The literary language is Literary language

Plan:

1. Introduction

2.Literary language and its properties

3.Conclusion

4. List of used literature

1. Introduction

The literary language is basically a national language, processed and creatively enriched by the masters of the word, therefore it must be considered as the highest achievement of the speech culture of the people. This highest form common mother tongue, the result of the speech creativity of the whole people, led by its outstanding masters of the word. Means and norms literary expression are not only created by all native speakers, but - which is very important - are carefully and carefully protected by society as a great cultural value. The activity of the masters of the word, as it were, leads and crowns this entire creative process.

“Language is created by the people,” said A.M. Gorky. - The division of the language into literary and folk only means that we have, so to speak, a "raw" language and processed by masters. The first who perfectly understood this was Pushkin, he was the first to show how to use the speech material of the people, how to process it.

Being a very complex, historically developing social phenomenon, the literary language underwent significant changes in the process of development. Therefore, in different epochs, including the ancient one, the very methods and techniques of literary processing of the national language changed and improved. This processing and polishing of speech means, no doubt, took place in ancient periods. As proof, one can refer to excellent examples of the masterfully crafted language of the Tale of Igor's Campaign. It is also impossible not to emphasize the significance of the fact that the author of the Lay consciously chooses in what style he should narrate - in the style of Boyan or “according to the epics of this time”, and then motivates his choice.

2. Literary language as the highest form of the national language.

One of the most important tasks of the history of the literary language is to determine the nature and role in the creative processing of the national language of those outstanding figures whom Gorky called "masters of the word." It would be completely wrong to believe that the masters of the word should be understood exclusively as writers. Such a point of view not only narrows to the limit the circle of persons who play an outstanding role in the development of the means of literary expression, but also incorrectly and one-sidedly represents the very process of the development of the literary language.

Since the literary language is a complex system of styles (fiction, socio-journalistic, scientific, production-technical, documentary-business, etc.), historically developing and in constant interaction, writers play an outstanding role in the development of styles poetry and prose, as well as the stylistic system of the literary language. But not only writers are the creators of the literary language. It is impossible, for example, to belittle the role of prominent scientists who took part in the formation of styles of scientific presentation. This applies, for example, to Lomonosov; laid the solid foundations of styles scientific works in chemistry, physics, etc., and who created many scientific terms that are widely known in the literary language. The same can be said about Belinsky's role in shaping the styles of literary criticism. No less important is the role of advanced public figures, critics and publicists, such as Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, who had a huge impact on the development of social and journalistic styles of the Russian literary language in the second half of the 19th century.

Vocabulary and phraseology of the literary language, replenished not only at the expense of national speech reserves, but also by borrowing, and also due to the appearance of many neologisms in different styles of the literary language, in turn, begins to be used in the entire national language and becomes commonly used. Thus, the literary language is not only constantly replenished with the words of the national language, but, in turn, supplies new and vitally necessary words to the national language. For example, the words communism, revolution, agitation, propaganda became widely known through the public-journalistic styles of the literary language characteristic of the revolutionary-democratic literature of the 19th century. Before entering the vocabulary of the national Russian language, they were first used in the styles of revolutionary-democratic journalism, then spreading into the styles of scientific-philosophical, official-documentary, fiction, etc.

Not everything that the vocabulary and grammatical structure of the national language has is selected as part of the means of literary expression. Usually, the following remain outside the modern literary language: a) dialect words and expressions, as well as some elements of word formation and syntactic constructions characteristic of a dialect or a group of them: a washcloth, a snake, a mother, the grass must be mowed; b) colloquial words used in popular speech, but not having literary rights: stun, podkuzmit, rot, burn, lemonade, etc., as well as colloquial meanings of many commonly used words: roll in, drive in, close up (“hit”), pull off (“steal”), inflate (“deceive”), smear (“miss”), not to mention some elements of a colloquial nature in pronunciation (Chekhov’s remark is interesting: “Lakeys should speak simply, without letting go and taperich”); c) slang vocabulary and phraseology and elements of word usage characteristic of the jargons that existed in the past; d) slang words and expressions characteristic, for example, of thieves' slang, as well as the slang of gamblers, people of the social bottom, etc.; e) specific professional terms, although they have literary rights (for example, automotive terms), but are not included in many styles of the literary language due to the limited scope of their application and incomprehensibility to non-specialists.

The inclusion of far from all professional and technical terms in the vocabulary of the literary language and in normative dictionaries allows us to draw the following conclusion, which sheds light on the specifics of the literary language: the leading styles of the literary language are the styles of fiction, journalistic, etc. They are generally understandable and accessible.

In addition to the selection of various speech means of the national language, their creative processing is also carried out by the masters of the word. Let us turn to what exactly should be understood by this processing. It is expressed as follows.

1. There is a further development of the meanings of commonly used words, carried out in accordance with internal laws language development. For example, in Gorky's expression " former people» the word former is used in a new, socio-ideological meaning.

2. Phraseological innovation is being carried out, enriching the language with well-aimed figurative sayings, new successful phrases, for example, Saltykov-Shchedrin's soft-bodied intellectual.

3. The means of verbal and artistic representation are developing and enriching - comparisons, metaphors, epithets, paraphrases, verbal puns, etc.

4. New words are created, and some fruits of the word creation of writers, scientists and publicists become the property of common vocabulary, for example, the words industry, future, introduced into the literary language by N. M. Karamzin.

5. In the process of processing the national language, there is a continuous improvement and improvement of its grammatical structure. For example, from the time of Pushkin to the present day, along with a serious replenishment of the vocabulary of the Russian language, its grammatical structure has also improved (for more details, see the chapter “On the Role of the National fiction in the development of the Russian literary language in the 19th century).

Unwritten literary languages, as a rule, do not exist. The formation of the Russian literary language, the polishing of its means and norms have been swaying since the appearance of writing in Russia. As for the traditions of oral poetry that existed before, they should apparently be considered as a prehistory, as such a process of speech creativity, the accumulation of linguistic and stylistic values, without which the emergence of a literary language, usually considered as an exemplary language, is impossible. In addition, the language of oral poetry is in no way identical to the literary language with a system of various styles developed in it, including documentary-business, epistolary, etc.

Thus, the literary language is the language of literature in the broad sense of the word (artistic, scientific, journalistic, etc.); this explains its specific qualities and the name itself.

The existence in the literary language of two main varieties - written and bookish and oral and colloquial, developing in close unity, provides the most interesting material for the knowledge of different aspects of the same phenomenon. Colloquial literary speech in relation to the lexical and phraseological composition basically coincides with the book. It is distinguished only by the characteristic that distinguishes syntactic constructions and norms of word usage that determine the stylistic profile. colloquial speech.

Alignment with the norms of live colloquial speech, the desire to get rid of specifically bookish, sometimes heavy and cumbersome constructions and turns - this is one of the main patterns that are characteristic of the historical development of the Russian literary language, and primarily styles of fiction. Decisively breaking with the outdated traditional bookish, conventionally rhetorical devices of narration, many Russian writers of the 19th century practiced various stylization techniques, reproducing in fiction the means and

methods of expression characteristic of colloquial speech. For example,. " Captain's daughter"Written on behalf of Grinev," History of the village of Goryukhin "- on behalf of Belkin; in "Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka" the narrator Rudy Panko is stylized; in "A Hero of Our Time" stories by Maxim Maksimych are given or a magazine / Pechorin is reproduced; many stories by V. Dahl, Turgenev and other writers were not written from the author, but are told by some character, which made it possible to stylize lively and diverse colloquial speech.

