How is colloquial speech different? Colloquial speech and vernacular

A. “Arbat” (metro station) what is the best way for me (to take the metro)?

B. “Arbat” is “Library”, “Borovitskaya” / it’s all the same / “Borovitskaya” is more convenient for you //.

A translation of this text into a codified language could be as follows:

A. What is the best way for me to get to the Arbatskaya station by metro? B. The Arbatskaya station is connected by passages to the stations “Library named after V.I. Lenin”, “Borovitskaya”, and therefore you can go to any of these stations. The most convenient way for you is to get to Borovitskaya.

Grammatical codified norms prohibit the use of the nominative case in the first statement of A. (“Arbat”) and last statement B. (“Borovitskaya”). Strong semantic reduction (compression) of B.'s first statement is also excluded in codified texts.

The famous Russian psychologist and linguist N.I. Zhinkin once remarked: “Paradoxical as it may seem, I think that linguists have been studying the silent person for a long time.” And he was absolutely right. For a long time it was believed that they speak the same or approximately the same way as they write. Only in the 60s. our century, when it became possible to record spoken speech using tape recorders and this speech came fully into the field of view of linguists, it turned out that existing codifications were not entirely suitable for the linguistic understanding of spoken speech. So what is colloquial speech?

Spoken speech as a special functional variety of language, and accordingly as a special object of linguistic research, is characterized by three extralinguistic, external to the language, features. The most important feature of colloquial speech is its spontaneity and lack of preparation. If, when creating even such simple written texts as, for example, a friendly letter, not to mention complex texts like scientific work, each statement is thought out, many “difficult” texts are written first in rough draft, then a spontaneous text does not require this kind of operation. The spontaneous creation of a colloquial text explains why neither linguists, nor even native speakers, noticed its great differences from codified texts: linguistic conversational features are not realized, are not recorded by consciousness, unlike codified linguistic indicators. This fact is interesting. When native speakers normative assessment they are presented with their own colloquial statements such as “House of Shoes” how to get there? (codified version of How to get to the “House of Shoes”), then often these assessments are negative: “This is a mistake,” “They don’t say that,” although for conversational dialogues such a statement is more than usual.

The second distinguishing feature of spoken language is that spoken communication is possible only through informal relationships between speakers.

And finally, the third feature of colloquial speech is that it can only be realized with the direct participation of speakers. Such participation of speakers in communication is obvious in dialogical communication, but even in communication when one of the interlocutors speaks mainly (cf. the genre of a colloquial story), the other interlocutor does not remain passive; He. so to speak, has the right, in contrast to the conditions for the implementation of a monologue official speech, to constantly “interfere” in communication, whether by agreeing or disagreeing with what is said in the form of remarks Yes, Of course, Okay, No, Well, or simply demonstrating his participation in communication interjections like Uh-huh, the real sound of which is difficult to convey in writing. The following observation is noteworthy in this regard: if you talk on the phone for a long time and do not receive any confirmation from the other end that you are being listened to - at least in the form of Uh-huh - then you begin to worry whether they are listening to you at all, interrupting yourself with remarks like can you hear me? Hello, and the like.

The pragmatic factor plays a special role in conversational communication. Pragmatics are those conditions of communication that include certain influences on language structure communication characteristics of the addresser (speaker, writer), addressee (listener, reader) and situation. Conversational informal communication with the direct participation of speakers is usually carried out between people who know each other well in a specific situation. Therefore, speakers have a certain total stock knowledge. This knowledge is called background knowledge. It is background knowledge that makes it possible to construct such reduced statements in conversational communication that are completely incomprehensible without this background knowledge. The simplest example: your family knows that you went to take an exam, and they are worried about you; when you return home after the exam, you can say one word: “Excellent” - and everything will be extremely clear to everyone. The situation can have an equally profound influence on the linguistic design of a spoken utterance. Walking past an old mansion, you can say to your companion: “Eighteenth century,” and it will become clear that we are talking about an architectural monument of the 18th century.

As already said, the spontaneity of colloquial speech, its great differences from codified speech lead to the fact that one way or another recorded in writing spoken texts leave native speakers with the impression of some disorder; much in these texts is perceived as verbal carelessness or simply as a mistake. This happens precisely because colloquial speech is assessed from the standpoint of codified instructions. In fact, it has its own norms, which cannot and should not be assessed as non-normative. Conversational features regularly and consistently manifest themselves in the speech of native speakers who have an impeccable command of codified norms and all codified functional varieties of the literary language. Therefore, colloquial speech is one of the full-fledged literary varieties of language, and not some kind of language education, standing, as it seems to some native speakers, on the margins of the literary language or even beyond its borders.

What is a conversational norm? The norm in colloquial speech is something that is constantly used in the speech of native speakers of a literary language and is not perceived during spontaneous perception of speech as an error - “does not hurt the ear.” In colloquial speech, one often encounters such pronunciations as stokko (instead of the codified so much), kada, tada (instead of the codified when, then) - and all this is an orthoepic colloquial norm. In colloquial speech, a special morphological form of address is more than common - the truncated nominative case of personal names, sometimes with repetition: Kat, Mash, Volodya, Mash-a-Mash, Len-a-Len - and this is the morphological norm. In colloquial speech, the nominative case of a noun is consistently used where in codified texts only the indirect case is possible: Conservatory / how can I get closer? (How can I get closer to the conservatory?), We have a large pack of sugar (We have a large pack of sugar) - and this is a syntactic norm.

The norms of colloquial speech have one important feature. They are not strictly obligatory in the sense that in place of a colloquial one, a general literary norm can be used, and this does not violate the colloquial status of the text: there are no prohibitions on saying in an informal setting On the fourteenth trolleybus, you better go to Kazansky Station // and Fourteenth trolleybus is better for you Kazan // There are, however, a large number of words, forms, phrases that are intolerable in colloquial speech. Everyone, presumably, will easily feel the unnaturalness for a conversational situation of such a statement as it is more convenient for you to get to the Kazansky station if you use the trolleybus route number fourteen.

So, colloquial speech is spontaneous literary speech, realized in informal situations with the direct participation of speakers based on pragmatic conditions of communication.

The linguistic features of colloquial speech are so significant that they have given rise to the hypothesis that colloquial speech is based on a special system that cannot be reduced to the system of a codified language and cannot be derived from it. Therefore, in many studies, spoken language is called spoken language. This hypothesis can be accepted or rejected. In all cases, it remains true that colloquial speech has its own characteristics compared to codified language. Let's look at the main ones.

Phonetics. In colloquial speech, especially at a fast pace of pronunciation, a much stronger reduction of vowel sounds is possible than in a codified language, up to their complete loss.

In the area of consonants main feature colloquial speech - simplification of consonant groups.

Many phonetic features colloquial speech act together, creating a very “exotic” phonetic appearance of words and phrases, especially frequency ones.

Morphology. The main difference between colloquial morphology is not that there are any special morphological phenomena in it (except for the already mentioned vocative forms of address like Mash, Mash-a-Mash, it is difficult to name anything else), but that some phenomena in it is missing. Thus, in colloquial speech such words are extremely rarely used. verb forms, as participles and gerunds in their direct functions associated with the creation of participial and participle phrases, which in works on syntactic stylistics are rightly characterized as purely book phrases. In colloquial speech, only such participles or gerunds are possible that perform the functions of ordinary adjectives or adverbs and are not the center of participial or gerund phrases, cf. knowledgeable people, crucial, close-fitting dress, trembling voice, shiny glass; lay without getting up, poured a full cup without measuring, walked without turning, arrived at the same time without saying a word, answered without hesitation. The absence of gerunds in colloquial speech has one important syntactic consequence for it. Those relations that in a codified language are conveyed by gerunds and participial phrase, in colloquial speech they are formalized by a construction with double heterogeneous verbs, which is completely intolerable in a codified language, cf. Yesterday I was laying my head down and couldn’t lift it //; Write two phrases, don’t be lazy //; I sat here surrounded by dictionaries //; And then this manner / did and will not remove anything, goes away // (cf. codified leaves, without removing anything).

Syntax. Syntax is the part of grammar in which conversational features manifest themselves most clearly, consistently and diversely. The features of conversational syntax are found primarily in the area of connection between words and parts of a complex sentence (predicative constructions). In a codified language, these connections are usually expressed by special syntactic means: prepositional case forms, conjunctions and allied words. In colloquial speech, the role of such syntactic means is not so great: in it semantic relations between words and predicative constructions can be established on the basis of the lexical semantics of the connected components, an example of which is the nominative case of a noun, which can be used, as can be seen from many of the examples already given, in place of many indirect cases. Languages with clearly expressed syntactic connections are called synthetic; languages in which connections between components are established based on the lexical-semantic indicators of the components are called analytical. Russian is a synthetic language, but some elements of analyticism are not alien to it. It is the tendency towards analyticism that represents one of the most important differences between colloquial syntax and codified syntax. Evidence of this tendency is provided by the following colloquial syntactic structures.

1) Statements with the nominative case of a noun in those positions that in a codified language can only be occupied by a noun in indirect cases. Such statements include:

- statements with a noun in nominative case with a verb, this noun is often highlighted intonationally into a separate syntagma, but quite typically without intonation highlighting: Next / we should go // (we should go at the next stop); This T-shirt is dark / show me // (show me this dark T-shirt); Do you live on the second floor? - It's me earlier than the second/ now the fifth // (do you live on the second floor? - I used to live on the second, and now on the fifth); Their son seems to be a Physics and Technology student / and their daughter is a university philology faculty Romgerm // (their son studies at a physics and technology college, and their daughter is at a university in the Romano-Germanic department of the philology department);

- negative equivalents of existential sentences in which the nominative case of the noun appears in place of the codified genitive case: Pen / don’t you have / phone to write down? // (don't you have a pen?); Do you have any radishes? — There are no radishes / they will bring them tomorrow // (there are no radishes);

- statements with a noun in the nominative case as a definition with another noun: He bought a cabinet / Karelian birch // (he bought a cabinet made of Karelian birch); I was given a cup / fine porcelain // (a cup made of fine porcelain); She has a fur coat of arctic fox paws // (a fur coat made from arctic fox paws);

- statements with nouns in the nominative case as the function of the nominal part of the predicate (in codified statements, indirect cases are used in this position): Is she from Kazan? - No / she is Ufa // (she is from Ufa); Your dog/what breed? // (what breed is your dog?);

- statements with a noun in the nominative case as the subject of predicates - predicative adverbs in -o: Too strong tea / harmful //; Forest / nice //. These statements do not have direct equivalents in codified language, their meaning is something like this: “It is harmful to drink too strong tea”; "It's nice to walk in the forest."

2) Statements with an infinitive denoting the intended purpose of an object named by a noun: I need to buy sneakers / run // (buy sneakers to run in them in the morning); You need a rug in the front room / to wipe your feet // (you need a rug in the front room to wipe your feet).

3) Statements with conversational nominations. In colloquial speech, there are special ways of designating objects, persons, etc., that is, special methods of nomination. To understand the syntax of colloquial speech, nominations built according to the following schemes should be taken into account: a) relative pronoun+ infinitive (what to write, where to go, what to wear), b) relative pronoun + noun in the nominative case (where is the metro, whose car is), c) relative pronoun + verb in personal form (what they brought, who arrived), d) noun in the indirect case with a preposition, naming a characteristic feature of the denoted (about a person: in a raincoat, with glasses, with an umbrella), e) a verb in the personal form with an objective or adverbial distributor, denoting a characteristic action of a person (cleans the yard, distributes newspapers). In colloquial speech, nominations of this type, without any special syntactic means, are included in the statement in the role of any member of the sentence inherent in the nomination-noun:

Give me something to wrap //; Don’t forget soap and what to wipe yourself with //; You don’t have / where to put the apples //; Where we went skiing last winter / blocked / there is some kind of construction //; Whose package / come here //; Take napkins / where are the dishes //; Invite Mishka from the course for his birthday //; Is she picking up the trash/didn’t she come? Lives opposite/gets married/gets //; She finished with Katya / wants to act in films //.

In a codified language, such nominations can function not on an analytical, but only on a synthetic basis, formalized by special syntactic means, cf.: You don’t have some kind of bag where you can put apples; The place where we skied last winter was blocked off; Take napkins from the cupboard where the dishes are, etc.

4) Such a construction, which is also known from the grammars of a codified language, as a non-union complex sentence, can be considered analytical. In a complex sentence, certain semantic relationships are established between the parts that make up this sentence - predicative constructions. In a conjunctive complex sentence, these relationships are expressed by special syntactic means, primarily coordinating or subordinating conjunctions or allied words, cf.: I have to go to the pharmacy because I need to buy aspirin. In a non-conjunctive complex sentence, these relations are established on the basis of the lexical-semantic content of the connected predicative constructions: I’ll go to the pharmacy / I need aspirin, where the caused relations are “derived” from the semantics of the words pharmacy is a place where they sell medicines, and aspirin is one of the medicines. It is colloquial speech that is the main area of use of non-union complex sentences. It contains possible sentences that are not found at all in codified varieties of the language: We quickly ran to the subway / still got wet // (Although we quickly ran to the subway, we still got wet); I turned the corner / Irina and her husband are walking // (I turned around and saw that Irina was walking with her husband); This is the kind of fur coat I want / the woman passed by // (...the fur coat that the woman passed by); I'm tired / I can barely drag my feet // (I'm so tired that I can barely drag my feet).

The following non-union groups are widely represented in colloquial speech: complex sentences, in which the legitimacy of this or that information, question, etc. is justified: Christmas trees are already being sold / I passed // (I passed where they usually sell Christmas trees, and therefore they can report that Christmas trees are already being sold); Christmas trees are on sale! You were there today // (You were where Christmas trees are usually sold, and therefore you can answer the question whether the trade in Christmas trees has begun).

In addition to analytical constructions, the “syntactic face” of colloquial speech largely determines what in traditional grammars are called incomplete sentences. Incomplete sentences are sentences with unsubstituted syntactic positions, which are a signal that the meaning necessary for communication must be extracted either from the context, or from the situation, or from something common to speaking experience, general knowledge - background knowledge. Incomplete sentences are so common in spoken language that there is even an opinion that there are no complete sentences in spoken language at all. If there is an exaggeration in this statement, it is clearly a slight one. Wed: (the kettle is boiling in the kitchen) Boiled // Turn it off //; (in the car some time ago A. explained to the driver where to turn onto another street) A. Well, now // (turn off); (A. puts mustard plasters on B.) B. Come on lower // (A., B., V. and other persons usually go to dinner together at two o’clock, the time is five minutes to two. A. addresses everyone) So how? (are you going to go to lunch?); (A. usually comes home from work at a certain time, this time he came later, B., opening the door) What? (what happened, why was you delayed?); (A. just returned from the theater) B. How are you? (Did you like the performance?).

A characteristic feature of colloquial speech are statements with not one, but several unsubstituted positions, the meaning of which can be established both from the situation and from background knowledge:

(A. and B. are running to the train - a situation, it is known that at this time trains run frequently - background knowledge. A. to B.). No / soon // (no need to run to this train, because the next one will leave soon); (A. writes something - situation, lunch time - background knowledge. B. and A.) Finish / go // (stop writing and go have lunch).

And finally, another circle of syntactic features of colloquial speech are numerous and unique ways of highlighting in a sentence the most important components for understanding the meaning of a sentence. For these purposes the following are used:

- a special colloquial word order when two are directly related words can be separated by other words: Red buy me / please / rods // (red rods for the pen);

- various kinds of special words - actualizers (pronouns, negative or affirmative particles): Is he / already in school goes? //; Are you tomorrow / yes? are you leaving? //; Will he / no / come to us in the summer? //;

— repetition of current components: I will travel along the Volga this summer I/ Along the Volga //.

Vocabulary. In colloquial speech there are almost no special words unknown in the codified language. Her lexical features manifest themselves in another way: colloquial speech is characterized developed system own methods of nomination (naming). These methods include:

- semantic contractions with the help of suffixes: vecherka (evening newspaper), suvolka (absence without permission), minibus (minibus taxi), thrift store (thrift store), soda (sparkling water);

- substantivized adjectives, isolated from attributive phrases by omitting nouns: rolling (rolling shop), generalka (dress rehearsal), laboratoryka (laboratory work), Turgenevka (Turgenev library);

- semantic contractions by eliminating the defined: diploma ( graduate work), motor (motor boat), transistor (transistor receiver), maternity leave (maternity leave);

- semantic contractions by eliminating the determinant: water (mineral water), Council (Academic Council), garden, kindergarten (kindergarten), sand (granulated sugar);

- verb combinations - condensates (contractions): graduate (educational institution), enter (educational institution), celebrate (holiday), remove (from a position);

- metonymies: thin Platonov (thin volume of A. Platonov), long Corbusier (building by the architect Corbusier), to be on Falk (at the exhibition of the artist R. Falk).

The name of the situation occupies a special place among lexical colloquial means. The name of the situation is a specific noun, which in a certain micro-collective can denote some situation that is relevant for this collective: (in a situation of hassle installing a telephone, a statement is possible) Well, how / did your telephone run out? (i.e. the hassle of installing the phone); This year we completely abandoned apples // (preparing apples for the winter).

The main, if not the only, form of implementation of spoken language is the oral form. Only notes and other similar genres can be classified as the written form of colloquial speech. So, while sitting at a meeting, you can write to your friend Shall we leave? - and given the conditions of this situation and the corresponding background knowledge (you need to be on time somewhere), it will be clear what we are talking about. There is an opinion that all the features of colloquial speech are generated not by the conditions of its implementation (spontaneity, informality, direct contact between speakers), but rather by the oral form. In other words, it is believed that unreadable official public oral texts (report, lecture, radio conversation, etc.) are constructed in the same way as informal spontaneous ones. Is it so? Without a doubt, any oral public text that is not read “from a piece of paper” has its own significant features. The famous researcher of oral texts O. A. Lapteva, who owns the version about orality as the leading feature of uncodified texts, rightly notes the special, unknown to written texts, nature of the division of any oral unreadable texts. Here is her example of a fragment of one oral lecture:

Uh // how / after / the / phenomenon / of incommensurability / of two segments / was discovered / in the Pythagorean school / uh-this / in mathematics // a very serious crisis arose // From the point of view / of mathematics / of that time / on the one hand / everything had to be measured by numbers / and thus / e / the presence / of two / of two segments / which cannot be compared / followed / from the non-existence of one of them / and on the other hand / it was clear / what is clear / completely clear / and obvious / previously seemed / abstraction / as we say a square / or isosceles right triangle/ uh / completely / uh / well / can’t stand // well / can’t stand // well, they turn out to be non-existent // in a sense they turn out to be non-existent //.

