the subject.

Vernacular speech usually includes a system of phonetic, morphological, lexical, syntactic and phraseological elements of non-literary speech, dialects, colloquial speech of a literary language, professional speech that contradict the literary norm.

There is also “coarse vernacular” - phonetic, grammatical, lexical irregularities characteristic of various illiterate and semi-literate people. social groups society.

Rough vernacular can be found in some socio-ethnic dialects (London Cockney, Liverpool Scouse, black dialects in the USA, Parisian or Marseille argot).

Social dialects - linguistic varieties of individual groups generated by social, class, professional and industrial, age heterogeneity of society. Social dialects have some phonetic, lexical and grammatical features, but they do not have their own system, which would be fundamentally different from the system of the literary language or dialects, of which they are branches.

Social dialects include argot and jargon.

Argo- a social variety of speech, which is characterized by narrowly professional or uniquely mastered (in semantic and word-formation relations) commonly used vocabulary, often with elements of convention, artificiality and “secrecy”. Argo - belonging to relatively closed social groups, as a rule, declassed elements (for example, thieves).

Under jargon understand the variety of speech of individual social groups that unite people based on profession (jargon of programmers), position in society, interests (jargon of philatelists), age (jargon of youth).

So, in the jargon of restaurant musicians (Labukhov) In particular, musical terms have been rethought: bekar -“refusal, failure in any matter”; flat- “large saggy belly”; B-flat- “men’s toilet”; full accordion -“euphemism”, etc.; common literary words: Oogie -"female bust" dig into -"get into a bad story" ambush -"an unpleasant, undesirable event or condition" concept- “something unclear, foggy, mysterious” play "Odessa" -“perform a hit to order”, cockroaches -“something strange, abnormal, associated with a mental disorder” (tour with cockroaches, broom with cockroaches). Adapted tracing papers are also used: block - « negative characteristic anyone or anything" backside -"ass", get involved in swing -"play something in a jazz style" get lost in the drift- “play something in a rock style”; borrowings from thieves' argot and other jargons: bashley- "money", knit a ballet! -"Stop lying!" write out the text -“get a fake certificate, document”, maza- "benefit, benefit from something."

Among the Russian student corporate jargons, one can distinguish contractions: hopelessness- "hopeless situation" naive- "naive person" cunning- "cunning person" record book -"record book", course student -"course work", laba - « laboratory work», studiok -"student ID". Using cripples adapted to the Russian grammatical system: fani- “entertainment” (from English, fun), rauchen -“to smoke” (from German. Rauchen), parlekat -“to speak” (from French. parler), get confused -“to disappear” (from French. disparaitre) etc. Borrowings from thieves' argot and other jargons: bang -"dance", kir -"binge", toss -"drink", slander -"something great" biker jacket -"thousand rubles", nadybat -"see", dumb -"best", mokos -"shoes", to wilt -"walk", bullshit -"rubbish, fake" smur, gloomy -“stupid position”, etc.

The term “slang” is synonymous with the term “jargon” and in domestic linguistic literature is applied mainly to English-speaking countries.

It should be taken into account that normativity is a property of all components of language. This situation is true for social dialects and vernacular, which are not just deviations from the literary norm enshrined in dictionaries and reference books, but complex structures with their own norms - “second-level norms.”

Literary language- a processed form of the national language, which has, to a greater or lesser extent, written norms; the language of all manifestations of culture expressed in verbal form.

Literary language is always the result of collective creative activity. The idea of the “fixedness” of the norms of a literary language has a certain relativity (despite the importance and stability of the norm, it is mobile over time). It is impossible to imagine a developed and rich culture of a people without a developed and rich literary language. This is the great social significance of the problem of the literary language itself.

There is no consensus among linguists about the complex and multifaceted concept of literary language. Some researchers prefer to talk not about literary language as a whole, but about its varieties: either written literary language, or colloquial literary language, or the language of fiction, etc.

Literary language cannot be identified with the language of fiction. These are different, although correlative concepts.

Literary language is the property of everyone who knows its norms. It functions in both written and spoken forms. The language of fiction (the language of writers), although usually guided by the same norms, contains much that is individual and not generally accepted. In different historical eras and among different peoples, the degree of similarity between the literary language and the language of fiction turned out to be unequal.