The importance of writing for the formation and development of the literary language can hardly be overestimated. It allows you to preserve the values ​​of the national culture of the word created and accumulated over many centuries; it contributes to the stability of the language, captures the entire path of its historical development, helps to take shape and form the most vital traditions of literary expression and their popularization. The very concept of a literary norm is inconceivable without the historically established and fixed by writing and tradition methods and techniques of exemplary expression.

Speaking about the meaning of writing, it is necessary to clarify the very term "written language", which is sometimes used in relation to the language of ancient Russian writing. Strictly speaking, the term "written language" can only be used in relation to a foreign language, introduced from outside, which temporarily serves the needs of the people. For example, until the 15th century, the Poles had written Latin, which was used in worship and legal proceedings. Such written languages ​​eventually become dead languages ​​due to the lack of a living, organic connection with the common language.

As for the Old Russian literary language, it cannot be called a “written language”, because it was not a kind of autonomy, did not have its own special vocabulary and grammatical structure, but was organically connected and therefore correlated with the spoken language of ancient Russia.

The specificity of the literary language is that it is a normalized language both in terms of vocabulary and grammatical structure. Unlike dialects, jargons, as well as colloquial linguistic means, a literary language is unthinkable without a historically developing literary norm. It is designed to establish and legitimize the use of a well-known range of words and their meanings (lexico-semantic norms), morphological structure and syntactic constructions (grammatical norms), typical for the literary language and its styles, as well as the very methods and techniques of using speech means, methods of creating artistic means. figurativeness (stylistic norms), not to mention the uniform pronunciation adopted for each language at a certain period of its development (orthoepic norms).

The literary norm changes depending on the development of the language. For example, in the Russian language, from the time of Pushkin to the present day, there have been some changes in vocabulary and grammatical structure. This, of course, could not but be reflected in the concept of a literary norm, which cannot be anti-historical, cannot go against the current and prescribe to the language what does not correspond to its state and development trends that are constantly found in the language. Language normalizers should not lag behind the century and keep the obsolete, disappearing in the language.

The most important task of the literary norm is to capture the new, vital, typical for the entire language. The creator and bearer of the language is the people. Therefore, the literary norm should be universal, modern and reflect the progressive development of the language.

Since under the concept of a literary language, two of its most important varieties are combined - bookish and colloquial, then the questions of the norm and culture of speech relate to tone and another, but above all - to the bookish-literary language, which serves the task of the widest cultural communication; it is on its basis that a national language norm is created. Prof. E. S. Istrina emphasizes that the spoken language, while maintaining the general literary norm, is still less refined, less rigorous in its system: “ Colloquial serves small groups, and usually more or less close people; it manifests itself mainly in mutual conversation, in dialogue, in questions and answers; facial expressions, gestures, intonation occupy a significant place in it. He is more mobile and less responsible. It has a different choice of words, other forms are acceptable; it has a less distinct pronunciation. Spoken language allows the so-called vernacular and approaches it.

Literary language is usually opposed to vernacular. Such opposition sheds light on the originality and correlation of these two linguistic categories. In contrast to the literary language with its generally recognized literary norm, vernacular qualifies as a deviation from this norm, as non-literary speech, as attributes of various social and speech styles characteristic of popular colloquial everyday speech.

The vernacular includes those numerous and very diverse in their origin speech means that remain outside the literary language and are considered as familiarly simplified, sometimes rude, not characteristic of book speech and exemplary language, but widely known in colloquial speech.

Colloquial words differ from dialectisms in that they do not exist in any one dialect, but are known to the whole people. Such, for example, words as huddle (used by Pushkin), rot (Gogol), crowd (Shchedrin) and others, some of which are classified by the Academic Dictionary of 1847 as colloquial, known to all the people. A significant part of this kind of words, qualified, for example, by the Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language (1789) as vernacular, eventually entered the literary language. These are the words: toddle, stray, be young, wedding, youth and others, which in the dictionaries of the 19th century and modern ones no longer have stylistic marks indicating their colloquial character.

From this we can conclude that vernacular is a reserve, due to which the vocabulary of the literary language is replenished. A prominent role in the system of means of figurative expression is also played by those colloquial meanings that arise in commonly used words as a result of their metaphorical use (roll - “write”, and cuts - “speaks smartly”, etc.).

Not all elements of vernacular were included in the memory of history into the system of means of literary expression. This applies, for example, not only to rough-familiar words (to get drunk, empty talk, etc.), but also to many elements of word production (dealaga, ordinary, letos, darma, etc.). These colloquial elements are prevented from joining the means of literary expression by their peculiar “stylistic passport”, indicating that they belong to various social and speech styles.

Socio-speech styles are distinguished by the peculiarities of word usage, numerous branches of popular colloquial speech. Spoken speech is certainly far from homogeneous: it has many varieties, the nature of which depends on the heterogeneity of the native speakers themselves. Various social strata introduce some specific features into colloquial speech, reflecting the range of their interests, tastes and favorite methods of expression.

It is known that jargons are created by the upper strata of the propertied classes, who broke away from the people and tried to oppose themselves to the people in relation to speech culture. In addition to these strata, there are various social groups and strata in society, which also differ somewhat in terms of the use of the language, stand out in relation to the specifics of word usage.

Unlike jargons, which have specific and most importantly unknown and often incomprehensible words and expressions for the people, social speech styles of colloquial speech are understandable and accessible to everyone in terms of the composition and nature of the vocabulary and grammatical material involved. But with all this, a special seal lies, for example, on the word usage of Chekhov's non-commissioned officer Prishibeev, Pushkin's Savelich, Gogol's Manilov, the Old Believers depicted by Melnikov-Pechersky, Shchedrin's officials and pompadours, etc.

So, socio-speech styles are categories of a stylistic nature that differ in specific methods of word usage (selection of words, their arrangement and the use of some of them in special meanings, the use favorite turns and expressions, the widespread use of colloquial speech means, the originality of pronunciation, etc.). Taking into account the diversity of these socio-speech styles of Russian colloquial speech and the analysis of speech means characteristic of them make it possible to comprehensively understand the very complex and interesting processes of interaction between literary spoken language and many varieties and branches of popular colloquial speech.

A very interesting question is: are social-speech styles included in the system of oral-colloquial literary speech? The solution of this issue is possible only if we take into account the extent to which the speech means typical of these styles correspond to the literary norm, which is mandatory not only for the written and bookish, but also for the oral and colloquial variety of the literary language.

If, for example, the socio-speech styles characteristic of the colloquial speech of cultured people (for example, doctors, artists, scientists, teachers, etc.), in terms of the composition of speech means and the norms of their use, do not deviate from the literary norm (with a few exceptions narrowly professional words and turns of speech, for example, in the speech of teachers: a window in the schedule, eliminate tails), then, of course, they are included in the system of oral literary speech. As for the speech means that once existed, for example, s social speech styles typical of merchants, clerks, matchmakers, etc. (cf. , just a golden idol"), then they were deviations from the literal norm and therefore were not included in the system of colloquial literary speech. There are many grounds for asserting that dialectal means no longer replenish the vocabulary of the Russian literary language, are not included in its many styles. Involved in works of art, they perform certain stylistic functions, that is, they serve as material for stylization and creation of characters' speech (as can be seen in Sholokhov and other writers).

At different stages of the development of the Russian literary language, the role of double-talk speech means also changed. During the periods of formation of the Russian nationality, and then the nation, local dialects, which are offshoots of the national language, are the most important source from which it is replenished.