However, despite the considerable syntactic features of this text, it is quite legitimate to assume that it contains a codified basis. To translate this text into written form, it is enough to carry out its simple and obvious editing, cf.:

“After the phenomenon of incommensurability of two segments was discovered in the Pythagorean school, a very serious crisis arose in mathematics. From the point of view of mathematics of that time, on the one hand, everything had to be measured by numbers, and, thus, from the presence of segments that could not be compared, the non-existence of one of them followed, and on the other hand, it was clear that such a previously seemingly perfect a clear and obvious abstraction, like, say, a square or an isosceles right triangle, is in a sense non-existent.”

Genuine colloquial texts, when translated into a codified written basis, require not editing, but translation, cf.:

You know / this is industrial training // Sashka is just great // He’s on this / some kind of radio // Our transistor has gone bad // He took everything out and shook it out // I think / well! And he did // Everything // He speaks and plays //

Here is a possible written translation of this text:

Industrial training gives a lot in practical terms (it gives a lot to a person, it’s very useful). Sasha works in radio (radio specialist at a radio company). And he achieved great success. For example, our transistor has gone bad. He took it all apart. I thought that he wouldn’t be able to put it together (that he broke it). And he collected everything and fixed it. And the receiver now works properly.

It is easy to see that in the translated text only the meaning is preserved, while the grammatical and lexical basis of the original and the translation are completely different.

So, from the point of view of linguistic features, one should distinguish between oral codified and uncodified spoken texts.

What significance does the information presented about the linguistic characteristics of spoken language have for the culture of language proficiency? Only one thing: in the context of conversational communication there is no need to be afraid of spontaneous manifestations of spoken language. And, naturally, you need to know what these spontaneous manifestations are in order to be able to distinguish them from errors, which, of course, can also occur in colloquial speech: incorrect stress, pronunciation, morphological forms, etc. There is a widespread belief that that cultured people should speak in all cases the same way as they write is fundamentally erroneous. If you follow this conviction, then it is easy to fall into the position of those “heroes” about whom K. I. Chukovsky wrote with great irony in his famous book about the language “Alive as Life”:

“On the train, a young woman, talking to me, praised her house on a collective farm near Moscow:

- As soon as you go out the gate, there’s a green area!

— There are so many mushrooms and berries in our green area.

And it was clear that she was very proud of herself for having such a “cultured speech.”

“What measures do you take to intensify the bite?”

Culture of Russian speech / Ed. OK. Graudina and E.N. Shiryaeva - M., 1999

§4. The concept of colloquial speech and its features

Colloquial speech is a special functional variety of literary language. If the language of fiction and functional styles have a single codified basis, then colloquial speech is contrasted with them as an uncodified sphere of communication. Codification is the fixation in various kinds of dictionaries and grammar of those norms and rules that must be observed when creating texts of codified functional varieties. The norms and rules of conversational communication are not fixed. Here is a small conversational dialogue that allows you to verify this:
A. “Arbat” (metro station) what is the best way for me (to take the metro)? B. ““Arbat” is the “Library”, “Borovitskaya” / it’s all the same / “Borovitskaya” is more convenient for you //.
A translation of this text into a codified language could be as follows:
A. What is the best way for me to get to the Arbatskaya station by metro? B. The Arbatskaya station is connected by passages to the stations “Library named after V.I. Lenin”, “Borovitskaya”, and therefore you can go to any of these stations. The most convenient way for you is to get to Borovitskaya.
Codified grammatical norms prohibit the use of the nominative case in the first statement of A. (“Arbat”) and the last statement of B. (“Borovitskaya”). Strong semantic reduction (compression) of B.'s first statement is also excluded in codified texts.
The famous Russian psychologist and linguist N.I. Zhinkin once remarked: “Paradoxical as it may seem, I think that linguists have been studying the silent person for a long time.” And he was absolutely right. For a long time it was believed that they speak the same or approximately the same way as they write. Only in the 60s. our century, when it became possible to record spoken speech using tape recorders and this speech came fully into the field of view of linguists, it turned out that existing codifications were not entirely suitable for the linguistic understanding of spoken speech. So what is colloquial speech?
Spoken speech as a special functional variety of language, and accordingly as a special object of linguistic research, is characterized by three extralinguistic, external to the language, features. The most important feature of colloquial speech is its spontaneity and lack of preparation. If, when creating even such simple written texts as, for example, a friendly letter, not to mention complex texts such as a scientific paper, each statement is thought out, many “difficult” texts are first written in rough form, then a spontaneous text does not require this kind of operation. The spontaneous creation of a colloquial text explains why neither linguists, nor even native speakers of the language, noticed its great differences from codified texts: linguistic colloquial features are not realized, are not fixed by consciousness, unlike codified linguistic indicators. This fact is interesting. When native speakers are presented with their own colloquial statements for normative assessment, such as “House of Shoes,” how to get there? (codified version of How to get to the “House of Shoes”), then often these assessments are negative: “This is a mistake,” “They don’t say that,” although for conversational dialogues such a statement is more than usual.
The second distinguishing feature of spoken language is that spoken communication is possible only through informal relationships between speakers.
And finally, the third feature of colloquial speech is that it can only be realized with the direct participation of speakers. Such participation of speakers in communication is obvious in dialogical communication, but even in communication when one of the interlocutors speaks mainly (cf. the genre of a colloquial story), the other interlocutor does not remain passive; He. so to speak, has the right, in contrast to the conditions for the implementation of a monologue official speech, to constantly “interfere” in communication, whether by agreeing or disagreeing with what is said in the form of remarks Yes, Of course, Okay, No, Well, or simply demonstrating his participation in communication interjections like Uh-huh, the real sound of which is difficult to convey in writing. The following observation is noteworthy in this regard: if you talk on the phone for a long time and do not receive any confirmation from the other end that you are being listened to - at least in the form of Uh-huh - then you begin to worry whether they are listening to you at all, interrupting themselves with remarks like can you hear me? Hello, and the like.
The pragmatic factor plays a special role in conversational communication. Pragmatics are those conditions of communication that include certain characteristics of the addresser (speaker, writer), addressee (listener, reader) and the situation that influence the linguistic structure of communication. Conversational informal communication with the direct participation of speakers is usually carried out between people who know each other well in a specific situation. Therefore, speakers have a certain common stock of knowledge. This knowledge is called background knowledge. It is background knowledge that makes it possible to construct such reduced statements in conversational communication that are completely incomprehensible without this background knowledge. The simplest example: your family knows that you went to take an exam, and they are worried about you; when you return home after the exam, you can say one word: “Excellent” - and everything will be extremely clear to everyone. The situation can have an equally profound influence on the linguistic design of a spoken utterance. Walking past an old mansion, you can say to your companion: “Eighteenth century,” and it will become clear that we are talking about an architectural monument of the 18th century.
As has already been said, the spontaneity of colloquial speech, its great differences from codified speech, lead to the fact that colloquial texts recorded in writing, one way or another, leave native speakers with the impression of some disorder; much in these texts is perceived as verbal negligence or simply as a mistake. This happens precisely because colloquial speech is assessed from the standpoint of codified instructions. In fact, it has its own norms, which cannot and should not be assessed as non-normative. Conversational features regularly and consistently manifest themselves in the speech of native speakers who have an impeccable command of codified norms and all codified functional varieties of the literary language. Therefore, colloquial speech is one of the full-fledged literary varieties of the language, and not some kind of linguistic formation that, as it seems to some native speakers, stands on the margins of the literary language or even beyond its borders.
What is a conversational norm? The norm in colloquial speech is something that is constantly used in the speech of native speakers of a literary language and is not perceived during spontaneous perception of speech as an error - “does not hurt the ear.” In colloquial speech there are often such pronunciations as stokko (instead of the codified so much), kada, tada (instead of the codified when, then) - and all this is an orthoepic colloquial norm. In colloquial speech, a special morphological form of address is more than common - the truncated nominative case of personal names, sometimes with repetition: Kat, Mash, Volod, Mash-a-Mash, Len-a-Len - and this is the morphological norm. In colloquial speech, the nominative case of a noun is consistently used where in codified texts only the indirect case is possible: Conservatory / how can I get closer? (How can I get closer to the conservatory?), We have a large pack of sugar (We have a large pack of sugar) - and this is a syntactic norm.
The norms of colloquial speech have one important feature. They are not strictly obligatory in the sense that in place of a colloquial one, a general literary norm can be used, and this does not violate the colloquial status of the text: there are no prohibitions on saying in an informal setting On the fourteenth trolleybus, you better go to Kazansky Station // and Fourteenth trolleybus is better for you Kazan // There are, however, a large number of words, forms, phrases that are intolerable in colloquial speech. Everyone, presumably, will easily feel the unnaturalness for a conversational situation of such a statement as it is more convenient for you to get to the Kazansky station if you use the trolleybus route number fourteen.
So, colloquial speech is spontaneous literary speech, realized in informal situations with the direct participation of speakers based on pragmatic conditions of communication.
The linguistic features of colloquial speech are so significant that they have given rise to the hypothesis that colloquial speech is based on a special system that cannot be reduced to the system of a codified language and cannot be derived from it. Therefore, in many studies, spoken language is called spoken language. This hypothesis can be accepted or rejected. In all cases, it remains true that colloquial speech has its own characteristics compared to codified language. Let's look at the main ones.
Phonetics. In colloquial speech, especially at a fast pace of pronunciation, a much stronger reduction of vowel sounds is possible than in a codified language, up to their complete loss.
In the area of consonants, the main feature of colloquial speech is the simplification of consonant groups.
Many phonetic features of colloquial speech act together, creating a very “exotic” phonetic appearance of words and phrases, especially frequency ones.
Morphology. The main difference between colloquial morphology is not that there are any special morphological phenomena in it (except for the already mentioned vocative forms of address like Mash, Mash-a-Mash, it is difficult to name anything else), but that some phenomena in it is missing. Thus, in colloquial speech such verbal forms as participles and gerunds are extremely rarely used in their direct functions associated with the creation of participial and participial phrases, which in works on syntactic stylistics are rightly characterized as purely bookish phrases. In colloquial speech, only such participles or gerunds are possible that perform the functions of ordinary adjectives or adverbs and are not the center of participial or gerund phrases, cf. knowledgeable people, crucial, close-fitting dress, trembling voice, shiny glass; lay without getting up, poured a full cup without measuring, walked without turning, arrived at the same time without saying a word, answered without hesitation. The absence of gerunds in colloquial speech has one important syntactic consequence for it. Those relations that in a codified language are conveyed by gerunds and participial phrases, in colloquial speech are formalized by a construction with double heterogeneous verbs, which is completely intolerable in a codified language, cf. Yesterday I was laying my head down and couldn’t lift it //; Write two phrases, don’t be lazy //; I sat here surrounded by dictionaries //; And then this manner / did and will not remove anything, goes away // (cf. codified leaves, without removing anything).
Syntax. Syntax is the part of grammar in which conversational features manifest themselves most clearly, consistently and diversely. The features of conversational syntax are found primarily in the area of connection between words and parts of a complex sentence (predicative constructions). In a codified language, these connections are usually expressed by special syntactic means: prepositional case forms, conjunctions and allied words. In colloquial speech, the role of such syntactic means is not so great: in it, semantic relationships between words and predicative constructions can be established on the basis of the lexical semantics of the connected components, an example of which is the nominative case of a noun, which can be used, as can be seen from many of the examples already given, in place many oblique cases. Languages with clearly expressed syntactic connections are called synthetic; languages in which connections between components are established based on the lexical-semantic indicators of the components are called analytical. Russian is a synthetic language, but some elements of analyticism are not alien to it. It is the tendency towards analyticism that represents one of the most important differences between colloquial syntax and codified syntax. Evidence of this tendency is the following colloquial syntactic structures.
1) Statements with the nominative case of a noun in those positions that in a codified language can only be occupied by a noun in indirect cases. Such statements include:
- statements with a noun in the nominative case with a verb, this noun is often highlighted intonationally into a separate syntagma, but quite typically without intonational emphasis: Next / we should go // (we should go at the next stop); This T-shirt is dark / show me / / (show me this dark T-shirt); Do you live on the second floor? - I used to be the second / now the fifth // (do you live on the second floor? - I used to live on the second, and now on the fifth); Their son seems to be a Physics and Technology student / and their daughter is a university philology faculty Romgerm // (their son studies at a physics and technology college, and their daughter is at a university in the Romano-Germanic department of the philology department);
- negative equivalents of existential sentences in which the nominative case of the noun appears in the place of the codified genitive case: Pen / don’t you have / phone to write down? // (don't you have a pen?); Do you have any radishes? - There are no radishes / they will bring them tomorrow // (there are no radishes);
- statements with a noun in the nominative case in the function of definition with another noun: He bought a cabinet / Karelian birch // (he bought a cabinet made of Karelian birch); I was given a cup / fine porcelain // (a cup made of fine porcelain); She has a fur coat of arctic fox paws // (a fur coat made from arctic fox paws);
- statements with nouns in the nominative case as the function of the nominal part of the predicate (in codified statements, indirect cases are used in this position): Is she from Kazan? - No / she is Ufa // (she is from Ufa); Your dog/what breed? // (what breed is your dog?);
- statements with a noun in the nominative case as the subject of predicates - predicative adverbs in -o: Too strong tea / harmful //; Forest / nice //. These statements do not have direct equivalents in codified language, their meaning is something like this: “It is harmful to drink too strong tea”; "It's nice to walk in the forest."
2) Statements with an infinitive denoting the intended purpose of an object named by a noun: I need to buy sneakers / run // (buy sneakers to run in them in the morning); You need a rug in the front room / to wipe your feet // (you need a rug in the front room to wipe your feet).
3) Statements with conversational nominations. In colloquial speech, there are special ways of designating objects, persons, etc., that is, special methods of nomination. To understand the syntax of colloquial speech, nominations constructed according to the following schemes should be taken into account: a) relative pronoun + infinitive (what to write, where to go, what to wear), b) relative pronoun + noun in the nominative case (where is the metro, whose car is) , c) relative pronoun + verb in the personal form (what they brought, who came), d) a noun in the indirect case with a preposition, naming a characteristic feature of the denoted (about a person: in a raincoat, glasses, with an umbrella), e) verb in the personal form form with an objective or adverbial distributor, denoting a characteristic action of a person (cleansing the yard, delivering newspapers). In colloquial speech, nominations of this type, without any special syntactic means, are included in the statement in the role of any member of the sentence inherent in the nomination-noun:
Give me something to wrap //; Don’t forget soap and what to dry yourself with II; You don’t have / where to put the apples //; Where we went skiing last winter / blocked / there is some kind of construction //; Whose package / come here / /; Take napkins / where are the dishes //; Invite Mishka from the course for his birthday //; Is she picking up the trash/didn’t she come? Lives opposite/gets married/gets //; She finished with Katya / wants to act in films //.
In a codified language, such nominations can function not on an analytical, but only on a synthetic basis, formalized by special syntactic means, cf.: You don’t have some kind of bag where you can put apples; The place where we skied last winter was blocked off; Take napkins from the cupboard where the dishes are, etc.
4) Such a construction, which is also known from the grammars of a codified language, as a non-union complex sentence, can be considered analytical. In a complex sentence, certain semantic relationships are established between the parts that make up this sentence - predicative constructions. In a conjunctive complex sentence, these relationships are expressed by special syntactic means, primarily coordinating or subordinating conjunctions or allied words, cf.: I have to go to the pharmacy because I need to buy aspirin. In a non-union complex sentence, these relations are established on the basis of the lexical-semantic content of the connected predicative constructions: I’ll go to the pharmacy / I need aspirin, where the caused relations are “derived” from the semantics of the words pharmacy is a place where they sell medicines, and aspirin is one of the medicines. It is colloquial speech that is the main area of use of non-union complex sentences. It contains possible sentences that are not found at all in codified varieties of the language: We quickly ran to the subway / still got wet // (Although we quickly ran to the subway, we still got wet); I turned the corner / Irina and her husband are walking // (I turned around and saw that Irina was walking with her husband); This is the kind of fur coat I want / the woman passed by // (...the fur coat that the woman passed by); I'm tired / I can barely drag my feet // (I'm so tired that I can barely drag my feet).
Such non-union complex sentences are widely represented in colloquial speech, in which the legitimacy of this or that information, question, etc. is justified: Christmas trees are already being sold / I passed // (I passed where they usually sell Christmas trees, and therefore they can report that Christmas trees are already on sale); Christmas trees are on sale! You were there today // (You were where Christmas trees are usually sold, and therefore you can answer the question whether the trade in Christmas trees has begun).
In addition to analytical constructions, the “syntactic face” of colloquial speech largely determines what in traditional grammars are called incomplete sentences. Incomplete sentences are sentences with unsubstituted syntactic positions, which are a signal that the meaning necessary for communication must be extracted either from the context, or from the situation, or from the speakers’ common experience, general knowledge - background knowledge. Incomplete sentences are so common in spoken language that there is even an opinion that there are no complete sentences in spoken language at all. If there is an exaggeration in this statement, it is clearly a slight one. Wed: (the kettle is boiling in the kitchen) Boiled // Turn it off //; (in the car some time ago A. explained to the driver where to turn onto another street) A. Well, now // (turn off); (A. puts mustard plasters on B.) B. Come on lower // (A., B., V. and other persons usually go to dinner together at two o’clock, the time is five minutes to two. A. addresses everyone) So how? (are you going to go to lunch?); (A. usually comes home from work at a certain time, this time he came later, B., opening the door) What? (what happened, why was you delayed?); (A. just returned from the theater) B. How are you? (Did you like the performance?).
A characteristic feature of colloquial speech are statements with not one, but several unsubstituted positions, the meaning of which can be established both from the situation and from background knowledge:
(A. and B. are running to the train - a situation, it is known that at this time trains run frequently - background knowledge. A. to B.). No / soon // (no need to run to this train, because the next one will leave soon); (A. writes something - situation, lunch time - background knowledge. B. and A.) Finish / go // (stop writing and go have lunch).
And finally, another circle of syntactic features of colloquial speech is the numerous and unique ways of highlighting in a sentence the most important components for understanding the meaning of a sentence. For these purposes the following are used:
- a special colloquial word order, when two directly related words can be separated by other words: Buy me red / please / rods // (red rods for a pen);
- various kinds of special words - actualizers (pronouns, negative or affirmative particles): Is he already going to school? //; Are you tomorrow / yes? are you leaving? //; Will he / no / come to us in the summer? //;
- repetition of current components: I will travel along the Volga this summer I/ Along the Volga //.
Vocabulary. In colloquial speech there are almost no special words unknown in the codified language. Its lexical features are manifested in another way: colloquial speech is characterized by a developed system of its own methods of nomination (naming). These methods include:
- semantic contractions using suffixes: vecherka (evening newspaper), suvolka (absence without leave), minibus (minibus taxi), thrift shop (thrift store), soda (sparkling water);
- substantivized adjectives, isolated from attributive phrases by omitting nouns: rolling (rolling shop), generalka (dress rehearsal), laboratorka (laboratory work), Turgenevka (Turgenev library);
- semantic contractions by the way of eliminating the defined: diploma (thesis), motor (motor boat), transistor (transistor receiver), maternity leave (maternity leave);
- semantic contractions by eliminating the determinant: water (mineral water), Council (Academic Council), garden, kindergarten (kindergarten), sand (granulated sugar);
- verb combinations - condensates (contractions): graduate (educational institution), enter (educational institution), celebrate (holiday), remove (from a position);
- metonymies: thin Platonov (thin volume of A. Platonov), long Corbusier (building by the architect Corbusier), to be on Falk (at the exhibition of the artist R. Falk).
The name of the situation occupies a special place among lexical colloquial means. The name of the situation is a specific noun, which in a certain micro-collective can denote some situation that is relevant for this collective: (in a situation of hassle installing a telephone, a statement is possible) Well, how / did your telephone run out? (i.e. the hassle of installing the phone); This year we completely abandoned apples (procuring apples for the winter).
The main, if not the only, form of implementation of spoken language is the oral form. Only notes and other similar genres can be classified as the written form of colloquial speech. So, while sitting at a meeting, you can write to your friend Shall we leave? - and given the conditions of this situation and the corresponding background knowledge (you need to be on time somewhere), it will be clear what we are talking about. There is an opinion that all the features of colloquial speech are generated not by the conditions of its implementation (spontaneity, informality, direct contact between speakers), but rather by the oral form. In other words, it is believed that unreadable official public oral texts (report, lecture, radio conversation, etc.) are constructed in the same way as informal spontaneous ones. Is it so? Without a doubt, any oral public text that is not read “from a piece of paper” has its own significant features. The famous researcher of oral texts O. A. Lapteva, who owns the version about orality as the leading feature of uncodified texts, rightly notes the special, unknown to written texts, nature of the division of any oral unreadable texts. Here is her example of a fragment of one oral lecture:
Uh // how / after / it was / in the Pythagorean school the discovery / of the phenomenon / of incommensurability / of two segments / uh-this / in mathematics // a very serious crisis arose // From the point of view of j mathematics / of that time / on the one hand / everything had to be measured by numbers / and thus / e / the presence / of two / of two segments / that cannot be compared / followed / the non-existence of one of them / on the other hand / was and was clear / what is clear / completely clear / and the obvious I previously seemed / abstraction / as we say a square / well, or an isosceles right triangle / e / absolutely I e / well / they can’t stand / / well / they can’t stand // well they turn out to not exist / / in a sense they turn out to be non-existent //.
However, despite the considerable syntactic features of this text, it is quite legitimate to assume that it contains a codified basis. To translate this text into written form, it is enough to carry out its simple and obvious editing, cf.:
“After the phenomenon of incommensurability of two segments was discovered in the Pythagorean school, a very serious crisis arose in mathematics. From the point of view of mathematics of that time, on the one hand, everything had to be measured by numbers, and, thus, from the presence of segments that could not be compared, the non-existence of one of them followed, and on the other hand, it was clear that such a previously seemingly perfect a clear and obvious abstraction, like, say, a square or an isosceles right triangle, turns out to be in some sense non-existent.”
Genuine colloquial texts, when translated into a codified written basis, require not editing, but translation, cf.:
You know / this is industrial training // Sasha is just great // He’s on this / some kind of radio // Our transistor has gone bad // He took everything out and shook it out // I think I well! And he did // Everything // He speaks and plays //
Here is a possible written translation of this text:
Industrial training gives a lot in practical terms (it gives a lot to a person, it’s very useful). Sasha works in radio (radio specialist at a radio company). And he achieved great success. For example, our transistor has gone bad. He took it all apart. I thought that he wouldn’t be able to put it together (that he broke it). And he collected everything and fixed it. And the receiver now works properly.
It is easy to see that in the translated text only the meaning is preserved, while the grammatical and lexical basis of the original and the translation are completely different.
So, from the point of view of linguistic features, one should distinguish between oral codified and uncodified spoken texts.
What significance does the information presented about the linguistic characteristics of spoken language have for the culture of language proficiency? Only one thing: in the context of conversational communication there is no need to be afraid of spontaneous manifestations of spoken language. And, naturally, you need to know what these spontaneous manifestations are in order to be able to distinguish them from errors, which, of course, can also occur in colloquial speech: incorrect stress, pronunciation, morphological forms, etc. There is a widespread belief that that cultured people should speak in all cases the same way as they write is fundamentally erroneous. If you follow this belief, then it is easy to fall into the position of those “heroes” about whom K. I. Chukovsky wrote with great irony in his famous book on language “Alive as Life”:
“On the train, a young woman, talking to me, praised her house on a collective farm near Moscow:
- As soon as you go out the gate, there’s a green area!
- There are so many mushrooms and berries in our green area.
And it was clear that she was very proud of herself for having such a “cultured speech.”
I heard the same pride in the voice of one stranger, who approached my friend, who was fishing in a nearby pond, clearly flaunting high “cultured speech”, and asked:
“What measures do you take to intensify the bite?”