Literary language - mutual language the written language of one or another people, and sometimes several peoples - the language of official business documents, school teaching, written and everyday communication, science, journalism, fiction, all manifestations of culture expressed in verbal form, often written, but sometimes oral. That is why there are differences between written-book and oral-spoken forms of literary language, the emergence, correlation and interaction of which are subject to certain historical patterns. (Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. History of the Russian literary language. - M., 1978. - P. 288-297)

There is a difference between the literary language and the national language. The national language appears in the form of a literary language, but not every literary language immediately becomes a national language.

Literary language, a supra-dialectal subsystem (form of existence) of the national language, which is characterized by such features as normativity, codification, multifunctionality, stylistic differentiation, high social prestige among speakers of a given national language. Literary language is the main means of serving the communicative needs of society; it is contrasted with the uncodified subsystems of the national language - territorial dialects, urban koine (urban vernacular), professional and social jargons.

Language norm- a set of rules that regulate the use of linguistic means in speech.

A linguistic norm is not only a socially approved rule, but also a rule objectified by real speech practice, a rule that reflects the laws of language. systems and confirmed by the usage of authoritative writers.

The concept of "norm" applies to all levels of literary language.

1. Lexical norms First of all, they assume the correct choice of the word and the appropriateness of its use in the generally known meaning and in generally accepted combinations. Directly related to them is the stylistic, social and territorial stratification of vocabulary (vernacular and professionalisms, jargon and dialectisms). In the field of vocabulary, which is closely connected with the material and spiritual life of society, and therefore exclusively permeable to various kinds of extra-linguistic influences, the formation and development of norms follows a complex and not always predictable path. Assessing the acceptability of a word and the correctness of its use is connected with the ideology and worldview of native speakers, therefore it is here that categorical judgments are most often found, often based on the subjective perception of linguistic facts. The most complete and objective description of lexical norms is contained in authoritative explanatory dictionaries.
2. Accent norms provide for the correct placement of stress, which is an important sign of competent, literary speech. Variation and change in accent norms are due to a number of reasons: the influence of territorial dialects ( chum salmon - chum salmon, blizzard - blizzard), interlingual contacts and the influence of a foreign language accentological model ( revolver - revolver, industry - industry), social and professional speech characteristics ( production - production, report - report). However, the main factors in the development of stress are reasons of an intrasystemic nature: the influence of analogy, i.e., the assimilation of individual linguistic facts to a more general structurally similar category of words ( sparkle - sparkle by analogy with spin, twist, rush etc.), and a tendency towards rhythmic balance, causing a transition of stress in polysyllabic words from the extreme syllables closer to the center ( landing stage - landing stage, accompany - accompany). The modern Russian literary language is characterized by an increase in the grammatical function of stress. Development of inflectional stress ( on the hill - on the hill) eliminates vowel reduction in a grammatically significant position, thereby facilitating recognition of the word form.
3. Orthoepic norms presuppose the correct pronunciation of words, which is an important sign of speech culture. The main features of the development of orthoepic norms of the Russian literary language are: a) elimination of dialect pronunciation; b) erasing the differences between Moscow and St. Petersburg pronunciation; c) bringing pronunciation closer to spelling ( bile - bile, boring - boring).
4.Spelling standards- these are officially established rules that establish the uniformity of speech in writing. The scientific description of the spelling norms of the Russian language was first carried out by academician J. K. Grot. Spelling is regulated by legislation, as well as by improving spelling dictionaries.
5. Morphological norms- these are the rules of inflection and word formation, determining the generic affiliation of a word, establishing the functional specialization of variant word forms. Compared to other language levels, morphological norms are the most formalized and therefore relatively easier to unify and standardize. Fluctuations in morphological norms are caused both by historical reasons (mixing and hybridization of types of declension, conjugation, etc.) and by the influence of enduring intrasystem factors: the contradiction between the form and content of linguistic units ( terrible cold And terrible cold), the influence of grammatical analogy ( caplet And dripping- by analogy with verbs of the 1st productive class like: plays, shakes, solves and so on.). The morphological norms of the modern Russian literary language are characterized by the dependence of the choice of word form on syntactic constructions ( a bowl of soup, but usually pour the soup) and the acquisition of functional and stylistic differences by variants ( on vacation and colloquial speech on vacation, sons and in a solemn speech sons). Morphological norms are described in grammars, and fluctuations of forms with corresponding recommendations are presented in explanatory dictionaries and dictionaries of difficulties.
6. Syntactic norms require the correct construction of grammatical structures and compliance with the forms of agreement between sentence members. Fluctuations in the region management (cf.: seek help And help, demand money And money, afraid of dad And dad, full of courage And courage, production control And over production) caused by both external factors (syntactic gallicisms, influence related languages etc.), and intrasystem reasons: a) bringing the form and content of a language unit into conformity; b) semantic and formal-structural analogy; c) semantic transformation of the components of the phrase; d) the emergence of standardized word blocks, leading to a reorganization of the structure of word combinations.