As it develops, the literary language begins to rely more and more not on any one dialect, but on the entire national language. This is especially noticeable in that period of language development, when the language of the people grows up on the basis of tribal languages, and when, consequently, the role of an individual dialect and its relation to the literary language are significantly modified. Therefore, one of the most important tasks facing the history of the Russian literary language is to determine at what stages of its development dialectisms were a reserve and a source from which literary vocabulary was replenished.

Each national literary language has its own history, its own patterns of development. Because of this, it is possible to solve the problem of dialectisms, which replenished the composition of the means of literary expression, only in relation to a single language. The history of the Russian literary language convinces us that already at the end of the 19th century, local dialect words ceased to be a significant reserve for replenishing the literary vocabulary.

Dialects that have their own grammatical structure and basic vocabulary, in the course of the historical development of the language of nations, gradually lose their specificity, merge into it and dissolve in it. Everything vital, typical, necessary for the language as a means of communication, an instrument for the development of society, was, therefore, selected from these dialects into a common language. In the dialects, only those words remained and were preserved for which synonyms have already taken shape in the national language, widely known to the whole people. For example, felt boots, in dialects - wire rod; swede - kalega, etc.

After all that has been said, the practice of Pushkin, Shchedrin and other writers who avoided the use of dialectisms becomes understandable. Undoubtedly, Gorky was deeply right when he asserted that "a writer should write in Russian, and not in Vyatka, not in a robe."

Thus, the sources and reserves, due to which the literary language is formed and developed, change historically. At the same time, it turns out that some of the reserves that were used by the Russian literary language during the period of the development of the language of the Russian people, later, during the transition from the language of the people to the language of the nation, become already basically exhausted and therefore cease to be sources. Since that time, the literary language has already had a huge impact on dialects, has been a hotbed of new words and expressions, which is especially characteristic of the development of the national Russian language in Soviet era.

The literary language is characterized by the stability of the main and most important elements of its vocabulary, phraseology, morphology, syntax, and means of artistic representation. Therefore, it is difficult to assume that ever well-known literary words cock, mittens, krinka will be replaced or supplanted by dialect synonyms (kochet, fur coats, mahotka).

As for the appearance in the language of new words necessary to designate new concepts and objects, then, as the development of the vocabulary of the Russian language in the Soviet era convinces, they are not attracted from local dialects, but are created using various methods of word production, as well as by rethinking well-known words and borrowings from other languages.

The task of the course in the history of the Russian literary language is to study the process of formation and development of the language of fiction, journalistic, scientific, documentary-grandfather literature and its other most important genres, which correspond to varieties of language called styles. The historical development of the literary language as a system of styles, the formation of lexico-phraseological, morphological, syntactic means, as well as methods of verbal and artistic representation, characteristic of each style, constitute the subject and main content of this course.

It differs from the historical grammar of the Russian language in terms of tasks, material and research method.

Being engaged in the study of the development of the sound and grammatical structure of the language from ancient times to our time, historical grammar traces this development in relation to different types of written and colloquial speech. The task of the history of the literary language is to study the issue of normalizing grammatical means, and most importantly, their stylistic differentiation and patterns of use in accordance with the emerging styles of the language.

Considering the history of the literary language as a process of development and improvement of the entire speech culture of the people, the process of forming a complex system of means of literary expression, we must give a proper place in it to the best Russian writers. Their language was a model of literary speech, as well as the embodiment of the national literary norm. If this course is devoted only to the development of grammatical; phonetic and lexical means of the literary language, defining what is characteristic of each era, then in such an “anatomized” form it will be identified with historical grammar, as well as with historical lexicology. In this case, it is impossible to create a holistic view of real life and the artistic and aesthetic value of the literary language, of the richness of the function and areas of its use.

The main thing that distinguishes the course of the history of the literary language is the study of not only the composition of the normalized means of expression, but also their functioning in various types speech. Having limited ourselves to the analysis of only the composition of grammatical and lexical means, we will return to the unsuccessful experience of E.F. V. V. Vinogradov, is “an insufficiently systematized collection of phonetic, morphological, and partly lexical facts characteristic of the Russian language of the 18th and early 19th centuries” (see “Russian Science of the Russian Literary Language”, “ scholarly notes Moscow State University, vol. III, book. I, 1946).

Thus, the very nature of the literary language predicts two main aspects of the study of its development: historical and stylistic, which should not be opposed to each other, but, on the contrary, organically combined. The study of all means of the literary language should be historical and stylistic, analyzing the development of not only the composition of speech means, but also the patterns of their use in different types of speech.

The literary language is a system of styles, the ratio and nature of the interaction of which change in different eras, depending on the development of the language in connection with the development of society.

Style should be understood as a historically developed variety of the literary language, which is distinguished by a peculiar structure of speech, the selection and combination of speech means, as well as traditional norms for their use.

The development of the styles of the literary language cannot be considered in isolation from the development of the genres of literature, understood in a broad sense (that is, including scientific, journalistic, production-technical literature, etc.). Both the very composition of speech means and the norms of their use are closely related to the genre of the work. Moreover, the genre principle underlies the selection and classification of the styles of the literary language themselves. So, in accordance with the real existence of journalism as a certain genre of literature, a journalistic style is distinguished. The same should be said about the styles of fiction, documentary business, etc.

In order to trace the development of each style and its relation to other styles, to establish how, in the memory of history, one style ceded its leading position to another, it is necessary to characterize the main groups of styles of the modern Russian literary language. In accordance with the genres of writing of our time, the following troupes of styles are distinguished in the modern Russian literary language:

1. Fiction styles, which include two main varieties: styles of poetry and styles of prose.

2. Social and journalistic styles, which include
newspaper and magazine styles, styles of literary critical works, styles of various social pamphlets, accusatory articles, essays, etc. are distinguished.

3. Styles of scientific presentation, the composition of which and the nature of their favorite speech means are extremely diverse. In connection with the powerful development of science and the increasing specialization of knowledge, the styles of scientific presentation are also changing significantly. Therefore, for example, the style of medical work differs markedly from the style of mathematical work, and the latter, in turn, differs significantly from the style of scientific and philosophical work. The same can be said about legal works, which are also very specific in terms of the structure of speech.

4. Professional and technical styles, which are characteristic of industrial and technical literature that serves the needs and requirements of extremely diverse professions, for the fields of technology, for military affairs and other fields of activity.

5. Official documentary styles, in turn, are divided into a number of varieties, which include the style of decrees, official orders or orders, legislative documents.

6. Epistolary styles characteristic of various correspondence, diaries, letters, etc.

At different stages of the development of the literary language, the leading role of its styles also changes. If, for example, in the 18th century, the styles of poetry begin to yield their leading position to the styles of prose, then in the middle of the 19th century, social and journalistic styles come to the fore, having a great organizing influence on the development of all means and norms of literary expression.

The following question remains insufficiently clarified: what do the styles of the literary language have in common and what distinguishes them from each other? What can be considered specific to each style?

Let's look at the general first. Apparently, common to all styles of the literary language is, first of all, the grammatical structure of the language and commonly used words. Because of this, styles have a common and unified basis, which allows us to consider the literary language as a system of styles, which is a holistic synthesis of all its speech means. For example, words such as white, water, sit, yesterday and others are used in all styles of literary language. In contrast to the specific vocabulary characteristic of any style (for example, chemical, medical or mathematical terms typical of the styles of scientific works), such words are stylistically more universal, they form the first general style basis of the language.