§ 5. Pragmatics and stylistics of colloquial speech. Conditions for successful communication

The functional variety of the codified literary language “colloquial speech” is an example of communicative interaction between people, and therefore shows all the nuances of purposeful behavior. The informality of the communication environment, the situational conditionality of speech, its spontaneity, instantaneousness and simultaneity (simultaneity) of speech-thought processes obscure the complex nature of this phenomenal human behavior, which is largely determined by the social roles of the participants, their psychological characteristics, and emotional state.
Since antiquity, researchers of colloquial speech have distinguished such forms as dialogue, polylogue and monologue, recognizing dialogue as a “natural” form of language existence, and monologue as an “artificial” one. A polylogue is a conversation between several participants in communication. Monologue is the addressed speech of one participant in communication, for example a letter, a note (written forms of speech), a story, a story. Researchers, as a rule, project the problems of polylogue onto dialogue, defining dialogue as a conversation between more than one participant in communication, mainly oral interpersonal verbal interaction.
The structure of a dialogue is determined not so much by the rules of people’s linguistic behavior, but by the canons of human communication and individual characteristics speakers’ worldviews, therefore dialogue is studied not only by linguistic Disciplines, but also by other sciences. Discoveries in philosophy, cultural studies, psychology, and neuropsychology are especially valuable for speech culture. Thus, it is dialogue that is language in Hegel’s understanding: “self-consciousness that exists for others, which in this capacity is given directly and is universal.” Wed. also: “two voices - a minimum of life, a minimum of being... the word strives to be heard.” There is a well-known statement by E. Benveniste that man was created twice: once without language, another time with language. Thus, long before the conclusions of modern neuropsychology, philosophers came to the idea of the dialogical nature of consciousness, the appearance of the pure Self in speech (cf. the internal form of the word “consciousness”). Thus, consciousness (and speech creativity) is always targeted. M. M. Bakhtin introduced the concept of the “highest authority of response understanding”, the “addressee”, who will understand the speaker in any case, will help reveal the author’s intention. To understand the essence of colloquial speech, the following conclusion is important: a speaking person always declares himself as an individual, and only in this case is it possible to establish contact in communication with other people. In each statement, the speaker appears as a person with certain ethnic, national, cultural characteristics, revealing his own characteristics of worldview, ethical and value guidelines.
1. A necessary condition for the emergence of a dialogue and its successful completion is the need for communication, not explicitly expressed in linguistic forms, ^communicative interest (as defined by M. M. Bakhtin). Interest in communication cannot be fully characterized in linguistic terms, since it is in the sphere of action of the forces of social harmony and rules of behavior (in symmetrical or asymmetrical social relations). However, at the level of relations between participants in the dialogue, communicative interest establishes parity, regardless of social status and roles. Thus, interest in communication and equal rights in dialogue are not affected by: a) depth of acquaintance (close friends, acquaintances, strangers); b) degree social dependence(for example, the primacy of the father, subordinate position in the team); c) emotional background (benevolence, neutrality, hostility). In any case, if there is interest, there is an agreement to “listen”, “solidarity”. And this is the first step to successfully completing the conversation.
The success of verbal communication is the implementation of the communicative goal of the initiator (initiators) of communication and the achievement of agreement by the interlocutors.
2. The next important condition for successful communication, correct perception and understanding is the attunement to the world of the interlocutor, the closeness of the worldview of the speaker and the listener. L.P. Yakubinsky defined this as the proximity of the apperception base of speakers. M. M. Bakhtin called this phenomenon the apperceptive background of speech perception. Last life experience interlocutors, similar interests and cultural canons give rise to rapid mutual understanding, which is expressed by a rapid change of remarks using such paralinguistic means as facial expressions, gestures, tone, and timbre of voice. In intimate speech with complete trust and sincerity, anticipation of the listener's response is obvious and natural; in other genres, the success of verbal communication is determined by the speaker’s ability to imagine the world of the listener and organize his speech in accordance with this (starting with address, intonation pattern of the statement, word order, choice of semantic-syntactic structure of the sentence, expressive means different levels, etiquette formulas). This contributes to the emergence of favorable attention from the interlocutor, and also activates all components of the cultural understanding of speech, communicative expectations and associations; openness to any position of the speaker, readiness to accept all arguments, anticipation of the meaning of each phrase and further progress conversation. With the proximity of the apperception base, the active nature of the process of understanding on both the part of the speaker and the listener does not clearly manifest itself, since the interpretation of the interpretation does not require effort. Wed. statement by M.K. Mamardashvili: “Even from our experience we know that another person understands you, if he already understands. Understanding occurs when, in addition to a number of verbal and symbolic forms, there is an additional effect of the coexistence of some “field” [cit. by: -52, 105].
Such speech phenomena as hint, guess, various ways of manifesting the category of certainty/uncertainty, referential reference rest on the knowledge of “what’s the matter”; Wed subtle observation by E. D. Polivanov: “We speak only with necessary hints.”
Thus, this condition successful verbal communication is also largely outside the competence of linguistic analysis, as it is rooted in the past life experiences of the interlocutors and in the practice of “using” the language.
Speech forms of correct attunement to the world of the listener are very different: type of address, intonation, timbre of voice, rate of speech, one and a half, special means of expressing the speaker’s attitude to the subject of speech (epithets, evaluative adverbs, introductory words and sentences), to the interlocutor, hints, allusions, ellipsis; implicit (or, conversely, explicit) ways of transmitting information, pauses, silence, etc.
3. The main condition for successful verbal communication is the listener’s ability to penetrate into the communicative intent (intention, intention) of the speaker. Since communicative intention is formed at the pre-verbal level of speech-thought, and comprehension of the meaning of what is said occurs parallel to the linear development of the utterance, the listener does a great job of interpretation speech flow and “reconstruction” of the speaker’s intention, by rethinking what was previously said and understood, by correlating his “model” of the understood with the real facts and line of behavior of the interlocutor. This “work” is also instantaneous, simultaneous and biological in its essence, as well as the process of speaking, so it is natural here individual differences. Basics of Study speech activity were founded in the 30s. in the works of L. S. Vygotsky and his students. In the 20-30s. L. V. Shcherba in his reports, lectures and articles emphasized that the processes of speaking and understanding are not only psychophysiologically determined, but also have social nature, are " social product» .
With all the subtleties of individual perception of speech, the speaker and the listener proceed from the following assumed facts (provisions of the theory of speech activity): a) logical structures and linguistic constructions are not completely correlative, that is, equal to each other; there are laws of non-expression of thought structures; b) there are explicit and implicit ways of expressing meaning. In colloquial speech, non-expression of semantic fragments and selective reflection of the “state of affairs” or “picture of the world” is a typical phenomenon: it is in this functional variety that the most complex interaction between the speaker and the listener, the most stringent requirement of situational speech behavior, the most active and creative nature of speech understanding.
Understanding processes are the focus of many linguistic disciplines: cognitive linguistics, functional linguistics, theory of speech influence, theory of speech acts (SPA), pragmatics, psycholinguistics, speech culture, etc. The main question in speech communication is: how are they connected and how do they participate in the organization? utterances and speech flow in general (and its understanding) the meaning of linguistic units, syntactic constructions, the speaker’s opinion and his attitude towards the addressee, emotions and associations. The expression “A thought expressed is a lie” fully corresponds to the actual situation when the content of verbal communication is always broader than the meaning of all linguistic elements and knowledge of their meanings is no guarantee of successful understanding.
The task of creating a “grammar” of speaker and listener, which was put forward by L.V. Shcherba at the beginning of the century, remains unfulfilled. Nevertheless, scientists of different directions have come to the conclusion that semantic blocks are formed (and extracted) on the basis of certain combinations of linguistic units, that by the combination of linguistic units one can judge the background knowledge of the speaker, his memory, ways of using knowledge, and the transmitted information, the components of which there may be knowledge, beliefs, values, generally accepted opinions, attitudes, desires, assessments, emotions. As a unit of the content structure of speech and thought, T. A. van Dijk proposes a “construction of knowledge” - a frame. J. Lakoff - Gestalt. Naturally, it is impossible to give practical recommendations for the frame representation of a particular situation, fact, event for the culture of speech: any frame or gestalt of thought-perception (and a specific language model) will be poorer than the real meaning, the concept, which always includes emotive and evaluative components in a non-trivial way, which constitute the essence of linguistic competence and the basis of language proficiency.
The concept of linguistic (communicative) competence is the central concept of communicative interaction. Wed. according to Yu. D. Apresyan: “to master a language means: (a) to be able to express a given meaning in different (ideally, all possible in a given language) ways (the ability to paraphrase); (b) be able to extract meaning from what is said in a given language, in particular, to distinguish between outwardly similar, but different in meaning statements (distinguishing homonymy) and finding a common meaning in apparently different statements (mastery of synonymy); (c) be able to distinguish the correct ones linguistically proposals from incorrect ones."
Communicative competence presupposes knowledge of sociocultural norms and stereotypes of verbal communication. Thus, someone who knows these norms knows not only the meaning of units of different levels and the meaning of the types of combinations of these elements, but also the meaning of textual social parameters; for example, he knows the techniques of dialogizing speech (he knows how to use addresses in various forms, he knows how to sincerely express his assessment of a particular fact or event, which usually evokes a response, reciprocal empathy), he knows how to predict the emotive reactions of interlocutors, he knows the means of intimate communication. An important role in this is played by the speaker’s knowledge of expressions known to the addressee with an “incremented” meaning that have undergone the process of “secondary signification” in various speech situations: aphorisms, proverbs, sayings, text cliches, precedent texts, allusions, for example: counted - shed a tear; I said! (proverb by Gleb Zheglov in the film “The meeting place cannot be changed”); sword of Damocles; Achilles' heel; home preparation (in the game “KVN”); the train left; we wanted the best, but it turned out as always; I don’t know any other country like this; Akaki Akakievich's overcoat; It’s not because he’s good, but because he’s good; parade of winners. Allusions and precedent texts in the speaker’s speech indicate a high degree of mastery of the social norms of the language; the interlocutor’s reaction to them is clearly predetermined by national, cultural traditions, “folk laughter culture.”
It is important to understand that linguistic (communicative) competence, helping the listener to recognize “true hierarchies” in a statement or text, allows one to correlate the relevance of a particular linguistic fact (word, expression, syntactic model) with the speaker’s intention. This can be called the key to adequate understanding.
4. The success of communication depends on the speaker’s ability to vary the way of linguistic representation of a particular real event. This is primarily due to the possibility of different conceptualizations of the surrounding world. The worldview of an individual and the existing mental categories determine such categories of language that, by formal means of different levels of the language system, designate any concept about the world. These categories are called functional because they show language in action. In language there are functional categories of various ranks, for example beingness, characterization, qualification, identification, optativity, definiteness, location, etc.
The speaker shapes the utterance and the text as a whole. He forms his own style of written speech, a “point of view” when reflecting in speech some events, phenomena, facts, fragments of the “picture of the world”. The role of the speaker is also manifested in the method of linear organization of speech, in the choice of the main “participant in the action”; for example, the syntactic position at the beginning of a sentence is intended to indicate what (who) the sentence is talking about, that is, the topic of the statement; and the type of syntactic construction and its meaning depend on what exactly the speaker makes the topic. Wed: A wave swept the boat; The boat was overwhelmed by a wave; The boat was overwhelmed.
Except in various ways“scenario” representation of real events, the speaker always conveys his attitude to the subject of speech, as well as (directly or indirectly) to the addressee using linguistic means. Thus, diminutive suffixes of nouns occur in speech if the addressee is close or sympathetic to the speaker (or in some situations the speaker wants to demonstrate this); for example (conversation between friends): This little blouse suits your violet eyes. Thus, in the construction of a statement, in the choice of words, intonation, the speaker always reveals his (typical or individual) view of the world, and the success of verbal communication depends on how consistent this view is with the characteristics of the addressee’s worldview or his point of view on any issue . There is a set of stereotyped constructions in language that “suggest” the interlocutor’s reaction; for example: The scary thing is...; You need to imagine...; The important thing is that...; Naturally...; As is known; In general, etc.
The speaker constructs his speech with an orientation towards the world of knowledge of the addressee, adapting the form of presenting information to the possibilities of its interpretation. Wed: A. - The grass is dry. B. - So what? A. - There was no dew. B. - Why do you care? A. - It will rain. B. - Yes?." This fragment of the conversation shows the difference in the awareness of the speaker and the addressee, therefore, for speedy understanding, the speaker should have structured his information in the form of a statement expressing cause-and-effect relationships between facts. These could be two simple sentences, or a complex sentence sentence, or non-union complex; for example: There is no dew - there will be rain; Dry grass in the evening - for rain.
The basic rule of speaker behavior is the hierarchization of the content of what is being communicated, which should be based on the speaker’s awareness of a particular issue; First, information is provided that can be used in interpreting the subsequent one. The personality of the addressee (and in polylogue, the character of the audience) also determines the style of information. Wed. the episode shown by B. Shaw in the play “Pygmalion” with an inappropriate, in secular society, comprehensive “weather report”, which was reported by Eliza Doolittle instead of passing remarks.
The topic of conversation “dictates” the speaker's ways its representations in speech. Thus, the themes of patriotism, personality and society, duty, love require special vocabulary, means of subjective authorial modality, different from those that can be used when discussing culinary recipes or in a story about a noisy feast.
Mutual understanding and correct interpretation of the speaker’s position on any issue is possible only if the speech is the embodiment of a feeling-thought, if it is figurative, sincere, emotional, and resonates with the interlocutor. And if psychologists and neurophysiologists experimentally prove the joint actualization during the perception of speech of “zones of knowledge,” “memory,” “emotions,” then philosophers have come to similar conclusions in a logical way: “Cognition and the value attitude constitute two inseparable and equal in importance sides<...>human consciousness should be approached not only as knowledge, but also as an attitude<...>Cognition is the basis of experiencing any object, just as, conversely, interest and passion for an object increase the effectiveness of its cognition.” N.D. Arutyunova, explaining the broad pragmatic meaning of the verbs to believe and see as processes in the “sphere of reason,” notes: “In the inner world of a person there are no clear boundaries separating the mental and emotional spheres, will and desires, perceptions and judgments, knowledge and faith.”
Let us remind the reader of the thought of L.N. Tolstoy: no force can ever force humanity to understand the world through boredom.
Thus, for successful verbal communication, the speaker should not strive to tell the interlocutor only the facts, the “naked truth,” the objective truth: he will still reveal his opinion. On the contrary, one should consciously combine “direct” communication (information) and “indirect”, putting the message in a “shell”, a “fleur” of one’s own understanding, which seeks sympathy from the addressee. It could be irony, humor, paradox, symbol, image. Such speech is always a search for agreement.
5. The success of verbal communication is influenced by external circumstances: the presence of strangers, the communication channel (for example, a telephone conversation, a message on a pager, a note, a letter, a face-to-face conversation), mood, emotional state, physiological state - all this can determine the fate of the conversation . There is a distinction between contact and distance communication; direct - indirect; oral - written. Communication will be more successful if it occurs orally and the interlocutors are alone. But even favorable circumstances are not a guarantee of success or agreement. A conversation is “created” by speech segments (replicas), pauses, tempo, gestures, facial expressions, glances, postures, the conversation develops over time, and each subsequent replica “layers” on everything said previously, interacts with it, and the result of this interaction is unpredictable. The atmosphere of the dialogue becomes no less significant than its content, and therefore the “element” of the conversation increasingly captivates the interlocutors.
7. An important component successful verbal communication is the speaker’s knowledge of the norms of etiquette speech communication. Regardless of politeness formulas, language has specific set statements, fixed by the tradition of using language, which “prescribe” a certain form of response to the addressee. For example, for people who speak the language, it is not difficult to interpret the question How are you? There is a response stereotype, speech etiquette behavior as a reaction to the expression How are you? How are you? and the like. In specific communication situations, the listener correctly understands the speaker’s communicative goal, even if the statement is not formulaic, and builds a response in accordance with this. Thus, the phrase Cold with lowering intonation can mean, based on the speaker’s communicative intentions: 1) a request to close the window; 2) information about low temperature outside; 3) a warning to the addressee (“You can’t swim!”; “You’re dressed lightly”); 4) complaint of chills, feeling unwell; 5) signal in the game “hot-cold”; 6) an explanation of the reasons for any actions, for example, taping up windows, wrapping up children.
Etiquette speech behavior is strictly predetermined not only by “traditional” questions, but also by the circumstances of the conversation, the tone of communication, and its style. The basic rule for responding to an address: the remark must fit into the “context” of the dialogue, that is, be appropriate. To do this, every speaker of the language needs to know the meaning of “non-literal expressions,” that is, expressions whose meaning is not derived from the meanings of their constituent word forms; for example, to the request Could you please pass the bread? or won't you pass the bread? the addressee should answer: “Yes, please,” but not “I can (can’t)” or “I will pass (I will not).” According to these rules, the flower girl Eliza Doolittle from B. Shaw's play "Pygmalion" responds to the remark "Beautiful weather, isn't it?" had to respond with a phrase that was not only linguistically impeccably constructed, but also aesthetically and socioculturally recognized as “typical.”
8. The conditions for successful verbal communication are also rooted in the correspondence of the plans and patterns of speech behavior of the interlocutors, which are based on a certain level of human relations and social interaction.
The tradition of studying language as an activity comes from Aristotle: dividing oratorical speeches into three types in his “Rhetoric,” he shows that there is a connection between the types of communication situations and the sociocultural spheres of human life. But unlike rhetoric, where the interdependence of speech, ethical norms and actions is initially assumed, in the study of spoken speech the concept of a “speaking person” is not always at the forefront and, therefore, remarks do not qualify as speech behavior. Nevertheless, the exchange of remarks is subject to the strict rules of dialogue as a process, where each conversation remark predetermines the next one and determines the course of the conversation.
How realistic is it to implement the dialogue plans? Even a carefully thought-out course of conversation and the prescribed procedure for exchanging opinions does not always lead to agreement between the interlocutors and a successful conclusion of the conversation. This phenomenon caused a comparison of the dialogue with an “element”, with a river that cannot be entered twice. Compare: “... a natural conversation is never the way we wanted it to be. It would be more accurate to say that we find ourselves in a state of conversation, or even embroiled in it... Whether understanding is achieved or not is what happens to us.”
Thus, success in dialogue is led by a successful prediction of the listener’s perception of the speaker’s remarks, the speaker’s ability to predict the general intention of the listener’s interpretation and the strategy of his perception. At the same time, perception should also be assessed as a “behavioral” act. Using L. Shcherba’s terminology, we can say that in each specific case, modeling the “speaker’s grammar” is a milestone in the construction of the “listener’s grammar,” which is a determining factor in the effectiveness of a conversation.
The most holistic consideration of dialogue in the “human dimension” is the theory of speech and action by M. M. Bakhtin and the formulation of the problem of “typical forms of utterances, that is, speech genres.” Compare: “In each era of the development of a literary language, certain speech genres set the tone, not only secondary (literary, journalistic, scientific), but also primary (certain types of oral dialogue - salon, familiar, circle, family and everyday life, socio-political , philosophical, etc.)". M. M. Bakhtin owns such important discoveries from a methodological point of view as the categories “communicative interest”, “speaking person”, “solidarity of participants in communication”, “search for agreement”, “highest authority of responsive understanding”, “active role of the Other”, “ritual speech behavior”, “ game situation communication”, “folk laughter culture”, etc. M. M. Bakhtin already at the beginning of the century called dialogue (the interaction of at least two statements) a real unit of language-speech, a constructive basis of thought.
An attempt to generalize the conditions for successful communicative interaction is the theory of speech acts (SPA). The main attention in TRA is paid to illocution - the manifestation of the purpose of speaking; in the definition of illocution, the most significant point is the recognition of communicative intention (according to P. Grice); or “open intention” (according to Strawson). The object of research in TPA is the act of speech, not dialogue. The creators of this theory, J. Austin, J. R. Searle, P. Grice, P. R. Strawson, proposed a list of rules for using language, raised the question of the calculation of speech acts and the typology of communicative failures. General principle speaker and listener - the principle of cooperation; the linguistic competence of the listener lies primarily in his knowledge of “conversational maxims”; with the help of these maxims the speaker seeks to “ensure assimilation.” However, without the ability to control the result and take into account the progress of the dialogue, these rules represent only a generalization of some mandatory elements of speech (“be as informative as necessary”; “don’t say anything that you consider to be inconsistent with the truth”; “speak clearly” ; “say what is relevant to the topic” - the maxim of relevance). TRA did not emphasize the topic of interpretation, although P. Grice drew attention to the existence of non-literal meanings of expressions.
Critics of the theory of speech acts denied the possibility of their calculation due to the abstractness of their schemes, isolation from real social conditions, and failure to take into account many parameters of their possible use. Thus, D. Frank came to the conclusion that the interpretive process “can never be reduced to a simple mechanical application of rules; This process is closer in nature to the construction of plausible hypotheses than to logical deduction.” J. Searle, one of the authors of TPA, at the end of his research journey actually repeats the provisions of the theory of speech activity and cognitive linguistics: thinking is preverbal, “language is logically derived from intentionality. Our ability to relate ourselves to the world through intentional states - opinions, desires, etc. - is biologically more fundamental than our verbal ability. Consequently, we should talk about the problem of declaring not intentionality in terms of language, but, on the contrary, language in terms of intentionality."
Thus, the success of verbal communication depends on the desire of the participants in the form of dialogue to express their opinions, desires, requests, report something, etc.; from the ability to determine all the personal characteristics of communicants, to organize their remarks in accordance with this, containing information on a certain issue, expressing an opinion, a call to action or a question in an optimal form under the given circumstances, at an intellectual level worthy of the interlocutors, from an interesting perspective. (For more information on ways to organize speech, see § 6 and 7.)