Literary language and dialects

Peculiarities of pronunciation are often fixed in nicknames. So, you can hear: “Yes, we call them shchimyaki, they are on sch They say; here, for example, tickling(Now)". The science that studies territorial varieties of language - local talk, or dialects, - called dialectology(from the Greek dialektos “talk, adverb” and logos “word, teaching”).

Each national language includes a standard language and territorial dialects. Literary, or “standard”, is the language of everyday communication, official business documents, school education, writing, science, culture, and fiction. Its distinctive feature is normalization, i.e. the presence of rules, compliance with which is mandatory for all members of society. They are enshrined in grammars, reference books and dictionaries of the modern Russian language. Dialects also have their own language laws. However, they are not clearly understood by the speakers of dialects - rural residents, much less have a written embodiment in the form of rules. Russian dialects are characterized only by oral form existence, in contrast to a literary language, which has both oral and written forms.

A dialect, or dialect, is one of the basic concepts of dialectology. A dialect is the smallest territorial variety of a language. It is spoken by residents of one or more villages. The scope of the dialect is the same as the scope of the literary language, which is a means of communication for everyone who speaks Russian.

Literary language and dialects constantly interact and influence each other. The influence of the literary language on dialects is, of course, stronger than that of dialects on the literary language. Its influence spreads through schooling, television, and radio. Gradually, dialects are destroyed and lose their characteristic features. Many words denoting rituals, customs, concepts, and household items of a traditional village have gone and are leaving along with the people of the older generation. That is why it is so important to record the living language of the village as completely and in detail as possible.

In our country, for a long time, a disdainful attitude towards local dialects as a phenomenon that needs to be combated prevailed. But it was not always so. In the middle of the 19th century. In Russia there is a peak of public interest in folk speech. At this time, the “Experience of the Regional Great Russian Dictionary” (1852) was published, where dialect words were specially collected for the first time, and the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by Vladimir Ivanovich Dahl in 4 volumes (1863-1866), also including a large number of dialect words. Lovers of Russian literature actively helped collect materials for these dictionaries. Magazines and provincial newspapers of that time published various kinds of ethnographic sketches, dialect descriptions, and dictionaries of local sayings from issue to issue.

The opposite attitude towards dialects was observed in the 30s. of our century. In the era of the breakdown of the village - the period of collectivization - the destruction of old ways of farming, family life, peasant culture, i.e., all manifestations of the material and spiritual life of the village was proclaimed. A negative attitude towards dialects has spread in society. For the peasants themselves, the village turned into a place from which they had to flee in order to save themselves, to forget everything connected with it, including the language. An entire generation of rural residents, having deliberately abandoned their language, at the same time failed to perceive a new language system for them - the literary language - and master it. All this led to the decline of language culture in society.

A respectful and careful attitude towards dialects is characteristic of many nations. For us, the experience of Western European countries is interesting and instructive: Austria, Germany, Switzerland, France. For example, in schools in a number of French provinces, an elective in the native dialect has been introduced, a mark for which is included in the certificate. In Germany and Switzerland, literary-dialectal bilingualism and constant communication in the dialect in the family are generally accepted. In Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. educated people, coming from the village to the capital, spoke the literary language, and at home, on their estates, communicating with neighbors and peasants, they often used the local dialect.

Nowadays, people who speak a dialect have an ambiguous attitude towards their language. In their minds, the native dialect is assessed in two ways: 1) through comparison with other, neighboring dialects and 2) through comparison with the literary language. The emerging opposition between “one’s own” (one’s own dialect) and “alien” has different meanings. In the first case, when “foreign” is a different dialect, it is often perceived as something bad, ridiculous, something that can be laughed at, and “our own” - as correct, pure. In the second case, “one’s own” is assessed as bad, “gray”, incorrect, and “alien” - literary language - as good. This attitude towards the literary language is completely justified and understandable: thereby its cultural value is realized.