What makes the styles different from each other? First of all, it should be pointed out that styles are characterized by special specific meanings that are created by commonly used words. For example, the word spirit has a basic and generally accepted meaning (“raise the spirit of the army”, “spirit is a reasonable force that induces action.” But this word, attracted to the styles of journalism, acquires a different meaning in them, typical of socio-political literature (for example: "the spirit of the article", i.e., the ideological direction). In scientific and philosophical styles, the word spirit is used to denote what is usually opposed to matter. In the church liturgical styles that existed in the past, the word spirit was used in the meaning of a supernatural divine being. In common parlance, it means smell or breath (“fresh, the spirit is visible). It should also be noted that styles differ from each other in specific vocabulary and phraseology. For example, in a journalistic style such terminology as “oriental question”, “women's question”, “Polish question.” This is a typical journalistic phraseology, because the word question is used not in its main meaning, but in social and journalistic ohm. In addition, styles differ in terms of the composition and methods of using terminology.

Finally, the styles differ in the means of artistic representation, the peculiarities of word usage, as well as the involvement of special constructions of sentences and ways of their connection with each other.

The stylistic richness and diversity of the literary language is explained by the versatility of its functions and areas of application. So, depending on the content and goals of the utterance, as well as the situation itself, the expressive qualities of speech are very different. Based on this, Acad. L. V. Shcherba singled out styles in the oral variety of the literary language, or, as he calls it, “four correlative layers of words - solemn, neutral and familiar, to which a fourth one can be added - vulgar. They can be illustrated, for example, in the following rows: “face, face, mug, muzzle; eat, eat, gobble up, devour, or eat." Thus, the variety of styles of the literary language is determined not only by the existence of many genres of writing, but also by the degree of semantic and emotional richness of speech.

However, the leading principle of distinguishing styles should be recognized as genre. So, in accordance with this principle, the Czech linguist F. Travnichek distinguishes the following main styles of the modern Czech literary language: scientific, newspaper and journalistic, oratorical, official, colloquial and artistic.

The interaction of styles, expressed, for example, in moving

elements of poetic style in prose is also one of those unexplored problems that await their solution. The fact is that even in the 18th century, the styles of poetry, which outstripped the styles of prose in their development, influenced the means and norms of the prose language. Derzhavin, admonishing Karamzin, wrote: “Sing, Karamzin! - And in prose, the voice of the nightingale is heard! The language of Karamzin's prose, indeed, was abundantly saturated with elements of poetic vocabulary and phraseology.

The styles of journalism are characterized by social and journalistic vocabulary, which is also constantly reflected in the styles of prose and poetry, in which each writer enters into a rather peculiar interaction with the vocabulary of other layers. The study of this interaction provides interesting data that make it possible to characterize not only the features of the writer's style, but also his worldview positions. It is known that the styles of journalism are heterogeneous; they reflect social trends and ideological struggles. For example, the styles of revolutionary-democratic journalism of the middle of the 19th century differed significantly from the styles of reactionary journalism or bourgeois-liberal journalism that merged with it. This difference was also reflected in the choice of the vocabulary itself, especially in those few words in terms of their number, in which class influence was reflected, and in the norms of word usage.

The interaction of different styles of language is also found in the fact that fiction usually contributes to the process of metaphorization of scientific terms, thanks to which the latter are used in figurative meaning and contribute to the creation of the image. For example, the philosophical terms matter and spirit are used by Shchedrin in the following way when describing the appearance of Gorehvastov, who had a huge growth: “... his voice is thick and loud; eyes, as usual, pigs ... "; “It is generally noticeable that here matter prevails over spirit” (“Provincial Essays”).

Of no small importance is the characterization of the interaction in which the scientific terminology used by the writer enters with the vocabulary of other stylistic systems. Compare, for example, Shchedrin's combination of a terminological word with a colloquial everyday or bookish one: an epidemic of chatter, an embryo of modesty, spiritual anemia, experiments in filtering nonsense, etc. These examples also show that there is no stone wall between the styles of prose and journalism, that the writer's work reflects the original interchange of speech means that occurs between these styles, that the literary language itself is a complex synthesis of its styles and the words and expressions assigned to them.

Let us now dwell briefly on questions connected with the reflection of class interests in the literary language. Various styles of literary language, to one degree or another, experience the desire of classes to use the language for their own purposes, to introduce specific words and expressions into it. But the degree of saturation of a number of styles that incorporate specific words and expressions is far from the same. If, for example, documentary and clerical styles absorbed an extremely negligible amount of these specific speech means, if in the styles of scientific presentation (for example, mathematical, astronomical, chemical research) the admixture of these specific words and expressions is also insignificant (although, of course, for a philosopher it has the ideological content of such, for example, words as matter, idealism, etc.), then in the styles of social journalism they are presented and expressed much more fully and in relief. In the light of V. I. Lenin’s teachings about the existence of two cultures under capitalism within the framework of one nation, it acquires a certain meaning, for example, Shchedrin’s well-known statement that in journalism, along with the “slave language”, there was also a “servile language”, which is a “mixture of arrogance and slander." Therefore, there is every reason to contrast the styles of revolutionary-democratic journalism of the 19th century with the styles of reactionary, bourgeois-noble journalism, because in the understanding and use of a number of words and expressions (freedom, constitution, despotism, anarchy, social assistance, breaking away from the soil, materialist, etc.) , for example, Shchedrin and Katkov, there were fundamental differences due to their worldview. In the styles of artistic prose and poetry, for example, of the 19th century, these specific speech means, reflecting the worldview various classes, served Dobrolyubov as the basis for ironic remarks about the so-called "syllable of high-society novels."

The nationality of the literary language is also one of the topical issues that require specific development in the light of the nationwide nature of the language.

The embodiment in the literary language and in the language of works of art of all the best achievements of the speech culture of the people, the organic connection of the writer's language with the language of the people - this is the essence and main content of the concept of the nationality of the language.

In accordance with this, all attempts to see the nationality of the language of an artistic or journalistic work only in the use of coarse, semi-literate, sometimes clearly unliterary words by a writer should be subjected to sharp condemnation. Such a point of view not only distorts the actual state of things (why, for example, the words love, suffer, tender, joy, and others should not be considered as folk?), but also reflects the old, lordly-scornful view of the people (“a peasant is a rude, illiterate ”, etc.), with which at one time Belinsky, Shchedrin, Chernyshevsky and other revolutionary democrats waged an irreconcilable struggle.

3. Conclusion.

So, one of the central tasks of the history of the literary language is the study of the complex and multifaceted interaction of the nationwide, "raw", according to Gorky, non-standardized language with the processed, cultivated and creatively enriched literary language. The history of the literary language is the history of continuous creative processing, enrichment and development of the wealth of the national language.

To study the history of a literary language means to trace the historical development of the composition of its vocabulary, phraseology / morphological and syntactic means, as well as the norms and methods of their use in various types of speech.

4. List of used literature:

1. P.Ya.Chernykh. "The Origin of the Russian Language." Uch.pedgiz, M., 1950

2. D.A. Avdusin and M.N. Tikhomirov, “The oldest Russian inscription”, Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR; 1950 No. 4

3. B.A. Rybakov. "Craft of Ancient Russia". Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1948

4. A.A. Shakhmatov, “Essay on the modern Russian literary language”, 1941

5. A. A. Shakhmatov, “Course of the history of the Russian language”, part 1 of St. Petersburg, 1910-1911

6. E.S. Istrina, “Norms of the Russian literary language and culture of speech”, USSR Academy of Sciences, M.-L., 1948

7. V.V. Vinogradov, “Essays on the history of the Russian literary language”, ed. 2, Uch.pedgiz, M., 1938

8. "Russian science of the Russian literary language", "Scientific notes of Moscow State University, T.3.kn.1 1946

9. V. Shcherov, "Modern Russian literary language", "Russian language at school", 1939, No. 4

LITERARY LANGUAGE, supra-dialect subsystem (form of existence) national language which is characterized by such features as normativity, codification, multifunctionality, 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 jargon.