§ 6. Causes of communication failures

The linguistic given “speech communication” is “largely formed by non-linguistic factors and constructs extra-linguistic entities: relationships, action, state, emotions, knowledge, beliefs, etc. Therefore, both the success of verbal communication and failures do not always depend on the choice of linguistic forms by speakers .
Communication failures are the failure of the initiator of communication to achieve the communicative goal and, more broadly, pragmatic aspirations, as well as the lack of interaction, mutual understanding and agreement between the participants in communication.
The linear development of a dialogue (or polylogue) is determined by different-order, but at the same time interconnected factors, linguistic and extralinguistic processes. Therefore, the search for the causes of communicative failures should be carried out in different areas: in the socio-cultural stereotypes of communicants, in their background knowledge, in differences in communicative competence, in the psychology of gender, age, and personality. Moreover, naturally Negative influence The outcome of verbal communication can be influenced by the distance of the participants, the presence of strangers, communication through notes, letters, pagers, and by telephone. All features of the development of the speech situation, including the state of the communicants and their mood, play a large role.
The apparent amorphousness and intangibility of the components of verbal communication nevertheless allows us to highlight the following unfavorable factors leading to communication failure.
1. An alien communication environment reduces the efforts of communication participants to nothing, since disharmony reigns in such an environment and the interlocutors are not attuned to the phenomenal inner world each other. In dialogue communication in front of strangers, the interlocutors feel discomfort, which prevents them from realizing themselves in a given situation and determining the tone of their speech behavior. A low degree of familiarity can aggravate discomfort and make it difficult to find a “common language.” A student who comes to visit his fellow student in the dormitory may find himself in such an unfavorable situation; a friend visiting a friend at her work. Regardless of the communicative intention, social interaction is difficult, it is impossible to fully “present oneself” in one or another property. The situation can be complicated by distractions: interference from third parties, forced pauses, distractions from the conversation for various reasons. During polylogue in an alien communicative environment, it is impossible to achieve agreement in a conversation on any topic due to social, psychological differences, differences in education, understanding of moral standards, due to different interests, opinions, assessments, knowledge of the interlocutors.
Incomplete verbal contact (even with interest in communication) can manifest itself in a low rate of exchange of remarks, inappropriate statements, inappropriate jokes and emotional reactions (for example, in irony instead of sympathy), incorrect interpretation and in general in “dissonant” exchanges of remarks.
2. A serious reason for alienating conversation participants may be a violation of the parity of communication. In this case, there is also a violation of the rules of solidarity and cooperation between interlocutors. This is manifested in the dominance of one of the participants in the conversation: starting from the initial remark, the same person chooses the topic of conversation, asks questions, interrupts the interlocutor, without waiting for signals of perception and correct interpretation of what was said, thus turning the dialogue into a monologue. In this case, the determining role is played by such factors as the psychological traits of the participants in communication, social status, emotional relationships, cultural skills. Wed. the role of the particle in the question: Are you coming with us?
3. The communicative intentions of the interlocutors will not be realized, agreement will not arise if live speech communication is ritualized. In a ritualized remark, all pragmatic characteristics of speech (who - to whom - what - why - why) are leveled: the rule of a sincere friendly attitude towards the interlocutor, i.e., ethical norms, is violated, and the use of a “set of words” for the occasion takes place. The speaker does not check the “value” of his statement by the attention of the listener, his participation in the conversation, in creating a meaningful outline of communication. Cliche constructions like We have already gone through this, common judgments, categorical statements - all this narrows the scope of the possible use of words, practically limiting it to stereotyped expressions in which there is no dynamics of feeling-thought. In ritualized utterances (and dialogues in general), the living thread of the conversation is broken - the connection between the speaker and the listener: “I’m talking,” “I’m telling you”; the addressee is deprived of the opportunity to hear openly expressed argumentation, and the speaker hides his opinion under the “known” opinion of “everyone.”
4. The reason for breaking contact with the interlocutor and ending the conversation may be an inappropriate remark addressed to the listener about his actions, personal qualities, which can be interpreted as an unfriendly attitude of the speaker (violation of the rules of cooperation, solidarity, relevance). Wed. broad understanding inappropriateness according to Cicero: “Whoever does not take into account circumstances, who is excessively talkative, who is boastful, who does not take into account either the dignity or the interests of his interlocutors, and in general who is awkward and annoying, they say that he is “inappropriate.” There are different techniques for introducing “off-topic” remarks into the text of a dialogue. Wed. hyperbole: “Parsley, you’re always wearing new clothes, With a torn elbow” [Griboyedov]; (conversation with a child) - Don’t put any dirt in your mouth! - It’s not just any kind, it’s a doll’s teapot; Wed example of T. M. Nikolaeva: You are always interested in how old someone is - (said to a person who just once asked similar question) .
Inappropriateness may be caused by the speaker’s inability to grasp the mood of the interlocutor, to determine the course of his thoughts. This is typical for conversations between unfamiliar people. In initial remarks, there are often cases of using personal and demonstrative pronouns in the expectation that the listener knows what is being said; for example: They always do this after courses (fellow traveler to your neighbor on the bus). - Who? - The drivers, I say, are inexperienced. It jerks from its place, the turn is not worked out. - Ah... It is clear that the train of thought of the listener was not the same as that of the initiator of the conversation. Hence the misunderstanding. Such speech is socially marked; in addition, this is characteristic of women's speech.
A discrepancy between the sociocultural characteristics of the participants in communication can also lead to inappropriate phrases leading to communication failure. Wed. humorous ending to the dialogue given in the article by N. N. Troshina: “The businessman Maisl comes from Chernivtsi to Vienna. In the evening he wants to go to the Burgtheater. He asks at the theater box office: “Well, what do you have on stage today?” - "As you wish". - "Great! Let there be "Queen of Csardas". If the reader knows that the Burgtheater is Theatre of Drama and that “As You Please” is a play by Shakespeare, then the businessman’s communicative failure will be obvious.
5. Misunderstanding and failure of interlocutors to reach agreement can be caused by a number of circumstances when the listener’s communicative expectations are not met. And if eliminating the causes of unsuccessful communication, which lie in the sphere of sociocultural stereotypes, background knowledge, psychological biases (acceptance/rejection of the actions or character traits of the interlocutor), is in principle impossible, then misunderstanding caused by a low level of language competence can be overcome. Wed. dialogue on a tram between a mother and daughter who came to Moscow from the suburbs. Daughter: It’s good that I didn’t go to college in Moscow, otherwise I would have been going back and forth every day. - Mother: And in the evening I would come on eyebrows. - Daughter: Why on the eyebrows? - Mother: Well, I would be very tired. - Daughter: Why “too” on the eyebrows? - Mother: That's what they say... (doesn't know how to explain). The mother does not know the meaning of the expression “on the eyebrows” - “(come, reach, crawl) (simple) - about a drunk: with difficulty, barely get there” [Ozhegov S., Shvedova N., 1992. P. 58], therefore he uses the expression inappropriately; It seems to my daughter that she has never heard this expression at all. Here we see a typical case of low level of language proficiency: the use of set expressions not to Meet y, lack of knowledge exact value words. Another type of misunderstanding or misunderstanding is associated with the lack of clarity for the listener of words with an abstract meaning or words-terms corresponding to special areas of knowledge. So, for example, during a polylogue (three conversation participants, colleagues, two with university education), one of the interlocutors looked at his watch and began to say goodbye: “I feel good with you... However, time is not the time, I still need to go to one place today on business... “We will meet again!” (line from a popular song). - 2nd student: Tanyush, don’t disappear. - Where am I going, we are phenomenal - 3rd student: What, what? Sophenomenal? I don’t understand...” The word sophenomenal turned out to be a kind of litmus test for determining the world of knowledge of the third participant in the polylogue.
Communication discomfort, misinterpretation and alienation arise when the linear organization of an utterance is incorrect. Syntactic errors in agreement, stringing of cases, truncated sentences, lack of understanding, jumping from one topic to another, even a close one - all this causes strained attention and failure to fulfill the communicative expectations of the listener. The situation is aggravated by a fast pace of speech and pauses in thinking (hesitations). If at the same time the speaker informs the listener on a topic known to him, then the listener has to do a lot of “work” in conjecturing the overall picture, and if the topic of the message is unknown to the addressee, then the speaker risks being misunderstood. An illustration of such communicative failures can be a dialogue between two schoolchildren, when one of them tells a friend about his impressions of the action movie he saw yesterday. A.: He loves it... Well, in general... - B.: Who? Who? - A.: Well, this one, which at the beginning.. . - B.: And that one? - A.: And what about that one? That one didn’t climb anymore...
In everyday speech, the incompleteness of statements and their contamination (overlap) is “deciphered” with the help of the intonation pattern of the replica and accompanying circumstances. However, we should not forget that the linguistic understanding of the same events and facts is different for different people, and the manner of speech “compression” and ellipticalization is also individual, so the listener’s attempts to extract meaning from a heard phrase may be in vain. Wed. the dialogue between Daria Stepanovna (the housekeeper) and Professor Nikolai Nikolaevich (Henin) in I. Grekova’s story “The Department”: “Daria Stepanovna’s speech was given a special uniqueness by gaps and gaps, from which many phrases became some kind of rebus... The interlocutor is not a fool it's him! - he should have understood what he was talking about. She believed sacredly in this a priori awareness of everyone about the course of her thoughts. Most of all she loved the program “Man and the Law.” She couldn’t understand the professor’s lack of attention to this spectacle and condemned:
- Everyone with books and books, that’s why they missed it. About punks sixteen thirty. My wife is eight years old, I sharpened my knife - once! She was in intensive care for three hours and died.
- Eight years old wife? - Enin asked with horror.
- You understand everything, you don’t want to listen. Not his wife, but he is eight years old. Few. I would give more." [Cit. according to 47, 68].
Communicative disharmony and misunderstanding can be caused by differences in behavior patterns of dialogue participants, which is reflected in the incoherence (fragmentation) of parts of the dialogue, unrealized communicative valence of remarks, and unjustified pauses.

§ 7. Communication goals, speech strategies, tactics and techniques

Speech communication, being a special type of purposeful human behavior, requires an analysis of such types of speech communication that can be considered exemplary in the aspect of speech culture.
l. We offer the following classification of types of speech communication. According to the communicative attitude, all speech acts are divided into two large categories: informative and interpretative.
By modal characteristic Informative dialogues include informative (or messages) proper, discursive genres and “prescriptive” types of communication. The initial remarks and the role of the leader in the conversation predetermine the next stage of typology of dialogues (see § 8). Interpretative dialogues can be divided into the following classes: goal-directed and undirected. Purposeful in terms of modal characteristics, in turn, are divided into dialogues that form an evaluative model (for example, conversations like: And in a moment this sitchik is being corrected: it will look great in the bedroom), and dialogues that form a modality of a different type (cf., for example, quarrels, claims, reconciliation). Undirected dialogues differ in which aspect of the personality is realized in the conversation: I-intellectual, I-emotional, I-aesthetic.
2. Speech strategies are identified based on an analysis of the course of dialogue interaction throughout the conversation. The smallest unit of research is a dialogue “step” - a fragment of dialogue characterized by semantic exhaustion. The number of such “steps” in a dialogue may vary depending on the topic, the relationship between the participants in communication and all pragmatic factors.
As a rule, the strategy is determined by the macrointention of one (or all) participants in the dialogue, determined by social and psychological situations. The strategy is associated with the search for a common language and the development of the foundations of dialogic cooperation: this is the choice of the tone of communication, the choice of a linguistic method of presenting the real state of affairs. Strategy development is always influenced by requirements stylistic norm.
Speech strategies combine in dialogue elements of play and ritual speech behavior (traditional remarks, pauses, sayings and “on-duty” topics, for example, about health, about the weather). A game is also a repeating model of speech behavior within the framework of a stylistic norm; it can be purely stereotypical or represent a deviation from a stereotype of behavior (breaking a stereotype). So, for example, irony-negation in everyday dialogue is a non-trivial remark: (a conversation between two acquaintances who have not seen each other for a long time): A. - Hello, Marinochka! - B. - Hello, honey! - A. - Long time no see... Well, how is Valya, Dimochka? - B. - Everything is the same with us. We are growing little by little. How are you - A. - And here it’s like everywhere else... You understand... - B. - And it looks like you’re thriving... - A. - Yeah, I’m thriving with the flowers on my blouse.
According to the attitude of the participants in the dialogue to such a principle of organizing speech communication as solidarity or cooperation, speech strategies can be divided into cooperative and non-cooperative.
Cooperative strategies include different types of informative and interpretative dialogues; for example, reporting information (initiator-active participant in the dialogue); clarification of the true state of affairs (dispute, exchange of opinions on any issue; all participants are active); dialogues with the expectation of a response by the initiator of the dialogue and “dialogues” that exclude response remarks (the first category includes request, advice, persuasion, exhortation; the second - demand, order, recommendation). An accurate description of the type of dialogue is given by verbs that directly reveal the purpose of the initiator’s speech - I ask, I advise, I beg, I demand, etc.; expressions of gratitude, recognition, love, apologies, expressions of sympathy, sympathy, friendly feelings, compliments.
Non-cooperative strategies include Dialogues based on violation of the rules of verbal communication - benevolent cooperation, sincerity, adherence to the “code” of trust, for example: conflicts, quarrels, squabbles, claims, threats, aggression, anger, irony, guile, lies, evasion from the answer.
Speech strategies outline the general development of the dialogue, which is fully revealed only in the final remarks, because, we remind you, there are no rules for “managing” the conversation and any parameter pragmatic characteristics verbal communication can have a significant impact on the outcome of the dialogue. In addition, the chosen framework of communication style dictates the “plot twists” of the conversation and methods of expression. Wed. figurative expression semiologist R. Barth: “...in each sign the same monster sleeps, whose name is a stereotype: I am able to speak only if I begin to pick up what is scattered in the language itself.”
3. Speech tactics perform the function of ways to implement speech strategy: they form parts of the dialogue, grouping and alternating modal shades of conversation (assessments, opinions, annoyance, joy, etc.). So, for example, a strategy for refusing to fulfill a request may include the following tactics: a) posing as an incompetent person (not capable of fulfilling this request); b) citing the impossibility of fulfilling the request at a given time (being busy); c) irony; d) refusal without motivation; e) evading an answer, not promising anything definite; f) making it clear that he does not want to fulfill the request. All these tactics are based on a non-cooperative strategy of verbal behavior of the participant in communication. Regardless of the chosen methods of expression, agreement is not achieved will be, the initiator of communication will face a communicative failure. Compare one of the options for such a dialogue: (telephone conversation) A. - Olya, hello! - B. - Hello, Lyuda! - A. - I wanted to talk to you when I picked Andrei up from the garden , but, they say, you were not there. Who took Alyosha? - B. - Igor got free early today and took him from the garden early, right after afternoon tea. And what? - A. - Nina Ivanovna asked me to put together a “brigade” - there in The wallpaper in the bedroom needs to be re-pasted. Shall we go on Saturday? - B. - No, Lud, I won’t go. Firstly, I’ve never done this in my life, I don’t know how to glue wallpaper. Secondly, I work on Saturday. And then, what happened there that needs to be re-glued? Leak? - A. - No, it’s not a leak, it just needs updating. - B. - I passed. Create a “brigade” without me. I “worked for the good of society” for a whole month: I sewed dresses, coats, and hats for dolls. - A. - Well, okay... I’ll call Ira now. See you. - B. - Bye.
A special kind of speech tactics are needed to establish contact between speakers (phatic communication). They are based on cooperative strategies and use a wide range of tactics to maintain the communicative interest of interlocutors, activate attention and awaken interest in the topic of conversation and the participants in communication. This creates an atmosphere of conversation, where each statement has a special overtone of meaning, and symbolic words and clichéd constructions are often used. So, for example, in a polylogue of phatic communication with undirected strategies (indefinite strategies), tactics of attracting attention to oneself can be used (cf. the speech technique of introduction, such tactics as “And I...”, “And we have...”; cf. children's poem by S. Mikhalkov “And we have gas in our apartment. What about you?..;”); for example, in a conversation about methods of preparing yeast dough between random interlocutors and fellow travelers on the train: “And I usually put sour dough like this...”. Such remarks also contain an application for communicative leadership.
In spontaneously occurring conversations that have only conative goals (establishing verbal contact), the same tactics are often repeated, for example, suggesting a topic of general interest (fashion, politics, raising children, weather, etc.), tactics of attracting attention and involving in a conversation between many interlocutors, a tactic of shocking interlocutors through the denial of habitual patterns of behavior or the denial of value guidelines in a given microsociety, aimed at strengthening the role of a leader.
Tactics for implementing a certain speech strategy bear the stamp of national psychology. This is convincingly shown by E.M. Vereshchagin, R. Rathmair, T. Reuther using the example of an analysis of speech tactics of “calling for frankness.” Thus, in Russian culture, direct calls for frankness prevail without various kinds of particles softening these calls. In addition, reference to moral norms, appeals to a higher moral imperative (to deity, ideological values) are characteristic of Russian culture, while in German culture they are most often found in communication with children. Compare, for example, remarks that implement this tactic: Where is your conscience?; You need to be frank with friends; If you don’t trust me, then it’s better not to talk at all; Is this fair? And you also consider yourself a decent person!
In directed dialogues, an informative strategy or a strategy of inducing action, exchanging opinions on a number of issues for the purpose of making decisions, tactics of implicit expression of meaning, an implicit way of informing, and an unexpected change of topic are widely used.
4. Methods of verbal embodiment of strategies and tactics can be divided into trivial and non-trivial ways of expressing meaning. Trivial methods are stereotypes of expression that have developed in the language system: ensembles of multi-level means are organized in a given stylistic key. At the same time, lexical elements and syntactic constructions, historically established correspondences of word order and sentence models, and types of inversions act in close interaction. In this way, the purpose of units of different levels for their use as part of units of a higher level is revealed, the role of all units in the formation of the meaning of the replica. For example, the rules for identifying the most significant component of the content of an utterance allow the speaker to represent the same thing in different ways. real picture(see above - § 5): A wave swept the boat; The boat was overwhelmed by a wave; The boat was overwhelmed. Historically established methods of expression have determined the linear organization of sentences.
A method of variable presentation of real situations is communicative synonymy of sentence fragments, for example: She bought shoes with suede bows, pulled together by buckles and She bought shoes with bows and buckles.
Techniques for expressing role relationships in dialogue are also stereotyped: options for expressing apologies and requests indicate cooperative and non-cooperative strategies. Thus, the ethical tradition prescribes, when expressing a request, the use of not an indirect, but a direct speech act - Sorry (not I apologize) - using the imperative mood. A request-offer, on the contrary, has a preferred form of expression - indirect speech act, for example: Won't you come down with me?; Could you come down with me?
There are implicit ways of expressing the meaning of a statement, the point of view of the speaker. They rely on known facts, generally accepted assessments or opinions of the speaker, cf.: He still went to the rehearsal. The speaker’s opinion is “should not have come.” Given his inattention, it is no wonder he makes so many mistakes (he is known to be inattentive). An effective method of “introducing” your opinion into the consciousness of the addressee is the use of definitions with “opaque” semantics, which represent a non-disputable opinion; cf., for example, the caption under a photograph in the Burda Fashion magazine: This chic dress will always be a success.
The means of expressing the cooperative strategy are different ways of evaluating one’s own speech: introductory words, quotation marks in letters and notes, words denoting their own content, for example (a conversation between two acquaintances): A. - Yesterday I lost my earring. It's a pity... Remember those ones with alexandrite? - B. - Where did they beat you up like that? Sorry, what kind of crush, I wanted to say, did you find yourself in? Did you hit me with your hat? Collar? Here, during the response, the speaker predicts the addressee’s reaction, tries to express himself more softly, more delicately, realizing the inappropriateness of the original version. Wed. also: A. (continues to tell) - She put him out, “and he obediently went on his way to the sweat,” - she remembered Pushkina - there is no other way to say it! Wed. conscious “ritualization” of a phrase, the use of a dead, frozen phrase, showing the irony of the speaker (searching for the same assessment from the addressee): - Well, of course, we will fulfill and exceed, save and multiply... And what is the result?
An important technique for implementing a number of tactics in cooperative and non-cooperative strategies is silence. Silence can be the equivalent of a statement-statement, promise, request, agreement, waiting, hesitation, evaluation. Demonstrative silence can be of an affective nature and pursue the goal of stopping a conversation. “Meaningful” silence can express the tactics of determining roles in a conversation or social-role relationships. The function of silence in the structure of dialogue is obvious from the speech situation. A remarkable phenomenon is background silence, agreement, which expresses an atmosphere of solidarity in communication and agreement between interlocutors. Wed: When people meet sympathetically in fading shades, they can remain silent about many things and it is obvious that they agree in bright colors and thick shadows (A. I. Herzen. The Past and Thoughts).
The main and specific means of constructing speech communication and implementing tactical tasks are regulatory elements belonging to different levels of the language system, united common function dynamic organization of speech interaction, for example: isn't it?
A. A. Romanov calls these elements communicative signals, means of dialogical regulation, and proposes a classification of them depending on the goals of communication and the consistency/inconsistency of the communication participants (in the absence of communicative interest of one of the participants, the strategic initiative of the other participant is restrained and neutralized). The traditional representation of communicative interaction would be incomplete without various kinds of regulatory actions-replicas, which determine the “vector” of speech communication. Regulatory elements have their own hierarchy and are strictly differentiated depending on the social and psychological roles of the speakers. Regulatives include introductory words and sentences, interjections, questions, interrogations, words-sentences yes and no, commentary, value judgments. In general, everyone shows active participation in the conversation and directs verbal communication. Wed. pick-up lines: A. - We’ll find out now, arrange a discussion... - B. - A scientific conference; A. - There is a hunt. I would like some tea... - B. - Yes... “The people, out of idleness, have acquired the habit of chattering,” as Gogol said; replicas-questions: A. - I’m walking and what do I see? Already in session; A.. - Well, pilaf, then... First, vegetable oil, of course, I like corn oil. Then carrots, then onions... What about you?; Reflection response (self-control): A. (to children) - Well, go ahead and play with Dasha some more. Oh, what am I saying? It's time for lunch; A. - Read it again, if interested. Or is it not necessary?
These kinds of remarks are a characteristic feature of the style of colloquial speech. They show the correctness of the speaker’s forecast regarding the level of understanding of the addressee, reveal the tone of communication, and outline turns in the “scenario” of the conversation.
Non-trivial ways of implementing strategies and tactics in verbal communication require non-trivial mental “moves” from the addressee, since they convey meaning by non-obvious means. This includes indirect information, the vertical context of the conversation, and hints. The reasons for using such methods of verbal communication can be different: an unfavorable conversation situation (for example, an alien communication environment), the psychological unpreparedness of the addressee to perceive information in an obvious way, the hidden meaning of information, for which the obvious form of transmission seems rude.
The most common way of indirect information is a frame. Six main ways of hinting have been identified: 1) through uncertainty, 2) through premise, 3) through additionality, 4) through an appeal to interests, 5) through ambiguity, 6) through allegory . For example, a hint through uncertainty (a description of an abstract type that is projected onto a specific fact): A. - All sorts of troubles await people at every step, all sorts of incidents... And they complicate life, spoil each other’s blood. - B. - How? - A. - There was no need, I tell you, to criticize Anna Dmitrievna so zealously at the meeting. Quite often in colloquial speech there is an allusion through allegory, when the situation described in speech is presented as a semantic analogue of a real situation, for example: “text One of my friends (A) met a girl and fell in love with her without memory. But he is very shy and does not know how to tell her about his feelings. It can be used to hint at a situation in which the speaker himself is the subject (B).”
The mechanism for unraveling a hint is always based on the simplest mental operation - an analogy.
5. Specific to such a functional variety, such as colloquial speech, is the constant attraction of the interlocutor’s attention. Therefore, the expressive effect of the statement planned by the speaker and the emotive reaction of the listener determine the atmosphere of the dialogue (see about this above: § 6, paragraph 5). The addressee strives to convey information in an unusual way, in a bright, expressive form, using linguistic means of different levels with expressive meaning, as well as stylistic units (tropes and figures). All these units convey the author’s attitude, show the stylistic “manner” of the author of the message, his figurative understanding of a particular fact. The addressee also plays an important role in creating the stylistic tone of speech communication: the addressee is a tuning fork, by his reaction the addressee checks his stylistic forecast. The correct forecast is an “accepted invitation” of the listener to share his opinion, attitude, assessment with the speaker .
Spoken language, saturated with emotive speech elements, creates an expressive background throughout the entire verbal communication (conversation, conversation); at the same time, the creative principle of feeling and thought finds its embodiment, therefore every conversation is aesthetically significant. The functional variety “colloquial speech” is the “homeland” of the entire idiomatic language system, a “testing ground” for the consolidation of occasionalisms, clichéd phrases, and syntactic blocks in the language. In colloquial speech, there is a process of secondary meaning of linguistic units of different levels, reworking of old phraseological units, and the formation of new ones. Thus, the paradoxical phrase doomed to success was born in colloquial speech. Having emerged as an occasionalism, a joke, this phrase began to be often reproduced in the speech of artists and art critics, and became part of everyday slang. In this case, the negative connotation of the meaning of the verb is doomed is neutralized.
This expression represents a widespread rhetorical figure in colloquial speech: syllepsis - “any rhetorically determined violation of the rules of agreement of morphemes or syntagmas.” Wed. similar formations: Are we alive or where?; Came without anyone; Half an hour passed like a penny.
The rhetoric of colloquial speech is spontaneous in nature: it is born in instant replication, in unprepared speech creation, therefore it is organically inherent in friendly conversations and casual polylogues. Often there are such rhetorical figures as periphrases, allusions, hyperboles, litotes, polyunion, gradation, rhetorical questions, ellipsis, anaphora, antithesis. Thus, expressive techniques of colloquial speech are the basis oratory.
In colloquial speech, the phrases irrigated agriculture, irrigated fodder production, irrigated brigades arose, which are clichéd constructions that have absorbed the meaning of long descriptive statements and have lost their internal form.
In everyday speaking practice phrases and phrases were born, the metaphorical nature of which is not felt, which gives reason to use them as neutral nominations in other functional styles, for example, aching pain, personality orientation, stand at attention, find a common language, bow. to the conclusion, it came to mind, to trail behind, to make ends meet, etc.
The loss of internal form also occurs in occasional formations that have entered the word-formation system of the language as acquired units. Wed. a productive way of forming words with the suffix -k- based on phrases, showing the possibilities of nomination in short form: emergency ( urgent Care), motorka (motor boat), nezashenka (construction in progress), zhzhenka (heated condensed milk), condensed milk (condensed milk), zelenka (green currency), imperishable product. The search for an unusual, expressive way of expressing one’s thoughts also manifests itself as the speaker’s conscious use of non-normative forms or categorical meanings of words; Wed: Stunned, I went to the editor for clarification; I’ll find myself in another city, and then it will turn out...; We must find means; He was fired from his job; Doctors forbade him to go outside.
Grammatical forms in an improper function also represent a characteristic feature of the stylistics of colloquial speech, because they are associated with the nuances of the manifestation of social-role relations of communication participants in speech communication - pragmatic factors in this particular situation. So, for example, gender forms that violate semantic coordination have special expression: - Daughter, my little bunny, what have you done? Now you can't wash these toys. Wed. my bunny version.
The discrepancy between role relationships in the act of speech and the forms of categories of a person can have a semantic connotation: 1) “detachment” from the role of the speaker (not I-sentences, for example, father’s speech: - If your father tells you, then you need to listen to the advice; mother’s speech: - Now mom he will anoint your abrasion with iodine, and everything will go away), if the speaker invites the addressee to become the subject of an assessment of his actions; 2) “reduction” of the speaker’s role, the use of the generalized “we” instead of “I”: - Has she finally arrived? Now we’ll give you some tea...", 3) showing complicity, interest in the affairs of the addressee by using the form “we”, “our” instead of “you”, “you” “your”, “yours”: - Well, since ok our orchids? (demonstration of interest in the affairs of the addressee of a person who is far from growing orchids); -Well, how do we feel? - (participation question); 4) inviting the addressee to become the subject of an assessment of his actions, states; cf. the use of forms 3- 1st person pronouns and verbs (often in conversations with children) - Don’t clean up? Will Rita still play? (instead of 2nd person forms); - Should I add more salad to Vitaly Ivanovich?
The transposition of forms in colloquial speech explains the existence of models in the syntactic system of language one-part sentences- generalized-personal and impersonal - to emphasize the point of view “from the outside”: - Well, what should I do with him (with my son)? You can’t use your own mind!; - No matter how much they tell him, he’s all his own.
At all levels of the language system, colloquial and everyday speech has its “favorite” elements: words with an expressive meaning, words and phrases that have passed the stage of secondary meaning and have an additional “overtone” of meaning, suffixes of subjective assessment (sitchik, sweetheart, son, girl, etc.) . P.); clichéd constructions, sentences of phraseological structure [see. 33]. For example: What a laugh!; What is true is true!; I’ll go and ask for something to write with; Give me something to cut, etc.
6. The success of communicative interaction is always the implementation of the speech intention of the speaker and the conviction of the listener, as well as his desired emotional reaction:
Linguistic units of all levels act as linguistic means of persuasion, for example, specially highlighted constructions, cf.: The whole village tried to get the children to go to school on the first of September. To a new school.
All complex sentences expressing cause-and-effect relationships have an argumentative nature. However, the sentence form can be “exploited” in statements that are tendentious in content, for example: I will continue to park the car under the windows because I’m used to it. The syntactic type of the sentence obscures the absence of an argument in the main part of the sentence.
When persuading, it is considered correct to introduce a thesis using so-called verbs of opinion. The omission or deliberate omission of these verbs makes the sentence, the truth of which requires proof, indisputable and, therefore, corresponding to the truth, since the fact of silence is perceived as the absence of doubt; for example: I think he should go there and He should go there. A statement turns from a statement into a categorical statement, demand, order.
A means of persuasion can be a game of lexical ambiguity. So, for example, the adjective real can be used as an “unverifiable communicative device”: “This word - real - is often assigned in communication to abstract generic concepts such as person, man, woman, child and gradually becomes... a certain means of semantics of persuasion, similar universal statements... For example (from the vocabulary card index of LO IYA): Katya is all real scientists, he was a romantic.”
7. The stylistic tone of speech of each participant in the conversation creates an aesthetic atmosphere of communication. Each speech situation has its own aesthetics, and all linguistic means perform a certain aesthetic function. They reveal the aesthetic categories of the beautiful and the ugly, the comic and the tragic, the heroic and the everyday, harmony and dissonance, high ideals and base motives, spiritual aspirations, and earthly interests.
An important trend in the aesthetics of a cooperative non-conflict strategy is the comic.
The concept of “laughter culture”, introduced by M. M. Bakhtin, reveals the dual nature of laughter and the comic principle. On the one hand, laughter is associated with liberation from conventions and expresses a presumption of trust in the recipient and openness to general value hierarchies. On the other hand, laughter can be a manifestation of an aggressive beginning, liberation from the world of cultural values, from shame, from pity. M. M. Bakhtin characterizes this “declining” trend as a specifically “folk laughter culture.” Consequently, in one case, the comic principle in the speaker’s speech is an act of trust and disclosure by the speaker of his individuality in the act of speech (i.e., the manifestation of the creative principle in a person, the enrichment of spiritual life), in the other, it is a destructive element of verbal communication that destroys the harmony of agreement . Thus, the search for destructive comic usually accompanies the speaker’s deliberate reduction in the cultural level of the conversation, his desire to underestimate his status and the status of the address, his attempt at familiar communication.
The comic background of verbal communication is created by speakers with the help of humorous precedent texts, proverbs, and catchphrases; originality of expression, creative novelty, brightness of individuality - a favorable speech situation for establishing contact and intimate communication.
The tactics of agreement in an evaluative dialogue can be expressed in the addressee picking up the addresser’s remark, in the selection of a “communicative synonym” that confirms his thought; for example, a humorous assessment, ridicule in the following dialogue: A. - But we have Ivanov / this is such a comrade / who, in my opinion, in general, only takes up space / is directly burdened by his place // - B. - Yes I / That’s what Olga says that it’s just / burdock // (recorded by N. N. Gasteva).
The function of liberation from conventions, a signal of speaker’s confidence in their assessments, is performed by colloquial lexical elements and words with “situational” semantics in spontaneous dialogues on serious topics. They create an atmosphere of conversation as communication between people who are in control of the situation: “Well, have you checked there”? He growls? - I’m not sure. He tries (in the conversation of doctors); - Well, how / crawled? - No, he jumps.
Thus, the principle of solidarity and cooperation in verbal communication, the aesthetics of the comic refracts into a convention to use the language of metaphorical comprehension and improvisation common to interlocutors.