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 general composition people who speak this language. The first way of definition is linguistic, the second is sociological.

V.V. Vinogradov. Literary language (philology.ru)
Literary language - mutual language writing of one or another people, and sometimes several peoples - language of official business documents, school education, written and everyday communication, science, journalism, fiction, all manifestations of culture, expressed in verbal form, more often written, but sometimes oral. That is why the written and bookish and oral and colloquial forms of the literary language differ, the emergence, correlation and interaction of which are subject to certain historical patterns.

It is difficult to point to another linguistic phenomenon that would be understood in such a different way as the literary language. Some are convinced that the literary language is the same public language, only "polished" language masters, i.e. writers, artists of the word; supporters of this view primarily have in mind the literary language of modern times and, moreover, among peoples with a rich artistic literature.

Others believe that the literary language is written language, bookish language opposing living speech, spoken language. The basis of this understanding is the literary languages ​​with ancient writing (cf. the recent term "newly written languages").

Still others believe that the literary language is a language that is generally significant for a given people, in contrast to the dialect and jargon, which do not have signs of such general significance. Supporters of this view sometimes argue that the literary language can exist in the pre-literate period as the language of folk verbal and poetic creativity or customary law.

Kolesov VV Old Russian literary language.- L .: Publishing house Leningrad. un-ta, 1989.
Long disputes as to whether the modern Russian literary language is based on Church Slavonic or Russian, from a scientific point of view, are pointless both in essence, in content, and in references to authorities.

Obnorsky's hypothesis is a continuation and development of Shakhmatov's theory in new historical conditions, when, on the basis of in-depth study Russian dialects (started by Shakhmatov) and the historical development of the Russian language, the real significance of church texts in the formation of the Russian literary language became clear. The object of study also expanded: for Shakhmatov it was mainly phonetics and grammatical forms, while for Obnorsky it was grammatical categories, semantics, and style. IN last years this point of view is thoroughly argued (Filin, 1981; Gorshkov, 1984) and does not need to be defended. There is no alternative.

The term "literary language" in its origin turns out to be associated with the concept of "literature", and in its etymological understanding - "based on the letter", that is, on the letter, in fact, the written language. Indeed, the medieval literary language is only the language of writing, a collection of texts for literary purposes. All other features of the literary language follow from this abstract definition through the term and therefore seem logical and understandable.

The diverse terms that have accumulated on the subject of study are, in fact, only an attempt to get out of the vicious circle of formal logic: to consider the signs of a concept as signs of a non-existent object, and to define the object through the same signs of the concept. Literary - non-literary, written - oral, folk - cultural (even cult, in the latter case there are many synonyms), processed - raw, as well as polysemantic and therefore indefinite in meaning - system, norm, function, style. The more such definitions (which seem to clarify our idea of ​​the object), the more the concept of "literary language" is emptied: the introduction of each subsequent one increases the content of the concept so much that it reduces its scope to the limits of insignificance.

Of the many definitions that exist in science, the definition of the literary language as a function of the national language seems to be the most acceptable; therefore, the literary "language" is a literary variety of the use of the Russian language, and not independent language(Gorshkov, 1983). Such an understanding of the literary language lies in line with the Russian scientific tradition and is determined by the historical approach to the problem of the literary language. At the same time, it explains the development of various spheres of "cultural speaking", justifying the existence of the very term "literary language" - since the latter is indeed a typical form of the existence of a folk (national) language, and not speech in the narrow sense of the word. Historically, there has been a displacement of colloquial forms by more and more improved "cultural" forms of the language; the selection of linguistic forms as the structure of the native language develops and constitutes the content of this historical process.

Literary language is the basis of speech culture (Rhetoric - distedu.ru)
The literary language is the highest form of the national language. It is the language of culture, literature, education, means mass media. It serves various spheres of human activity: politics, science, legislation, official business communication, everyday communication, international communication, press, radio, television.

Among the varieties of the national language (vernacular, territorial and social dialects, jargons), the literary language plays a leading role.
The main features of the literary language:
- processing (a literary language is a language processed by masters of the word: writers, poets, scientists, public figures);
- sustainability (stability);
- mandatory for all native speakers;
- normalization;
- availability of functional styles.

D. A. Golovanova, E. V. Mikhailova, E. A. Shcherbaeva. Russian language and culture of speech. Crib

(LIBRUSEK - lib.rus.ec)
THE CONCEPT AND FEATURES OF THE LITERARY LANGUAGE

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

Signs of literary language:

1) the presence of writing;

2) normalization is a fairly stable way of expression that expresses the historically established patterns of development of the Russian literary language. Normalization is based on the language system and fixed in the best examples literary works. This mode of expression is preferred by the educated part of society;

3) codification, i.e., fixedness in scientific literature; this is expressed in the presence of grammatical dictionaries and other books containing the rules for using the language;

4) stylistic diversity, i.e., the variety of functional styles of the literary language;

5) relative stability;

6) prevalence;

7) general usage;

8) general obligation;

9) compliance with the use, customs and capabilities of the language system.

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

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

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

Literary language is not only the language of writers, but also a sign of an intelligent and educated person. Unfortunately, people not only do not own it, but not everyone knows about its existence, including some contemporary writers. The works are written very in simple words, jargon and slang are used in large quantities, which is unacceptable for the literary language. For those who want to master the language of poets and writers, the signs of the literary language will be described.

Definition

Literary language is the highest form of language, which is opposed to vernacular, jargon, dialectisms. Some experts oppose it to the colloquial form, because they consider it to be a written language (for example, in the Middle Ages they only wrote in the literary language).

This form is considered a historical category, because this category is formed in the process of language development. The literary language is an indicator of the level of national culture, because works are created and cultured people communicate in it.

There are many definitions: some are built from a linguistic point of view, others use delimitation with the help of native speakers of this language. Each definition is correct, the main thing is that you know how to distinguish it from other categories. Below the concept of signs of a literary language will be given.

The formation of a cultural language form

The basis of the literary language is the dialect, which is dominant in the political, economic and cultural center states. The basis for the Russian language was the Moscow dialect. The Church Slavonic language served as a great influence on the formation of this species. The first written translations into our language were Christian books, which later affected the formation of the language. For a long time, learning to write took place through the church, which undoubtedly influenced the cultural written language.

But one should not combine the literary language and the artistic one, because in the first case it is a broad concept that includes the variety with which works are written. Signs of the literary language are its strict standardization and accessibility for everyone, while some authors of works of art do not have enough knowledge of the literary form of the language in the broadest sense.

How to determine the language of writers

The cultural form of speech does not tolerate excessive use of slang words, clericalism, speech stamps, and vernacular. There are norms that allow you to keep the purity of the language by providing a language standard. These norms can be found in grammar references and dictionaries.

There are main features of the literary language:

Literary language as part of the national

Each language has its own national limits, so it reflects the entire cultural heritage of its people, its history. Due to ethnic features, each language is unique and original, has characteristic folk features. The national and literary languages ​​are closely interconnected, which creates unlimited possibilities for the language. But it is still possible to distinguish the signs of the national literary language.

The form under consideration, along with the national one, also includes the use of non-literary styles. Every nation has its own dialect. The Russian is divided into North Russian, Central Russian and South Russian. But some words for various reasons fall into the literary language. They will be called dialectisms. Their use is permissible only from the point of view of style, that is, it is considered possible in a certain context.