§ 8. Genres of speech communication

§ 9. Ethics of speech communication and etiquette formulas of speech

The ethics of verbal communication begins with compliance with the conditions of successful verbal communication: with a friendly attitude towards the addressee, demonstration of interest in the conversation, “understanding understanding” - attuned to the world of the interlocutor, sincere expression of one’s opinion, sympathetic attention. This prescribes expressing your thoughts in a clear form, focusing on the world of knowledge of the addressee. In idle-speech spheres of communication in dialogues and polylogues of an intellectual, as well as “game” or emotional nature, the choice of topic and tone of conversation becomes especially important. Signals of attention, participation, correct interpretation and sympathy are not only regulatory cues, but also paralinguistic means - facial expressions, smile, gaze, gestures, posture. A special role in conducting a conversation belongs to the gaze.
Thus, speech ethics are the rules of proper speech behavior based on moral norms and national and cultural traditions.
Ethical norms are embodied in special etiquette speech formulas and expressed in statements by a whole ensemble of multi-level means: both full-nominal word forms and words of incomplete-nominal parts of speech (particles, interjections).
The main ethical principle of verbal communication - respect for parity - is expressed from greeting to farewell throughout the conversation.
1. Greeting. Appeal.
Greetings and addresses set the tone for the entire conversation. Depending on the social role of the interlocutors, the degree of their closeness, you-communication or you-communication is chosen and, accordingly, greetings hello or hello, good afternoon (evening, morning), hello, fireworks, greetings, etc. The communication situation also plays an important role.
The address performs a contact-establishing function and is a means of intimacy, therefore throughout the entire speech situation the address should be pronounced repeatedly; this indicates both good feelings towards the interlocutor and attention to his words. In phatic communication, in the speech of close people, in conversations with children, the address is often accompanied or replaced by periphrases, epithets with diminutive suffixes: Anechka, you are my bunny; darling; kitty; killer whales, etc. This is especially true for the speech of women and people of a special type, as well as for emotional speech.
National and cultural traditions dictate certain forms appeals to strangers. If at the beginning of the century the universal methods of address were citizen and citizen, then in the second half of the 20th century dialectal southern forms of address based on gender - woman, man - became widespread. Recently, the word lady is often used in casual colloquial speech, when addressing an unfamiliar woman, but when addressing a man, the word gentleman is used only in an official, semi-official, club setting. Developing equally acceptable addresses to men and women is a matter of the future: sociocultural norms will have their say here.
2. Etiquette formulas.
Each language has fixed methods and expressions of the most frequent and socially significant communicative intentions. So, when expressing a request for forgiveness, an apology, it is customary to use a direct, literal form, for example, Sorry (those), Forgive (those). When expressing a request, it is customary to represent one’s “interests” in an indirect, non-literal statement, softening the expression of one’s interest and leaving the addressee the right to choose an action; for example: Could you go to the store now?; Aren't you going to the store now? When asked How to get through..? Where is..? You should also preface your question with a request: Could you say?; You will not say..?
There are etiquette formulas for congratulations: immediately after the address, the reason is indicated, then the wishes, then assurances of the sincerity of feelings, and a signature. The oral forms of some genres of colloquial speech also largely bear the stamp of ritualization, which is determined not only by speech canons, but also by the “rules” of life, which takes place in a multidimensional, human “dimension.” This applies to such ritualized genres as toasts, gratitude, condolences, congratulations, and invitations.
Etiquette formulas, phrases for the occasion - important component communicative competence; knowledge of them is an indicator of a high degree of language proficiency.
3. Euphemization of speech.
Maintaining a cultural atmosphere of communication, the desire not to upset the interlocutor, not to offend him indirectly, not. cause an uncomfortable state - all this obliges the speaker, firstly, to choose euphemistic nominations, and secondly, a softening, euphemistic way of expression.
Historically, the language system has developed ways of periphrastic nomination of everything that offends taste and violates cultural stereotypes of communication. These are paraphrases regarding death, sexual relations, physiological functions; for example: he left us, died, passed away; the title of Shahetjanyan’s book “1001 questions about this” about intimate relationships.
Mitigating techniques for conducting a conversation are also indirect information, allusions, hints that make it clear to the addressee the true reasons similar shape statements. In addition, mitigation of a refusal or reprimand can be realized by the technique of “changing the addressee,” in which a hint is made or the speech situation is projected onto a third participant in the conversation. In the traditions of Russian speech etiquette, it is forbidden to speak about those present in the third person (he, she, they), thus, all those present find themselves in one “observable” deictic space of the speech situation “I - YOU (YOU) - HERE - NOW.” This shows respect for all participants in communication.
4. Interruption.
Counter remarks. Polite behavior in verbal communication requires listening to the interlocutor’s remarks to the end. However, a high degree of emotionality of the participants in communication, demonstration of their solidarity, agreement, introduction of their assessments “in the course” of the partner’s speech is a common phenomenon in dialogues and polylogues of idle speech genres, stories and stories-memories. According to the observations of researchers, interruptions are typical for men, while women are more correct in conversation. In addition, interrupting the interlocutor is a signal of a non-cooperative strategy. This kind of interruption occurs when there is a loss of communicative interest.
Cultural and social norms of life, the subtleties of psychological relationships prescribe to the speaker and the listener active creation a favorable atmosphere of verbal communication, which ensures the successful resolution of all issues and leads to agreement.
5. YOU-communication and YOU-communication. In Russian, YOU-communication in informal speech is widespread. Superficial acquaintance in some cases and not close long term relationship old acquaintances in others are shown by using the polite “you”. In addition, YOU communication demonstrates respect for the participants in the dialogue; So, you-communication is typical for long-time friends who have deep feelings of respect and devotion for each other. More often you communicate during a long acquaintance or friendly relations observed among women. Men from different social strata are more likely to engage in You-communication. Among uneducated and uncultured men, You-communication is considered the only acceptable form of social interaction. When You-communication relationships are established, they attempt to deliberately reduce the social self-esteem of the recipient and impose You-communication. This is destructive element of speech communication that destroys communicative contact.
It is generally accepted that You-communication is always a manifestation of spiritual harmony and spiritual intimacy and that the transition to You-communication is an attempt to intimate relationships; Wed Pushkin’s lines: “You, empty, with a heartfelt You, she said, replaced...”. However, during You-communication, the sense of the uniqueness of the individual and the phenomenal nature of interpersonal relationships is often lost. Wed. in the "Chrestomathy" correspondence between Yu. M. Lotman and B. F. Egorov.
Parity relationships as the main component of communication do not negate the possibility of choosing You-communication and You-communication depending on the nuances of social roles and psychological distances.
The same participants in communication in different situations can use the pronouns “you” and “you” in an informal setting. This may indicate alienation, a desire to introduce elements of ritual treatment into the speech situation (cf.: Shouldn’t you put some salad, Vitaly Ivanovich?).

Summary

Among the functional varieties of language, colloquial speech occupies a special place. Colloquial speech is such speech of native speakers of a literary language, which is realized spontaneously (without any preliminary thinking) in an informal setting with the direct participation of communication partners. Spoken speech has significant features at all linguistic levels, and therefore it is often considered as a special language system. Since the linguistic features of spoken language are not recorded in grammars and dictionaries, it is called uncodified, thereby contrasting with codified functional varieties of language. It is important to emphasize that colloquial speech is a special functional variety of the literary language (and not some kind of non-literary form). It is wrong to think that linguistic features of spoken speech are speech errors that should be avoided. This implies an important requirement for the culture of speech: in conditions of manifestation of colloquial speech, one should not strive to speak in writing, although one must remember that in colloquial speech there may be speech errors; they must be distinguished from colloquial features.
The functional variety of language “colloquial speech” has historically developed under the influence of the rules of linguistic behavior of people in various life situations, i.e. under the influence of the conditions of communicative interaction of people. All the nuances of the phenomenon of human consciousness find their expression in the genres of speech, in the ways of its organization. A speaking person always declares himself as an individual, and only in this case is it possible to establish contact with other people.
Successful verbal communication is the implementation of the communicative goal of the initiators of communication and the achievement of agreement by the interlocutors. Mandatory conditions for successful communication are the interlocutors’ interest in communication, an attunement to the recipient’s world, the ability to penetrate into the speaker’s communicative intent, the ability of interlocutors to fulfill the strict requirements of situational speech behavior, to unravel the “creative handwriting” of the speaker when reflecting the real state of affairs or “pictures of the world”, the ability to predict “vector” » dialogue or polylogue. Therefore, the central concept of successful verbal communication is the concept of linguistic competence, which presupposes knowledge of the rules of grammar and vocabulary, the ability to express meaning by everyone possible ways, knowledge of sociocultural norms and stereotypes of speech behavior, which allows one to correlate the relevance of a particular linguistic fact with the speaker’s intention and, finally, makes it possible to express one’s own understanding and individual presentation of information.
The reasons for communicative failures are rooted in ignorance of language norms, in the difference in background knowledge of the speaker and the listener, in the difference in their sociocultural stereotypes and psychology, as well as in the presence of “external interference” (alien communication environment, distance of interlocutors, presence of strangers).
The communicative goals of the interlocutors determine speech strategies, tactics, modality and techniques of dialogue. The components of speech behavior include expressiveness and emotiveness of statements.
Techniques of speech expressiveness are the basis of the techniques of fiction and oratory; Wed techniques: anaphors, antitheses, hyperboles, litotes; chains of synonyms, gradations, repetitions, epithets, unanswered questions, questions of self-verification, metaphors, metonymies, allegories, hints, allusions, periphrases, redirection to a third participant; such means of expressing the author's subjective modality as introductory words and sentences.
Colloquial speech has its own aesthetic atmosphere, which is determined by the deep processes that connect a person with society and culture.
Historically, relatively stable forms of speech communication have developed - genres. All genres are subject to rules speech ethics and linguistic canons. The ethics of verbal communication prescribes the speaker and listener to create a favorable tone of conversation, which leads to agreement and success of the dialogue.

Introduction

1. The concept of a colloquial variety of a literary language

2. General characteristics of colloquial speech

3. Norms of the colloquial variety

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The basis of speech culture is the literary language. It amounts to higher form national language. It is the language of culture, literature, education, and the media.

Having developed on the basis of Russian folk speech in all its diversity, the literary language has absorbed all the best, all the most expressive of those means that are inherent in folk speech. And the modern Russian literary language, which is a fully formed communicative system, continues to draw means of expression– words, phrases, syntactic structures – from dialects, vernacular, professional jargon. In this process, the norm plays the role of a filter: it lets into literary use everything valuable that is in living speech, and retains everything that is accidental and temporary.

The modern Russian literary language is multifunctional: it is used in various spheres of social and individual human activity for various communicative purposes - transferring information, mastering experience, expressing emotions, inciting action, etc. The main areas of use of the Russian literary language: print, radio, television, cinema, science, education, legislation, office work, everyday communication of cultural people.

In accordance with the diverse functions, the means of literary language are functionally differentiated: some of them are more common in some areas of communication, others in others, etc. This differentiation of linguistic means is also regulated by the norm. The dependence of a literary norm on the conditions in which the literary language is used is called its communicative expediency. What is appropriate to use in a newspaper is not suitable in lyric poem; scientific circulation inappropriate in everyday speech; colloquial construction is unacceptable in an official letter, etc.

Thus, in a single literary language that is universally obligatory for all its speakers, all means are differentiated - depending on the sphere and goals of communication. In accordance with this, the literary language is divided into functional varieties. The most general and at the same time most obvious is the division of the literary language into book and colloquial varieties.

Literary language serves different areas human activity. Let us name the main ones: politics, science, culture, verbal art, education, legislation, official business communication, informal communication of native speakers (everyday communication), interethnic communication, print, radio, television.