One of the types of the national language is jargon - these are words used by a certain group of people. Its use is also possible in the literary language, jargon was especially widely used in Russian literature in the post-Soviet period. Their use is strictly regulated by literary norms:

• characterization of the hero;
• with proof of the appropriateness of use.

Dialect is another feature of the national language, which is typical for people living in the same territory or united by social sign. In literature, dialect words can be used in the following cases:

Signs of the modern Russian literary language

In the traditional sense, the language has been considered modern since the time of A. S. Pushkin. Since one of the main features of the literary language is the norm, you should know what norms the modern one is based on:

• stress norms;
• orthoepic;
• lexical;
• phraseological;
• word formation;
• spelling;
• punctuation;
• grammatical;
• syntactic;
• stylistic.

The literary language is characterized by strict observance of all norms in order to preserve the entire cultural heritage. But the modern literary language has problems associated precisely with the preservation of the purity of the language, namely, the large use of devalued vocabulary (foul language), a large number of borrowings, and the frequent use of jargon.

Functional style views

As it was written above, its stylistic diversity belongs to the features of the literary language.

1. Written and bookish speech, which is divided into official business, journalistic and scientific.
2. Artistic speech.

The colloquial form of speech was not included here, because it does not have strict regulation, that is, one of the main features of the literary language.

Russian literary language in the late 20th - early 21st centuries.

The processes taking place in a language are a natural phenomenon, because it is not a static unit. It also changes and develops along with society. In the same way, new signs of the literary language have appeared in our time. Now the media is becoming an influential sphere, which forms new functional language features. With the development of the Internet, a mixed written and spoken form of speech begins to develop.

The literary language performs a very complex and important task: to preserve the accumulated knowledge, to unite the entire cultural and national heritage and to pass everything on to new generations, while maintaining national identity.

Literary language is called the historically developed processed form of the existence of the language of the people or the national language. Literary language as the highest form of language is characterized by richness of vocabulary, orderliness of grammatical structure, developed system of styles, strict observance of spelling and punctuation rules. variance, not tied to styles and communicative areas. The literary language is standardized and codified, that is, it is fixed in the dictionaries and grammars of the modern language.

The norm of the literary language is stable and conservative. “The essence of any literary language,” wrote L.V. Shcherba, “is in its stability, in its traditional character.” Norm of the literary language

combines into a single whole all the varieties of a given language, its stylistic richness, its historical variants and dialectal and professional deviations. In this sense, literary

the standard norm represents the general vernacular. Therefore, the strengthening and dissemination of the standard of the literary language is a matter of special concern to society. The role of the school is great in strengthening the literary norm. The norm of the literary language is based on the language usage (i.e.

to mass and regular word usage) and the approval of this word usage by the educated "part of society. Being a concrete historical phenomenon, the norm of the literary language changes, moves from the old to the new quality. Literary language literally means written language The languages ​​of nationalities, as already mentioned, can have a literary and written form.The development of a unified statehood and

culture requires a written language. This is how literary-written languages ​​arise in slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and socialist societies. Writers play an important role in establishing and spreading the literary norm. Thus, the history of the Russian literary language was embodied in the works of Lomonosov and Fonvizin, Karamzin. The great role of writers in the approval and dissemination of the literary norm, and literature - in public life sometimes leads to the idea that the literary language is the language of fiction, which, of course, is wrong. The language of a work of art, firstly, contains not only literary-normalized speech, but also individual style the author and the speech of the characters that are created by the author. Stylized literary texts and characters' speech suggest a departure from the norm, the creation of an individual style and expressive text. The second difference between the language of fiction and the literary language is that the latter is not only a means of artistic reflection of reality and emotional impact; literary language is a tool

communication also in the sphere of social and political life and science. The literary language is multifunctional, and this creates literary language styles designed for different areas of communication and expression of different types of message. . An example of a literary and written language that arose in a slave-owning society is the ancient Greek and Latin languages. The Latin nation and its language arise in the course of the conquest (starting from the middle of the 7th century BC) by the Roman Republic of Italy. Medieval Latin differed significantly from Latin ancient era. As a dead language, Latin is still used in Catholic worship, medicine and some other natural sciences.

10. Historical variability of language. Synchrony and diachrony .

Synchrony- it is like a horizontal cut, i.e. the state of the language at the moment as a ready-made system of interrelated and interdependent elements: lexical, grammatical and phonetic, which have value, or significance (valeur de Saussure), regardless of their origin, but only in the strength of relationships between themselves within the whole - the system. diachrony- this is the path in time that each element of the language makes separately, changing in history. Thus, according to de Saussure, synchrony is connected with the system, but removed from the relations of time, while diachrony is connected with time, but removed from the relations of the system. In other words: “... diachrony is considered as a field of single phenomena, and language as a system is studied only in the field of synchrony. In other words, the development of a language is depicted as a change only in separate individual phenomena, and not as a change in the system, while the system is studied only in its givenness at a certain moment ... ”language should be studied and understood as a system not only in its present, but also in its past, i.e., to study its phenomena both in connection with each other and in development at the same time, noting in each state of the language phenomena receding into the past, and phenomena emerging against the background of stabilized phenomena normal for the given state of the language.

11. Individualistic hypotheses of the origin of language .

Among the conditions in which language arose were factors related to evolution human body, and factors associated with the transformation of the primitive herd into society. That's why

a great many statements about the origin of language can be divided into two main groups: 1) biological theories, 2) social theories.

Biological theories explain the origin of language by the evolution of the human body - the sense organs, the speech apparatus and the brain. The positive thing about these theories is that they consider the emergence of language as the result of a long development of nature, thereby rejecting the one-time (divine) origin of language. Among biological theories, two are best known - onomatopoeia and interjection.

Onomatopoeic and interjection theories. The onomatopoeic theory explains the origin of language by the evolution of hearing organs that perceive the cries of animals (especially domestic ones). Language arose, according to this theory, as an imitation of animals (neighing of horses, bleating of sheep) or as an expression of an impression about a named object. Onomatopoeic words have sounds and forms that already exist in the language. That's why a duck screams for a Russian quack quack

(quacks) for an Englishman quack-quack (quack), for French kan-kan (sapsapeg), but for the Dane pan-pan (rapper). There are different and sublingual words with which a person refers to the home

animal such as pig, duck, goose. Interjectional (or reflex) theory explains the origin of language by the experiences that a person experiences. The first words, according to this theory, are involuntary cries, interjections, reflexes. They emotionally expressed pain or joy, fear or hunger. During further development cries acquired a symbolic meaning, obligatory for all members of this community. If in the onomatopoeic theory the external world (animal sounds) was the impetus, then the interjection theory considered the stimulus for the appearance of words inner world living being, his emotions. Common to both theories is the recognition, along with the sound language, of the presence of a sign language that expressed more rational concepts. Onomatopoeic and interjection theories put the study of the origin of the mechanism of speech, mainly in psychophysiological terms, at the forefront. Ignoring the social factor in these theories led to a skeptical attitude towards them: the onomatopoeic theory began to be jokingly called the “wow-wow theory”, and the interjection - “tfu-tfu theory”. Indeed, in these theories the biological side of the issue is exaggerated, the origin of language is considered exclusively in terms of the origin of speech. It does not take into account with due attention the fact that man and human society are emerging, essentially different from the animal and its herd.

biological theories.