If we compare the varieties of the national language (vernacular, territorial and social dialects, jargons), then the literary language plays a leading role among them. It includes optimal ways, designations of concepts and objects, expression of thoughts and emotions. There is constant interaction between the literary language and non-literary varieties of the Russian language. This is most clearly revealed in the sphere of spoken language. Thus, the pronunciation features of a particular dialect can characterize the spoken speech of people who speak a literary language. In other words, educated, cultured people sometimes retain the features of a particular dialect for the rest of their lives. Jargons have an impact on spoken language, especially in the area of vocabulary; for example, slang words such as fall asleep (during an exam), kopeck piece (coin), float at the board (answer poorly), etc. have become widely used.

Finally, colloquial speech is influenced by the bookish styles of the literary language. In live, face-to-face communication, speakers can use terms and foreign language vocabulary, words from the official business style (functions, react, absolutely, out of principle, etc.)

1. The concept of a colloquial variety of a literary language

It is used in various types of everyday relationships between people, subject to ease of communication. Conversational speech is distinguished from bookish and written speech not only by its form (this is oral and, moreover, predominantly dialogical speech), but also by such features as unpreparedness, unplanning, spontaneousness (compare, for example, with reading a report, the text of which is written in advance), immediacy of contact between participants in communication.

The spoken variety of the literary language, unlike the bookish and written one, is not subject to targeted normalization, but it has certain norms as a result of speech tradition. This type of literary language is not so clearly divided into speech genres. However, here, too, various speech features can be distinguished - depending on the conditions in which communication takes place, on the relationship of the participants in the conversation, etc. compare, for example, a conversation between friends, colleagues, a conversation at a table, a conversation between an adult and a child, a dialogue between a seller and a buyer, etc.

Conversational speech samples:

- How old is she? - Nineteen. Right now, in February it will be nineteen. - Ahh. - And I tell her: look carefully there, because... you know, there are different people, you don’t know anyone in Leningrad, and she went and went. And she laughs into the phone and all I can say is yes and no. But it turns out that this young man was standing next to him... (from a conversation over tea);

- Thirty-five, do you have slippers? - Near. - Are these boots only red? - No, there are brown ones. - Is there a forty-third on the felt? – No (dialogue between buyer and seller); at the newsstand: - Tell me, was there a third “New World”? - Not yet. - And second? - Sold.

2. O general characteristics of spoken language

Spoken speech plays very big role in people's lives. This is the type of language that is used every day in the process of informal communication. Colloquial speech is one of the functional varieties of literary language; it is required in a true speech culture for everyday communication, but it is impossible in written form.

Lack of concern for the form of expression of thoughts, its minimum is characteristic of colloquial speech. This leads to the fact that many of the capabilities of the language are not actually used, its synonymous richness is not realized, the syntax is involuntarily simplified, speech inaccuracies and sometimes errors are allowed. The encyclopedia “Russian Language” (Encyclopedia 1979) gives the following characteristics of colloquial speech: “Colloquial speech is a specific type of literary language, used in conditions of casual communication and contrasted (within the literary language) with codified book speech.<…>Colloquial speech is oral, dialogical, relaxed, personally addressed informal speech. It differs from the colloquial style by the mandatory oral form, while the colloquial style is also possible in written form (everyday letters, diaries). The conditions in which spoken speech is realized determine its specificity.”

Philologists solve the question of which factor of colloquial speech determines its essence, and discuss the boundaries of colloquial speech. There is no doubt that the features of colloquial speech are most clearly expressed when there is a feeling of relaxedness, ease, which happens, first of all, when communicating with relatives, friends, close acquaintances and less clearly expressed when communicating with strangers who have met by chance. In addition, colloquial speech is a means of communication not with the masses, but with one or two, less often five or six people. “This property of colloquial speech can be called personal communication (a person addresses personally Ivan or Peter, whose interests, their ability to understand the topic, etc. are well known). At the same time, the features of colloquial speech appear more clearly in cases where the speakers not only hear, but also see each other, the objects in question, and less clearly in conversations on the phone. This property of colloquial speech can be called situational communication (reliance on the situation, the use of not only words and intonation, but also facial expressions and gestures to convey information).

In cases where a conversation takes place between unfamiliar people or the use of facial expressions and gestures is excluded (talking on the phone), colloquial speech loses a number of its characteristic features. This is like the periphery of colloquial speech. The periphery of spoken speech and non-spoken oral speech are often difficult to distinguish” (Sirotinina 1996, 47).

Colloquial speech has much in common with non-literary speech ( dialect speech, various jargons, colloquialisms), since they are united by oral form, unpreparedness, informality and spontaneity of communication. But dialects, jargons and vernacular are outside the boundaries of the literary language, and colloquial speech is one of the functional varieties of the literary language. However, when using colloquial speech, the question does not arise about the admissibility or inadmissibility of using one or another grammatical form, construction, etc., unless they give the impression of a sharp violation of the norms of the literary language. The speaker is free to invent new formations (Poems cannot be read in a whisper), to use inaccurate designations (We arrived with these... spacesuits - instead of gas masks). He can sometimes use a non-literary word because of its expressiveness (mura, bullshit) and unexpectedly rearrange a phrase (He had nothing to do with linguistics; Bagrin had nothing to do with linguistics). However, all this does not mean complete freedom. Colloquial speech is not a codified, but a standardized variety of literary language. The norms of colloquial speech are based on those features that are widespread in the speech of cultural native speakers of the Russian language and do not cause condemnation in conversational conditions. The use of jargon violates the norms of colloquial speech: Where are you going?, expressions (expletives) that are unacceptable in a literary language, illiterate phrases like I’m not holding you back a bit. Of course, beyond the boundaries of colloquial speech there are dialectal features in pronunciation (syastra), dialect words (chapelnik instead of frying pan), colloquial tapericha, ottel, pokeda, ehai, starving, etc. These norms of colloquial speech coincide with the norms of other varieties of literary language.

Interest in colloquial speech as an object of linguistic research arose in the twentieth century and has increased sharply since the 60s (Filin, 1979, 23).This interest is due to the fact that “language lives and becomes historically here, in concrete speech communication, and not in abstract linguistic system forms of language" (Voloshinov, 1993,74). It should be noted that the science of language for a long time remained the science of its written form, and speech, being that “part of the national language that is acquired... in the first years of life” (Skrebnev, 1985,9), the primary, basic form of existence of language, the sphere where all its changes arise (Bogoroditsky, 1935,103), for a long time remained almost without attention from researchers, although the study of particular aspects of oral speech has a long history (see, for example Aristotle, 1978).

The increased attention of linguistic science to colloquial speech is explained by the fact that in the middle of the century the following thesis became clearly understood: “colloquial speech, being the basis of the existence of language, its most general variety (...), the most natural and accessible to everyone, is of exceptional interest for the study Without familiarity with it, it is impossible to study the language system" (Devkin, 1979,7; see also: Skrebnev, 1984; Kostomarov, 1990). Modern interest in the oral form of the existence of language, primarily in colloquial speech, does not question the requirement for parallel study of language and speech. The dichotomy langue - parole formulated by F. de Saussure reflects two sides of one phenomenon, and therefore “language and speech must be studied and, along with the linguistics of language, the linguistics of speech must be developed, without mixing them. But it would be wrong to think that these two linguistics - various sciences, studying different objects. Both of them study the same object - human speech, but study it in different aspects and are two main divisions of a single linguistics" (Savchenko, 1986, 68).

The complexity of the study of spoken speech is explained primarily by the fact that there is still no definition that would satisfy all researchers. A national language is a complex conglomerate, within which private linguistic subsystems are distinguished, serving various spheres of human activity, and each subsystem is a variety brought to life by functional expediency (Shcherba, 1957, 119). Functional stylistics, which studies “the use of language depending on the goals and means of communication” (Kozhin et al., 1982, 8; for more details on the problems of functional stylistics, see: Vasilyeva, 1976; Kozhina, 1992; 1995), traditionally highlights the colloquial style of speech. The rapid development of sciences studying various aspects of the use of language, primarily functional stylistics, has led to “a certain complexity of the situation in science in terms of the blurring, intersection or combination of research subjects” (Kozhina, 1992, 4). The consequence of this state of affairs is that the questions of what should be considered colloquial speech, in what relationships are the terms “colloquial speech”, “colloquial style”, “oral literary speech”, the question of the status of colloquial speech, its place in the national language system still remain controversial (Lapteva, 1992, 153).

The traditional definition of spoken language is style variety literary language, coming from V.V. Vinogradov (1972), according to whom colloquial speech is the everyday style of the literary language, distinguished on the basis of the differentiation of linguistic functions (for everyday style the defining function is the function of communication), develops first of all in the works of O.A. Lapteva, who considers colloquial speech to be an oral-colloquial variety of the modern Russian literary language (Lapteva, 1976; 1984), which is an integral part of modern Russian oral literary speech, which is “wider than colloquial and multi-component” (Lapteva, 1992, 151 ). At the same time, O.A. Lapteva agrees that a sharp contrast between spoken and codified language is unacceptable, since “complete isolation of the spoken language from the rest of the literary language would be a violation of its main communicative purpose - to serve a single language community in its many functions; it would mean the collapse of the literary language” (Lapteva, 1974(2), N7,86).

E.A. Zemskaya contrasts colloquial speech with the codified literary language (CLL) “as different systems operating in the same community and creating a special type of bilingualism,” colloquial speech “is a special literary language” (Zemskaya, 1968, 8-9 ). The definition of “literary” is important here, emphasizing an essential, in the opinion of the researcher, feature of speakers of colloquial speech - these are people who certainly speak a literary language, and although “colloquial speech can somehow penetrate into colloquial speech (usually through jargons), but between these two spheres there is an abyss of speech" (Kapanadze, 1984, 11). Thus, colloquial speech is considered as “a special language, opposed to the CLE not only in its written, but also in its oral form” (Sirotinina, 1995, 87). At the same time, a single literary language is characterized by a “series of colloquial language types”(Larin, 1974(3),245). The opposition of colloquial speech to a codified literary language is to some extent removed by the influence of the norms of CFL on colloquial speech, as well as the identification of normativity within colloquial speech - colloquial norms are currently identified and actively studied (see works: Popova, 1974; Sirotinina, 1974; Lapteva, 1974 ; 1992; Skrebnev, 1991; Orlov, 1993).

We are close to the point of view of T.G. Vinokur, according to whom “from modern colloquial speech in its neutral layer it is impossible (from a stylistic point of view) to cut off the extensive repertoire of non-literary and semi-literary - low-everyday, colloquial-professional, slang and semi-slang means” (Vinokur, 1988, 54). The definition of colloquial speech, not limited by the literary nature of the language, to a greater extent, in our opinion, corresponds to the real place of colloquial speech in the system of the national language.

There is another approach, within the framework of which colloquial speech and oral-literary speech differ not in the scope of use and the level of linguistic competence of native speakers, but in the goals (communicative-pragmatic) that communicants have and determine the choice of colloquial or oral-literary speech as communication tool, and the tone of the conversation (neutrality/reduction). “It seems possible to qualify colloquial speech and oral-literary speech as equally functional, practically the same level, but multi-purpose, multi-tonal varieties modern language"(Orlov, 1981,128). Colloquial speech here appears stylistically marked and is identified with the vernacular.

It is also important to define colloquial speech as urban speech, which includes all urban (social and territorial) dialects. “It is in colloquial speech that the social groupings of society, class, professional are directly reflected... Therefore, there are a lot of social dialects of colloquial speech” (Larin, 1974 (1), 131). In a modern city, the language situation is ambiguous. “The speech of a city dweller, taking place in conditions of informal, relaxed communication, is a complex conglomerate in which the main forms of the national language are closely linked and implemented: literary language, territorial dialect and urban vernacular” (Erofeeva, 1991, 16). Consequently, colloquial speech can be defined as a linguistic layer that lies between the codified literary language and the vernacular and, obviously, has no clear boundaries with either one or the other. Thus, colloquial speech “with the main function of everyday communication” (Sirotinina et al., 1992, 142) includes oral speech of people who have varying degrees of proficiency in the literary language. Colloquial speech is not only the oral speech of people who speak a codified literary language, but also the oral speech of speakers of vernacular, who in their linguistic existence are sufficiently influenced by the codified literary language, which is inevitable in the conditions of modern urban communication, the oral speech of speakers of jargon. (See collection: Urban vernacular, 1984; Living speech of the Ural city, 1988; Functioning of the literary language in the Ural city, 1990; Linguistic appearance of the Ural city, 1990). A unique cultural and speech argument in favor of a broad understanding of spoken language is, in our opinion, the typology of speech cultures proposed by V.E. Goldin and O.B. Sirotinina. They distinguish elite, average literary, literary-colloquial, familiar-colloquial, vernacular, folk-speech, professionally limited speech cultures and argot (Goldin, Sirotinina, 1993; Sirotinina, 1995). Based on this typology, we can talk about a predominantly oral and predominantly written form of existence of one or another speech culture. Obviously, literary-colloquial, familiar-colloquial, vernacular, folk-speech cultures exist practically in oral form, and it is these speech cultures that can be correlated with the concept of colloquial speech.

So, we can talk about two main understandings of colloquial speech. First: colloquial speech is a predominantly oral implementation of the literary language in the sphere of casual interpersonal communication, which certainly has its own specifics, but remains a variety of this language; second: colloquial speech is relaxed oral speech used in informal communication and not limited by the literary framework.

Both approaches to the definition of colloquial speech are legitimate, but for a number of researchers it is indisputable that “colloquial speech cannot be included in the concept of “functional style”..., the first doubt in the once generally accepted definition of “colloquial speech is a functional style” arose precisely with the stylistic look at the subject: the multidimensionality of colloquial speech and the impossibility of identifying it with a set of uniformly colored and similarly used means were revealed" (Vinokur, 1988, 46).

A broad understanding of colloquial speech as urban speech, which includes both literary colloquial speech and vernacular, territorial and social urban dialects, adequately reflects our material - speech manifestations of relaxed informal communication of citizens in conditions of direct contact between speakers.

Regional colloquial speech in last years are being studied quite actively (see Sirotinina, 1988; Sanji-Garyaeva, 1988; Ovchinnikova, Dubrovskaya, 1995; Krasilnikova, 1988, 1990(2)). The living speech of the Ural city is studied at the universities of Perm, Chelyabinsk, Yekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk). At the same time, the emphasis of the study is on the regional features of colloquial speech (see: Pomykalova et al., 1984; Erofeeva, Luzina, 1988; Shkatova, 1988; Skrebneva, 1988; Zhdanova, 1988; Gabinskaya, 1988; Erofeeva, 1990; Erofeeva, Skitova, 1990; Shkatova, 1990(1;2); Lazareva, 1990), and on its typological features, this approach is typical for scientists in Yekaterinburg (see a series of interuniversity collections of scientific works: Living speech of the Ural city, 1988; Functioning of the literary language in the Ural city, 1990; Linguistic appearance of the Ural city, 1990). The thematic specificity of colloquial speech works is another problem related to this area.

Colloquial speech in a broad sense is a vast area of language bordering on codified literary language and vernacular language, within which there is constant interaction and mutual adaptation of elements of the language, social, professional, territorial dialects and vernacular language. Colloquial speech serves the sphere of relaxed informal oral communication. In passing, we note that “the sphere of implementation of vernacular is not only personal, unofficial, but also official, even public communication (which has been so clearly confirmed in recent years by the speech practice of many people’s deputies)” (Kitaygorodskaya, 1993, 68).

We do not limit the circle of our informants only to native speakers of the literary language. Our main informants are residents of Yekaterinburg and other Ural cities, predominantly native speakers of the literary language, to varying degrees influenced by local dialects, urban vernacular, social dialects and jargons, as well as speakers of urban vernacular, influenced by the literary language.

So, this work is focused on a broad understanding of the term “colloquial speech”. At the same time, the definition of the object of our research is not associated with a change in the main criteria of colloquialism (according to E.A. Zemskaya), according to which colloquial speech is “speech: 1) unprepared, 2) revealed in conditions of direct communication, 3) in the absence of official relations between participants in a speech act" (Zemskaya, 1968, 3).

There are different opinions regarding the identification of the main factor that determines the conditions for the formation of spoken language. E.A. Zemskaya (1973) considers extra-linguistic factors to be decisive, primarily the informality of the situation and relationships between speakers. According to O.A. Lapteva (1976), the significance of the official/informal factor should be limited to the stylistic sphere. O.B. Sirotinina (1970) identifies the factor of immediacy of communication as the main one. We are close to the point of view of O.B. Sirotinina, who believes that the specificity of colloquial speech “is determined by the immediacy of communication as a condition for its appearance” (Sirotinina, 1970, 67), and the formality/informality factor is secondary.

The spontaneity of communication is on a par with another indispensable condition for the formation of spoken language - its predominantly oral form. “When generating an oral utterance, completely different psycholinguistic patterns operate than when generating a written one. They determine the appearance in speech of features that serve as the basis for the formation of typified conversational phenomena” (Lapteva, 1992, 155). It is the orality and spontaneity of communication that determine the emergence and functioning of specific colloquial forms; these two factors make it possible to classify not only conversations on everyday topics, but also works of oral public speech, which are based on written text and informal everyday letters, as the sphere of colloquial speech (cf. Zemskaya, Shiryaev, 1980). At the same time, there is no doubt about the statement that “informal oral speech is the center of colloquial speech, and the rest is its periphery” (Sirotinina, 1974, 33). Note that the importance of the factor of immediacy of communication is also explained by the fact that for colloquial speech the very situation in which communication occurs is very important (Kapanadze, 1988,132), the influence of the situation is possible only in conditions of direct (not distanced in time and space) communication . M. Bakhtin wrote about the importance of taking into account the situation for verbal communication: “Verbal communication can never be understood and explained without... connection with a specific situation” (Voloshinov, 1993,74).

Taking into account the above, within the framework of this dissertation research we define colloquial speech as the oral speech of citizens, taking place in conditions direct communication, in the absence of formal relations between the speakers, in most cases it is not prepared in advance. This is speech that primarily serves the sphere of everyday communication. In our understanding, colloquial speech is not sharply opposed to either the codified literary language or vernacular.

ABSTRACT
SPOKEN SPEECH AND ITS FEATURES

Plan
Introduction 3
1. General characteristics of colloquial speech 4
9
Intonation and pronunciation 10
Vocabulary of colloquial speech. 10
Phraseology of colloquial speech 10
Morphology of colloquial speech. 11
Syntax of spoken language. 12
3. Trends in the development of conversational style of speech. Specifics of Russian speech etiquette 13
Conclusion 15
Literature 16

Introduction
Democratic processes in our society over the past 15 years have led to the destruction of censorship, an increase in the personal element in speech, and the expansion of the sphere of spontaneous communication, not only personal, but also oral public. This allowed the speaker to freely express his position and show individuality, as a result of which elements of colloquial speech began to penetrate into the texts of journalistic and official business styles. The anthropocentric view of language, established today in the communicative concept of language, is based on the perception of man as the central figure of language, both as the person speaking and as the main character of the world about which he speaks.
Thanks to the view of a person as a subject of speech activity, it became significant to clarify the position of the speaker in the selection of speech means.
All of the above makes the stated topic relevant.
Oral speech– this is spoken speech, it is created in the process of conversation. It is characterized by verbal improvisation and some linguistic features:
1) freedom in choosing vocabulary;
2) use of simple sentences;
3) the use of incentive, interrogative, exclamatory sentences of various kinds;
4) repetitions;
5) incompleteness of expression of thought.
The oral form comes in two varieties:
1) colloquial speech;
2) codified speech.
Colloquial speech allows ease of communication; informality of relationships between speakers; unprepared speech; use of nonverbal means of communication (gestures and facial expressions); the ability to change the roles of speaker and listener. Conversational speech has its own norms, which each speaker must adhere to.
Codified speech is used in formal areas of communication (at conferences, meetings, etc.).
The mutual relationship between the literary language and colloquial speech was rightly defined by M. Gorky, pointing out that the division of a language into folk and literary means only that in one case it means a “raw” language, and in the other - processed by masters.
So, the needs for language as a means of communication are not the same in the field of literary activity and in the everyday sphere. The specifics of colloquial speech are to be revealed in this work.
The work consists of an introduction, three paragraphs revealing the main content, a conclusion and a list of references.

General characteristics of colloquial speech

Colloquial speech is spontaneous literary speech, implemented in informal situations with the direct participation of speakers based on pragmatic conditions of communication.
The conversational style is contrasted with book styles in general. This determines its special place in the system of functional varieties of the Russian literary language. Conversational style is the most traditional communication style.
The famous Russian psychologist and linguist N.I. Zhinkin once remarked: “Paradoxical as it may seem, I think that linguists have been studying the silent person for a long time” 1. And he was absolutely right. For a long time it was believed that they speak the same or approximately the same way as they write. Only in the 60s. our century, when it became possible to record spoken speech using tape recorders and this speech came fully into the field of view of linguists, it turned out that existing codifications were not entirely suitable for the linguistic understanding of spoken speech. So what is colloquial speech?
The conversational style is characterized by mass use. It is used by people of all ages, of all professions, not only in everyday life, but also in informal, personal communication in the socio-political, industrial, labor, educational and scientific spheres of activity. It is widely represented in fiction. Colloquial speech occupies an exceptional position in the modern Russian language. This is the original style of the national language, while all others are phenomena of a later (often even historically recent) period.
Colloquial speech as a special functional variety of language, and accordingly as a special object of linguistic research, is characterized by three extralinguistic, external to the language, signs or components (see Figure 1). The most important feature of colloquial speech is its spontaneity , unpreparedness. If, when creating even such simple written texts as, for example, a friendly letter, not to mention complex texts such as a scientific paper, each statement is thought out, many “difficult” texts are first written in rough form, then a spontaneous text does not require this kind of operation. The spontaneous creation of a colloquial text explains why neither linguists, nor even native speakers of the language, noticed its great differences from codified texts: linguistic colloquial features are not realized, are not fixed by consciousness, unlike codified linguistic indicators. This fact is interesting. When native speakers are presented with their own colloquial statements for normative assessment, such as “House of Shoes” how to get there? (codified version of How to get to the “House of Shoes”), then often these assessments are negative: “This is a mistake,” “They don’t say that,” although for conversational dialogues such a statement is more than usual.

Rice. 1. Components of a speaking situation 2
The second distinctive feature of colloquial speech is that conversational communication is possible only with unofficial relationships between speakers.
And finally, the third feature of colloquial speech is that it can only be realized with the direct participation of speakers . Such participation of speakers in communication is obvious in dialogical communication, but even in communication when one of the interlocutors speaks mainly (cf. the genre of a colloquial story), the other interlocutor does not remain passive; He. so to speak, has the right, in contrast to the conditions for the implementation of a monologue official speech, to constantly “interfere” in communication, whether by agreeing or disagreeing with what is said in the form of remarks Yes, Of course, Okay, No, Well, or simply demonstrating his participation in communication interjections like Uh-huh, the real sound of which is difficult to convey in writing. The following observation is noteworthy in this regard: if you talk on the phone for a long time and do not receive any confirmation from the other end that you are being listened to - at least in the form of Uh-huh - then you begin to worry whether they are listening to you at all, interrupting themselves with remarks like can you hear me? Hello, and the like 3.
The situation of colloquial speech consists of specific components , which determine the speaker’s choice of the spoken variety of language.
In addition to the three listed components of the situation, there are additional components that also influence the choice and construction of spoken language. These include: 1) the number of speakers and the genre of speech (monologue, dialogue, polylogue); 2) conditions for speech; 3) reliance on the extra-linguistic situation; 4) presence of common life experience, general preliminary information from interlocutors 4 .
Let's look at these components.
1. Number of speakers is defined this way: one, two, more than two. In accordance with this, the following are distinguished: genres colloquial speech: monologue, dialogue, polylogue. The named genres have their own specifics.
Distinctive feature monologue in colloquial speech – its dialogical nature, i.e. addressed to the listener, who can interrupt the narrator, ask him a question, agree with him or object to him at any moment. Compare: in monologue types of speech of a bookish literary language, it is not customary to interrupt the speaker (speaker, lecturer, orator at a meeting).
Dialogue - the main genre of colloquial speech. It is characterized by a frequent change of roles “speaker – listener”, so that the interlocutors alternately act in one or another role. In real colloquial speech, monologue and dialogue are usually presented not in their pure form, but in intersecting forms: dialogue can contain elements of a monologue (micro-stories, mini-monologues), and the monologue can be interrupted by remarks from the interlocutors.
For polylogue colloquial speech is characterized by a mixture of different topics (mixed topics), since often each of the interlocutors speaks about his own, “leads his own party.” In a polylogue, different forms of interaction between speakers are possible. For example, the interlocutor can interrupt one topic of conversation (leave his partner) and interject into the remarks of other participants in the polylogue, he can conduct a conversation by participating in two or more topics at once, etc.
It should be noted that diversity of topics can also be characteristic of dialogue, i.e. speakers can easily switch from one topic to another. For example, at home, two people talk at breakfast about work (first topic) and breakfast (second topic):
A: Who are you on duty with? / Is he young?
B: One and a half to two years younger than me.
A: Would you like some more cabbage?
B: I don’t want cabbage./ He is leaving us./ Because he was invited to another institute.
2. Conditions for speech are divided into contact(personal conversation) and distant(conversation at a distance, for example on the phone). During a contact conversation, interlocutors can use gestures and facial expressions as means of transmitting information; With distance communication, only one communication channel is used – auditory.
3. Reliance on extra-linguistic situation - one of the striking features of colloquial speech. The extra-linguistic situation, that is, the immediate setting of speech in which communication takes place, is usually called constitution. In conditions of casual communication, conversational speech is often structured in such a way that constitution and speech form a unity, a single act of communication. The constitution determines the ellipticity of speech and increases the role of pronouns. For example:
(A woman inspects her boots before leaving home) Which should I wear something (about boots)? Here these whether? Or here these? Not raw? (feels) I don’t think so //
The speaker uses pronouns, word boots She doesn’t use, but from the situation everyone understands what we’re talking about.
4. Availability of general preliminary information , the general everyday experience of interlocutors is an important condition for constructing conversational speech.
The commonality of everyday life can be due to both long-term acquaintance of the participants in the dialogue, their extensive (often many years) joint communication with each other, and short-term experience that is important only for this conversation. This allows speakers not to name, not to explain, to leave verbally unexpressed. For example:

A: Tanechka/little one!

B (angrily): I haven’t gone yet.

The meaning of this dialogue is clear only to the participants in the dialogue: A asks B for a book that she was supposed to borrow from the library.
An indicator of what a big role in verbal communication is played by joint everyday experience, knowledge of the interlocutors of the pre-situation, is that in response to the same laconic (but typical for Russian colloquial speech) question So how? Completely different answers may be obtained: Five!(if you passed the exam); Getting better!(if someone was sick); Had arrived!(if someone should come); Unanimously!(if someone defended a dissertation); Warm!(if a person went swimming and reports what kind of water is in the sea).
The main, if not the only, form of implementation of spoken language is the oral form. Only notes and other similar genres can be classified as the written form of colloquial speech. So, while sitting at a meeting, you can write to your friend Shall we leave? - and given the conditions of this situation and the corresponding background knowledge (you need to be on time somewhere), it will be clear what we are talking about. There is an opinion that all the features of colloquial speech are generated not by the conditions of its implementation (spontaneity, informality, direct contact between speakers), but rather by the oral form. In other words, it is believed that unreadable official public oral texts (report, lecture, radio conversation, etc.) are constructed in the same way as informal spontaneous ones.
The famous researcher of oral texts O. A. Lapteva, who owns the version about orality as the leading feature of uncodified texts, rightly notes the special, unknown to written texts, nature of the division of any oral unreadable texts (see Table 1):
Table 1. Features of oral unreadable text 5

Fragment of an oral lecture

Her written form after editing

Uh // how / after / it was / in the Pythagorean school the discovery / of / the phenomenon / of incommensurability / of two segments / uh-this / in mathematics // a very serious crisis arose // From the point of view of mathematics / of that time / from on the one hand / everything had to be measured by numbers / and thus / e / the presence / of two / of two segments / that cannot be measured / followed / the non-existence of one of them / on the other side / was and it was clear / what is clear / absolutely clear / and the obvious I previously seemed / abstraction / as we say a square / well, or an isosceles right triangle / e / absolutely I e / well / they don’t stand / / well / they don’t stand // well they turn out to be non-existent / / in a sense they turn out to be non-existent //.

After the phenomenon of incommensurability of two segments was discovered in the Pythagorean school, a very serious crisis arose in mathematics. From the point of view of mathematics of that time, on the one hand, everything had to be measured by numbers, and, thus, from the presence of segments that could not be compared, the non-existence of one of them followed, and on the other hand, it was clear that such a previously seemingly perfect a clear and obvious abstraction, like, say, a square or an isosceles right triangle, turns out to be in some sense non-existent.

However, when translating them onto a codified written basis, authentic spoken texts require not editing, but translation (see Table 2):
Table 2. Features of spoken text 6

Spoken uncodified text

Written codified translation

You know / this is industrial training // Sasha is just great // He’s on this / some kind of radio // Our transistor has gone bad // He took everything out and shook it out // I think I well! And he did // Everything // He speaks and plays //

It is easy to see that in the translated text only the meaning is preserved, while the grammatical and lexical basis of the original and the translation are completely different.
So, from the point of view of linguistic features, one should distinguish between oral codified and uncodified spoken texts. According to the opinion of most experts, we can classify only the latter as conversational style in its pure form.

2. Linguistic features of spoken language

The spontaneity of colloquial speech, its great differences from codified speech, lead to the fact that colloquial texts recorded in writing, one way or another, leave native speakers with the impression of some disorder; much in these texts is perceived as verbal carelessness or simply as a mistake. This happens precisely because colloquial speech is assessed from the standpoint of codified instructions. In fact, it has its own norms, which cannot and should not be assessed as non-normative.
Conversational norm - this is something that is constantly used in the speech of native speakers of a literary language and is not perceived during spontaneous perception of speech as an error - “does not hurt the ear.”
The norms of colloquial speech have one important feature. They are not strictly obligatory in the sense that a general literary norm can be used in place of a colloquial one, and this does not violate the colloquial status of the text.
Let us consider the manifestation of the norms of colloquial speech at various levels of the language system.

Intonation and pronunciation. In everyday conversation, for which the oral form is primordial, intonation plays an extremely important role. In interaction with syntax and vocabulary, it creates the impression of conversationality. Casual speech is often accompanied by sharp increases and decreases in tone, prolongation, “stretching” of vowels, prolongation of consonants, pauses, changes in the tempo of speech, as well as its rhythm.

Vocabulary of colloquial speech. Everyday colloquial vocabulary is words that are accepted in everyday life, including: 1) significant neutrals (time, business, work, person, house, hand, go, red, rain) and 2) non-significant (such, that means, in general, here; what, how, where, when, yes, no), often acting as a means semantic connection or highlighting statements.

The vocabulary of everyday conversation, in addition to neutral ones, includes words that are characterized by expressiveness and evaluativeness. Among them: words colloquial and vernacular colors (excites, wretched, living creature, blond, crazy, infuriate).
Colloquial speech is also characterized by words with situational meaning, the so-called situational vocabulary. These words can denote any concepts, and even entire situations, if they are well known to the participants in the dialogue ( thing, thing, carousel, music, parsley, bandura, business, question, trifles, nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, pies, toys). For example: I just can't figure this thing out! i.e.: “I just can’t understand how (TV, vacuum cleaner, washing machine) works.”
The main signs of colloquialism in the area word formation are:
1) the use of words with suffixes of pronounced expressiveness, emotionality, stylistic decline, for example:
-l (liar), -ash- (trader), -un- (chatterbox), -ushch- (huge), -ast- (armed), -sha- (doctor), -ikh-a (watchman);
2) widespread use of words formed according to specific conversational models of “semantic contraction” (abbreviation), i.e. combining two or more words into one: evening newspaper - evening; urgent Care - ambulance; foreign literature course – abroad: higher mathematics – tower; graduate work - diploma.

Phraseology of colloquial speech . The everyday conversational style is characterized by an abundance of colloquial phraseology. These are: a) stable speech patterns from everyday speech: on bare feet, to be sure; b) jargon phrases: cut like a nut, hatchet work, green street, put a paw on; c) phrases borrowed from scientific terminology: go downhill and etc.

Colloquial speech uses phraseological units as ready-made and integral semantic units of language, for example: There was a fracture in the arm/ gives know yourself sometimes.
In colloquial speech, the synonymy of phraseological units is widely developed: I don’t even kick you in the teeth = I don’t know anything about it = I don’t know boom-boom.

Morphology of spoken speech .

1. Morphological features of everyday colloquial speech are manifested primarily in the very set of parts of speech. Thus, we can note the absence in colloquial speech of participles and gerunds, short adjectives (in their syntactic contrast to full ones), a decrease in the proportion of nouns, and an increase in the proportion of particles.
2. Colloquial speech is no less unique in the distribution of case forms. For example, the predominance of the nominative case is considered typical: Shoe House/ where to get off? Porridge/ look // Isn’t it burnt?
3. The presence of a special vocative form is noted: Roll! Mom!
4. Unlike the book styles of the literary language, many words naming a substance can be used in the sense of “a portion of this substance”: two milk, two Ryazhenka
5. In colloquial speech, truncated versions of function words, conjunctions and particles are widely used: so, what, so, at least, as well as truncated versions of nouns: five kilogram orange (Right: kilograms of oranges).
Pronouns in colloquial speech. Pronouns very popular in modern colloquial speech. Being insignificant words, i.e. words without lexical meaning, they, like a sponge, absorb various meanings, playing one role or another. The word sounds significant in the mouths of modern youth something, which, depending on the situation, can exhibit positive or negative shades of meaning:
- Well? Have you talked to her?
- This something! (the conversation was unsuccessful)
- Well, did you like the film?
- This something! (a very good movie)
– I saw his sister. This something(strange girl, extravagant, unlike anyone else).
The pronoun can act as a form of alienation, reluctance to communicate. This role is especially pronounced in modern oral speech. Words no way, nothing, somehow, someday become an obstacle in conversation between people. It’s as if a person is delineating the border of his world, not wanting to let anyone into it:
- Can I help you?
- Yes, I am somehow... (I don't need your help.)
– Somehow come in. We will be glad.
- Thank you, somehow let's go in. (A vague, non-specific form of polite etiquette invitation, after which people may not see each other for years.)
A characteristic feature of colloquial speech is also the use of the pronoun We when asking (a question) to one person. This is most likely how a doctor will address a patient during a round in the hospital, or an adult will address a child. We in meaning You - the appeal of the strong to the weak, the loving to the beloved:
- How We how are we feeling?
– We Are you already awake?
– We still angry?
“Game” with personal pronouns is a striking feature of Russian speech, introducing many semantic shades into it. In particular, the pronoun You It can be a manifestation of friendly feelings, love, familiarity, or a contemptuous and even insulting attitude. It all depends on who the interlocutor is addressing and in what situation, and what cultural environment the interlocutors belong to. For example, in a village, unlike in a city, it is more common to call You, on the other hand, parents are addressed respectfully You. Sometimes You acts as a sign of trust or belonging to the same “caste”, a group bound by common interests (for example, speaking in You motorists). On You Small children address everyone, since they have not yet had time to master etiquette rules. You more typical for male than female communication.

Syntax of spoken language. The colloquial syntax is very unique. The above conditions for the implementation of colloquial speech (unpreparedness of the statement, ease of verbal communication, influence of the situation) have a particular impact on its syntactic structure. The main syntactic features of the colloquial style of speech include 7:

1) the predominance of simple sentences;
2) widespread use of interrogative and exclamatory sentences;
3) the use of words-sentences ( Yes. No.);
4) the use of incomplete sentences on a large scale, the so-called “chopped speech” ( This dress/nowhere. No/well, nothing at all/if with a belt);
5) in the syntactic structure of colloquial speech, pauses are allowed, caused by various reasons (searching for the right word, the speaker’s excitement, an unexpected transition from one thought to another, etc.), repeated questions, repetitions.
The named syntactic features in combination with expressive vocabulary create a special, unique flavor of colloquial speech:
A: Are you cold? B: Not at all!; A: Did you get your feet wet again? B: But of course! What a rain!; A: How interesting it was! B: Lovely!-,
etc.................