1. Onomatopoeic theory

Did you try to substantiate the principles of the onomatopoeic theory at the end!? early 18th century Leibniz (1646-1716). The great German thinker argued as follows: there are derivative, late languages, and there is a primary language, a "root" language, from which all subsequent derivative languages ​​were formed. According to Leibniz, onomatopoeia took place primarily in the root language, and only to the extent that "derivative languages" developed further the foundations of the root language did they develop the principles of onomatopoeia at the same time. To the extent that derived languages ​​moved away from the root language, their word production turned out to be less "naturally onomatopoeic" and more and more symbolic. Leibniz also ascribed quality to certain sounds. True, he believed that the same sound can be associated with several qualities at once. So, the sound l, according to Leibniz, can express something soft (leben to live, lieben to love, liegen to lie), and something completely different. For example, in the words lion (lion) lynx (lynx), loup (wolf) sound l does not mean something gentle. Here, perhaps, a connection is found with some other quality, namely with speed, with running (Lauf).

Accepting onomatopoeia as the principle of the origin of language, as the principle on the basis of which the "gift of speech" arose in man, Leibniz rejects the significance of this principle for the subsequent development of language. The disadvantage of the onomatopoeic theory is the following: the supporters of this theory consider language not as a social, but as a natural (natural) phenomenon.

2. Theory of the emotional origin of language and the theory of interjections

Its most important representative was JJ Rousseau (1712-1778). In a treatise on the origin of languages, Rousseau wrote that "passions caused the first sounds of the voice." According to Rousseau, "the first languages ​​were melodious and passionate, and only later did they become simple and methodical." According to Rousseau, it turned out that the first languages ​​were much richer than the subsequent ones. But civilization has corrupted man. That is why language, according to Rousseau, has deteriorated from being richer, more emotional, more direct, and has become dry, rational and methodical.

The emotional theory of Rousseau received a peculiar development in the 19th and 20th centuries and became known as the theory of interjections.

One of the defenders of this theory, the Russian linguist Kudryavsky (1863-1920), believed that interjections were a kind of first human words. Interjections were the most emotional words in which the primitive man put different meanings depending on a particular situation. According to Kudryavsky, in interjections, sound and meanings were still inextricably linked. Subsequently, as interjections turned into words, the sound and meanings diverged, and this transition of interjections into words was associated with the emergence of articulate speech.

Soyial origin theories:

1. Theory of sound cries

This theory arose in the 19th century in the writings of vulgar materialists (Germans Noiret, Bücher). It boiled down to the fact that language arose from the cries that accompanied collective work. But these labor cries can only be a means of rhythmizing labor, they do not express anything, not even emotions, but are only external, technical means at work.

2. Social contract theory

From the middle of the 18th century, the theory of the social contract appeared.

The essence of this theory is that in the later stages of the development of the language it is possible to agree on certain words, especially in the field of terminology.

But it is quite obvious that, first of all, in order to "agree on a language", one must already have a language in which one "agrees".

3. The human origin of the language

The German philosopher Herder spoke of the purely human origin of language.

Herder believed that human language arose not to communicate with other people, but to communicate with oneself, to realize one's own self. If a person lived in complete solitude, then, according to Herder, he would have a language. Language was the result of "a secret agreement that the soul of man entered into with itself."

There are also other theories about the origin of the language. For example, the theory of gestures (Geiger, Wundt, Marr). All references to supposedly purely "sign languages" cannot be supported by facts; gestures always act as something secondary for people who have a spoken language. There are no words among gestures, gestures are not connected with concepts.

It is also unlawful to derive the origin of the language from analogues with the mating songs of birds as manifestations of the instinct of self-preservation (Ch. Darwin), especially from human singing (Rousseau, Jespersen). The disadvantage of all the theories listed above is that they ignore language as a social phenomenon.

4. Labor theory of Engels

Special attention should be paid to Engels' labor theory.

In connection with the labor theory of the origin of language, one should first of all mention

F. Engels' unfinished work "The Role of Labor in the Process of the Transformation of Apes into Humans". In the Introduction to the Dialectic of Nature, Engels explains the conditions for the emergence of language:

“When, after a thousand-year struggle, the hand finally differentiated from the legs and a straight gait was established, then man separated from the monkey, and the foundation was laid for the development of articulate speech ...” Vertical gait was in human development a prerequisite for the emergence of speech, and a prerequisite for the expansion and development of consciousness .

The revolution that man introduces into nature consists, first of all, in the fact that human labor is different from that of animals, it is labor with the use of tools, and, moreover, manufactured by those who should own them, and thus progressive and social labor. . No matter how skillful architects we consider ants and bees, they do not know what they say: their work is instinctive, their art is not conscious, and they work with the whole organism, purely biologically, without using tools, and therefore there is no progress in their work .

The freed hand became the first tool of man, other tools of labor developed as an addition to the hand (stick, hoe, rake); still later, the man shifts the burden of labor onto the elephant. Camel, horse, and he manages them, finally. The technical engine appears and replaces the animals.

In short, people who were being formed came to the point that they had a need to say something to each other. Need created its own organ: the undeveloped larynx of the monkey was slowly but steadily transformed by modulations for more and more developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another. "Thus, language could only arise as a collective property necessary for mutual understanding. But not as an individual property of this or that incarnated individual.

Engels writes: "First, work, and then articulate speech, were the two most important stimuli under the influence of which the human brain gradually turned into a human brain."

Literary language

- the main form of existence of the national language, accepted by its speakers as an exemplary one; a historically established system of commonly used linguistic means that have undergone a long cultural processing in the works of authoritative masters of the word, in the oral communication of educated native speakers of the national language. Functional purpose and internal organization of L. Ya. are due to the tasks of ensuring speech communication in the main areas of activity of the entire historically established team of people who speak this national language. According to its cultural and social status, L. Ya. opposed to folk-colloquial. speech: territorial and social dialects used by limited groups of people living in a certain area or united in relatively small social groups, and vernacular - supradialectal uncodified oral speech limited subject matter. There is a relationship between the forms of the national language: L. i. constantly replenished at the expense of the people-colloquial. speech.

L. i. trace are inherent. the main features that distinguish it from other forms of existence of the national language:

1. Normalization. The language norm is a generally accepted use that is regularly repeated in the speech of speakers and is recognized at this stage of development of L. Ya. correct, exemplary. Lit. norms cover all aspects (levels) of the language system and therefore they themselves represent a certain system: lexical, phraseological, morphological, syntactic, word-formation, orthoepic, spelling norms. The presence of language norms is a condition for the universality of L. I. “To be generally accepted, and therefore generally understandable” is the main property of L. Ya., which “in essence makes it literary” ( L.V. Shcherba).

2. Codification. Codification - a scientific description of the norms, fixing them in grammars, reference books, dictionaries; the most explicit and objectified form of recognition of the normativity of a linguistic phenomenon. Codification lit. norms are updated as changes are made both in the language itself and in the assessments of its means by speakers. In modern society codification lit. the norm occurs when active participation scientific, pedagogical, literary community, mass media.

3. Relative stability (historical stability, tradition). Without this quality L. I. the exchange of cultural values ​​between generations would be impossible. Stability L. I. is ensured, firstly, by the action of generally binding codified language norms, and secondly, by the maintenance of stylistic traditions thanks to written texts, i.e. is connected with one more sign of L. I. - the presence of its written fixation. Russian stability. L. i. also contributes to its integrity, the absence of significantly different local options.

4. Multifunctionality. The main forms of L. Ya., which is a dichotomous system, are colloquial and literary and bookish and literary speech (see. literary and colloquial style of speech,), opposed to each other as the largest functional and stylistic spheres. In turn, book speech demonstrates a functional and stylistic stratification into scientific, official business, journalistic, and artistic speech. The concept of "L. I." and "Language of Fiction" are not identical. The first is broader in the sense that it combines several functional and stylistic varieties of the language, the second is broader in another respect - in artistic. works are included, in addition to lit. language means, elements of folk-colloquial. speech (dialectisms, jargon, etc.). Besides, L. I. focused on universality, and artistic. language - on the creative individual originality.

5. Developed variability and flexibility, which provides parallel modes of expression and linguistic freedom of the individual. Formation of various means of expression in the field of vocabulary, phraseology, word formation, grammatical variation in the process of evolution L. Ya. contributed to the expansion of its functions. Gradually, it begins to serve all spheres of human activity, and this process is accompanied by a functional and stylistic stratification of L. I. The variety of replenishing L. I. styles generates a rich synonymy of linguistic means within a single language, makes it a complex, branched system of functions. varieties, which is of interest both for the theory of linguistics and for stylistics, the area of ​​interaction between these linguistic disciplines, the intersection of their problems. Stylistic (expressive-stylistic, functional-stylistic) richness of L. Ya. constitutes the stylistic aspect of L. Ya., the source of the formation and development of stylistics as a science.

L. i. goes through several stages in its development, connected with the history of the people. In the development of Russian L. i. two main eras are distinguished: pre-national, which ends in the 17th century, and national. More detailed periodization of L. I. can be presented next. form: 1) L. I. Old Russian people (XI-beginning of the XIV century); 2) L. I. Great Russian people (XIV-XVII centuries); 3) L. I. period of formation of Russian. nations (from the middle–2nd half of the 17th century to Pushkin); 4) modern. L. i. (from Pushkin to our time). In a narrower sense, the term "modern. Russian. L. Ya." denotes the language of the XX-XXI centuries. (since 1917). An even narrower interpretation is L. I. new Russia(post-Soviet period).

L. i. - the concept is historical, since at different stages of the development of L. I. its symptoms change. With regard to Russian L. i. these changes were as follows: 1. L. I. originated as a written language (lat. littera - letter, letter). Under the old Russian L. I. refers to the language that has come down to us in the written monuments of the 11th–13th centuries, belonging to various genres, namely: the genres of secular narrative literature (literary and artistic work "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", chronicle narratives, etc.), business written language (code of laws "Russian Truth", contractual, bills of sale, letters of commendation and other letters), church-religious literature (sermons, lives). Rus. L. i. functioned only as a written language throughout the pre-national period. 2. L. i. pre-national era was not uniform: there were several of its types, among which were formed not only on the basis of the language of the Old Russian people, but also on the basis of the Church Slavonic language. 3. In the history of Russian. L. i. has undergone such changes essential feature L. I., as the norm. Norms in the pre-national period had a spontaneous character, were not codified (before the appearance of the first Russian grammars), strictly binding. For each type of L. I. (for example, folk-literary or church-bookish) developed their own norms. They were related only to the written form of the language, since L. Ya. was written. 4. L. I. the pre-national period was distinguished by the narrowness of its use and its functions. It was owned by a limited part of society - representatives of the highest circles and monks. L. i. was primarily the language of.-cases. communication (some researchers, for example, A.I. Gorshkov, do not believe that in the early stages of development of L. Ya. business language can be recognized as L. Ya.); in addition, it was used in art. literature and chronicles. The formation of a system of func. styles within a single L. I. occurs later, at the end of XVIII-beginning. 19th century Patterns of the use of language units are gradually formed depending on the goals of communication in a particular function. sphere (see , ).

In the history of L. I. the work of outstanding masters of the word plays an important role. So, A.S. Pushkin, guided by the principles of proportionality and conformity, achieved in his work a bold synthesis of all the viable elements of L. Ya. with elements of lively folk speech and laid the foundation for the modern. Russian L. i.

Multifunctionality Russian. L. Ya., variability, interaction with various branches of the national language and with other national languages, as well as the history of Russian. L. i. determined its wealth in the field of stylistic resources: a variety of stylistic, expressive and figurative possibilities, a variety of intellectual and expressive-emotional means of expression.

Lit.: Sobolevsky A.I. History of Russian. lit. language. - M., 1980; Shcherba L.V. Fav. works in Russian language. - M., 1957; Istrina E.S. Russian norms. lit. language and culture of speech. – M.; L., 1948; Vinokur G.O. Fav. works in Russian language. - M., 1959; Vinogradov V.V. Essays on the history of Russian. lit. language of the 17th–19th centuries. - 3rd ed. - M., 1982; Him: Problems lit. languages ​​and patterns of their formation and development. - M., 1967; Him: Lit. language // Fav. tr. History of Russian. lit. language. - M., 1978; Prague Linguistic Circle. - M., 1967; Rus. language and Soviet society: In 4 vols. - M., 1968; Itskovich V.A. language norm. - M., 1968; Gukhman M.M. Lit. language // LES. - M., 1990; Semenyuk N.N., Norma (ibid.); Shmelev D.N. Rus. language in its functions. varieties. - M., 1977; Filin F.P. Origins and fate of Russian. lit. language. - M., 1981; Bragina A.A. Synonyms in lit. language. - M., 1986; Belchikov Yu.A. Speech communication as a cultural-historical and historical-linguistic factor in the functioning of lit. language, "Stylistyka-II". – Opole, 1993; Him: Lit. language // Ents. Rus. lang. - M., 1997; His: and. - M., 2000; Rus. language of the late 20th century (1985–1995). - M., 1996; Rus. language (1945–1995). – Opole, 1997.

T.B. Trosheva

Stylistic encyclopedic dictionary of the Russian language. - M:. "Flint", "Science". Edited by M.N. Kozhina. 2003 .

See what "Literary language" is in other dictionaries:

Literary language- LITERARY LANGUAGE. The term L. lang." is used in Russian linguistic literature in two meanings: 1) to designate the language of written cast products, as opposed to the "oral dialects" of the broad masses and "colloquial speech" ... ... Literary Encyclopedia

Literary language- Literary language is 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. Contents 1 Definition ... Wikipedia

LITERARY LANGUAGE- LITERARY LANGUAGE. The form of the historical existence of the national language, taken by its speakers as exemplary; a historically established system of commonly used linguistic elements, speech means that have undergone lengthy cultural processing ... New dictionary methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of teaching languages)

Literary language- LITERARY LANGUAGE general language of literature Ph.D. people. L. Ya. often coincides with the national language. of the same people, but may not coincide, for example, if the people do not constitute a separate state; Yes, before the World War... Dictionary of literary terms

LITERARY LANGUAGE- LITERARY LANGUAGE, a normalized (see Linguistic Norm) supradialectal form of the language that exists in oral and written varieties and serves all spheres of public and cultural life people... Modern Encyclopedia

LITERARY LANGUAGE- a normalized (see Linguistic Norm) supra-dialectal form of a language that exists in oral and written varieties and serves all spheres of the public and cultural life of the people ... Big encyclopedic Dictionary

Literary language- LITERARY, oh, oh; ren, rna. Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

Literary language- - the main, supradialectal form of the existence of a language, characterized by a greater or lesser degree of processing, normalization, polyfunctionality, stylistic differentiation, a tendency to regulation. According to its social and ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Media

literary language- A normalized language serving the diverse cultural needs of the people, the language of fiction, journalistic works, periodicals, radio, theater, science, public institutions, schools, etc. “The division of the language ... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms

Literary language- Literary language is the main, supradialectal form of existence of the language, characterized by greater or lesser processing, polyfunctionality, stylistic differentiation and a tendency to regulation. According to its cultural and social ... ... Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary