New norms of the Russian language have come into force. New norms of the Russian language

Essay

Topic: Standards of modern Russian language

Introduction

1 The concept of a language norm and its functions

2 Norms of modern Russian language

3 Language norms and speech practice

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The history and culture of the people is reflected in the language. Moreover, the most essential part of the collective experience of a people, which manifests itself in intellectual activity and in the “inner world” of a person, finds its expression through language in oral speech and in written texts.

The concepts of “normal” and “norm” are important for many types of human activity. There are standards for the production of products (for example, at a factory) and normals, i.e. technical requirements that these products must satisfy. Nutritionists talk about nutritional standards, athletes “fit” into certain standards (in running, in jumping). No one doubts the fact that in any civilized society there are norms of relationships between people, norms of etiquette; Each of us has an idea of what is normal for human communication, and what is abnormal, goes beyond the limits of some unwritten norm. And our everyday speech is replete with these words: How are you? - Fine!; Well how are you? - Nothing, it’s normal. Moreover, the norm is invisibly present in our statements that do not contain the words norm or normal. When we say: a comfortable chair, a too dark room, inexpressive singing, we mean certain generally accepted “norms” for the comfort of a chair, the lighting of the room, and the expressiveness of singing.

There is a norm in language too. And this is quite natural: language is an integral part of not only a civilized society, but also of any human society in general. Normativity is compliance with language norms, which are perceived by its speakers as an “ideal” or correct model.

The language norm is one of the components of national culture. Therefore, the development of a literary norm, its codification, and the reflection of the normalizing activities of linguists in grammars, dictionaries and reference books are of great social and cultural importance.

All of the above justifies the relevance of this topic.

Purpose of the work: a comprehensive study and analysis of the norms of the modern Russian language.

The work consists of an introduction, 3 chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.

1 The concept of a language norm and its functions

Norm is one of the central linguistic concepts. Most often, this term is used in combination with “literary norm” and is applied to those varieties of language that are used in the media, in science and education, in diplomacy, lawmaking and legislation, in business and legal proceedings and other areas of “socially important” predominantly public communication. But we can talk about the norm in relation to a territorial dialect or social jargon. Thus, linguists use the term norm in two senses - broad and narrow.

In a broad sense, the norm refers to such means and ways of speech that have been spontaneously formed over many centuries and which usually distinguish one type of language from others. That’s why we can talk about a norm in relation to a territorial dialect: for example, normal for Northern Russian dialects is Okanye, and for Southern Russian dialects - Akanye. Any social or professional jargon is also “normal” in its own way: for example, what is used in trade argot will be rejected as alien by those who speak the jargon of carpenters; established ways of using linguistic means exist in army jargon and in the jargon of musicians-“labukhs”, and speakers of each of these jargons can easily distinguish someone else’s from their own, familiar and therefore normal for them, etc.

In a narrow sense, a norm is the result of the codification of language. Of course, codification is based on the tradition of the existence of language in a given society, on some unwritten but generally accepted ways of using linguistic means. But it is important that codification is the purposeful ordering of everything related to language and its application. The results of codifying activities are reflected in normative dictionaries and grammars.

The norm as a result of codification is inextricably linked with the concept of literary language, which is otherwise called normalized or codified. The territorial dialect, urban vernacular, social and professional jargons are not subject to codification: after all, no one consciously and purposefully makes sure that Vologda residents consistently okal, and residents of the Kursk village Akali, so that sellers, God forbid, do not use the terminology of carpenters, and soldiers - words and expressions of Labouche jargon, and therefore the concept of norm in the narrow sense of this term just discussed is not applicable to such varieties of language - dialects, jargons.

Language norms are not invented by scientists. They reflect natural processes and phenomena that have occurred and are occurring in the language and are supported by the speech practice of native speakers of a literary language. The main sources of the language norm include the works of classical writers and some modern writers, the language of Central Television announcers, generally accepted modern usage, data from live and questionnaire surveys, scientific research by linguists, the language system (analogs), and the opinion of the majority of speakers.

Norms help the literary language maintain its integrity and general intelligibility. They protect the literary language from the flow of dialect speech, social and professional jargon, and vernacular. This is an important function of norms - the function of protecting the language. In addition, norms reflect what has developed historically in a language - this is a function of reflecting the history of the language.

Speaking about the essence of a norm, it should be remembered that a norm is not a law. The law constitutes a necessity that does not allow any deviations, while the norm only prescribes how it should be. Let's compare the following examples:

1. A stone thrown up must then fall down (this is a law of nature);

2. A person living in a society must follow the rules of the community, for example, not knocking on the wall with a hammer after 11 pm (these are social norms);

3. A person in the process of verbal communication must place stress correctly (these are language norms).

So, the norm only indicates how it should be - this is the function of the prescription.

Thus, a language norm is the traditionally established rules for the use of speech means, i.e. rules of exemplary and generally accepted pronunciation, use of words, phrases and sentences.

2 Norms of modern Russian language

There are written and oral norms.

Written language norms are, first of all, spelling and punctuation norms. For example, the spelling N in the word worker, and НН in the word nameNNik, is subject to certain spelling rules. And the placement of a dash in the sentence Moscow is the capital of Russia is explained by the punctuation norms of the modern Russian language.

Oral norms are divided into grammatical, lexical and orthoepic.

Grammar rules are the rules for using the forms of different parts of speech, as well as the rules for constructing a sentence. The most common grammatical errors associated with the use of the gender of nouns are “railroad rail, French shampoo, big corn, registered parcel, patent leather shoes.” However, rail, shampoo is a masculine noun, and callus, parcel, shoe are feminine, so we should say “railroad rail, French shampoo and large callus, customized parcel, patent leather shoe.”

Lexical norms are the rules for using words in speech. An error is, for example, using the verb lay down instead of putting. Despite the fact that the verbs lay down and put down have the same meaning, put down is a normative literary word, and lay down is a colloquial word. The expressions: I put the book back in its place, etc. are errors. The verb to put should be used: I put the books in place.

Orthoepic norms are pronunciation norms of oral speech. (Orthoepy from the Greek orthos - correct and epos - speech). Compliance with pronunciation standards is important for the quality of our speech. Pronunciation that corresponds to orthoepic standards facilitates and speeds up the process of communication, therefore the social role of correct pronunciation is very great, especially now in our society, where oral speech has become a means of the widest communication at various meetings, conferences, and forums.

The norm is conservative and is aimed at preserving the linguistic means and rules for their use accumulated in a given society by previous generations. The unity and universality of the norm are manifested in the fact that representatives of different social strata and groups that make up a given society are obliged to adhere to traditional methods of linguistic expression, as well as those rules and regulations that are contained in grammars and dictionaries and are the result of codification. Deviation from linguistic tradition, from dictionary and grammatical rules and recommendations is considered a violation of the norm. However, it is no secret that at all stages of the development of a literary language, when using it in different communicative conditions, variants of linguistic means are allowed: you can say cottage cheese - and cottage cheese, spotlights - and spotlights, you are right - and you are right, etc.

The norm relies on traditional ways of using language and is wary of linguistic innovations. “The norm is recognized as what was, and partly what is, but not at all what will be,” wrote the famous linguist A.M. Peshkovsky. He explained this property of both the literary norm and the literary language itself: “If the literary dialect changed quickly, then each generation could only use the literature of its own and the previous generation, many two. But under such conditions there would be no literature itself, since the literature of each generation is created by all previous literature. If Chekhov had not already understood Pushkin, then Chekhov probably would not have existed. Too thin a layer of soil would provide too little nutrition for literary sprouts. The conservatism of the literary dialect, uniting centuries and generations, creates the possibility of a single powerful centuries-old national literature.” However, the conservatism of a norm does not mean its complete immobility in time. It is another matter that the pace of normative changes is slower than the development of a given national language as a whole. The more developed the literary form of a language is, the better it serves the communicative needs of society, the less it changes from generation to generation of people using this language.

And yet, a comparison of the language of Pushkin and Dostoevsky with the Russian language of the late 20th and early 21st centuries reveals differences that indicate the historical variability of the literary norm. In Pushkin's times they said: houses, buildings, now - houses, buildings. Pushkin’s “Rise up, prophet...” must, of course, be understood in the sense of “rise up,” and not at all in the sense of “raise an uprising.” In F. M. Dostoevsky’s story “The Mistress” we read: “Then the ticklish Yaroslav Ilyich... directed a questioning glance at Murin.” The modern reader realizes that the point here is not that Dostoevsky’s hero was afraid of tickling: ticklish is used in a sense close to the meaning of the words delicate, scrupulous, and is applied to a person, i.e. in a way that no one would use it today (usually: a sensitive question, a sensitive matter). A.N. Tolstoy, almost our contemporary, in one of his stories describes the actions of a hero who “began to follow the flight of kites over the forest.” Now they would say: I began to follow the flight of kites.

The normative status of not only individual words, forms and constructions, but also certain interconnected speech patterns can change. For example, this happened with the old Moscow pronunciation norm, which by the second half of the twentieth century was almost completely replaced by a new pronunciation, closer to the written form of the word: instead of boyus, smyalsa, zhyra, verkh, chetverg, strict, assent, korishnevy, slivoshnoe (butter) , sinful (porridge) began to say I’m afraid, laughed, heat, top, Thursday, strict, assent, brown, butter (butter), buckwheat (porridge), etc.

The sources for updating the literary norm are varied. First of all, it is a living, sounding speech. It is mobile, fluid, and it is not at all uncommon for it to contain things that are not approved by the official norm - an unusual emphasis, a fresh word that is not in dictionaries, a syntactic turn of phrase that is not provided for by the grammar. When repeated repeatedly by many people, innovations can penetrate into literary use and compete with facts sanctified by tradition. This is how options arise: next to you are right, you are right appears; Designers and workshops are adjacent to the forms of designers and workshops; the traditional conditioning is replaced by the new conditioning; slang words chaos and party flash in the speech of those whom society is accustomed to considering as exemplary bearers of the literary norm.

These examples indicate that speech practice often runs counter to normative instructions, and the contradiction between how one should speak and how one actually speaks turns out to be the driving stimulus for the evolution of the linguistic norm.

3 Language norms and speech practice

At different periods of language development, the literary norm has qualitatively different relationships with speech practice.

In the era of democratization of the literary language, i.e. the introduction of broad masses of people who do not know the literary norm to it, the conservatism of the normative tradition, its resistance to “illegal” innovations weakens, and elements appear in the literary language that until that time the norm did not accept, qualifying them as alien to the normative language. For example, the expansion of the range of masculine nouns characteristic of modern speech practice, forming the nominative plural using inflection - a (- "I) (inspector, searchlight, sector, workshop, mechanic, turner), means that speech practice puts pressure on the traditional norm, and for some groups of nouns the formation of forms starting with -a (-“я) turns out to be within the codified norm.

The genitive plural form of socks (several pairs of socks), along with the traditional normative socks, recently allowed by modern codifiers of the grammatical norm, is an undoubted concession to the vernacular, from which the genitive plural form with a zero ending (socks), previously assessed as undeniably incorrect , spread among literary speakers. The influence of the colloquial and professional-technical environment explains many other options allowed by the modern Russian literary norm: agreement, agreement, agreements (along with traditional agreements, agreements, agreements), disarmament negotiations (along with negotiations on disarmament), etc.

Speech practice can contribute not only to the penetration of new units for a literary language into a standardized language, but also to the strengthening of new models in it - word formation, syntactic and others. For example, numerous lexical borrowings from other languages, mainly from English, which expanded the standard Russian vocabulary at the end of the twentieth century, also contribute to the fact that structurally new types of words appear under the influence of foreign language samples. These are, for example, combinations of the form business plan - the traditional model for the Russian language is a phrase with the genitive case: business plan. Unusual - from the point of view of normative tradition - syntactic constructions may also appear. For example, headlines like Summing up (containing a gerund), which began to appear in our press around the second half of the twentieth century, arose under the influence of corresponding constructions of the English language (cf. summing up).

Even more indicative is the pressure of speech practice on the traditional norm in the field of spelling. For example, writing a number of words related to the religious sphere with a capital letter: God, Mother of God, Christmas, Easter, Candlemas, Bible, etc. arose initially in written practice, and only then was approved as a mandatory spelling norm. Meanwhile, according to the old spelling norm, recorded in the 1956 Code of Spelling and Punctuation Rules, all these names and titles had to be written with a lowercase letter.

In the process of updating the norm, the prevalence and frequency of a particular innovation in speech practice is of a certain importance. A common, widespread mistake can also be an obvious mistake: for example, a pronunciation like an incident, unprecedented, very often found even in public speech, in particular among journalists, is an undoubted violation of the pronunciation correctness of speech.

However, it is important in what environment a particular innovation appears that contradicts the traditional norm. If it is introduced and often used by those who are considered bearers of exemplary, cultural speech, then the innovation can take root: for example, instead of the old norm of stress in the word rakurs, a new one has now prevailed - rakurs. Along with these, there are facts of speech that cannot be called new, and at the same time they have no chance of becoming normative. They are peculiar symbols of “illiterate” speech, unliterary vernacular: document, portfolio, percentage, means, benefits, start, deepen, etc. Whatever their usage, they contrast too much with the normative tradition.

This does not mean that everything that appears outside the literary language - in common speech, social and professional jargon - is denied access to general use. On the contrary, both modern speech practice and facts characteristic of the Russian language of the past indicate the influence of both vernacular and jargon on literary speech: the word burning came from the speech of fishmongers, hasty - from the language of the military (V.V. Vinogradova “History of Words” ).

And in the Russian literary language of our days, facts coming from vernacular and jargon often become widespread (linguists call such areas of language uncodified). Thus, attention is drawn to the extreme activation of the plural forms of masculine nouns with stressed inflections. Many of these forms penetrate into public speech from the professional environment: platoon - from the speech of the military; term and search - from the speech of prosecutors and police officers (convict and case initiated). Cooks talk about how they cook soup and make cake, and perfumers talk about what miraculous creams they have, builders are haunted by weak rigging cables, etc.

Doctors say: treat the patient, inject penicillin (this verbal model is also active in the speech of financiers and businessmen who pay bills and talk about the need to finance a project). The prevalence of such forms in professional speech has been noted by linguists for a long time, but a significant increase in the frequency of these forms in public speech - on radio, television, in newspapers - can be considered a characteristic feature of our time.

Conscious deviations from the norm, dictated by a person’s desire to achieve communicative comfort in a certain social environment, deserve special discussion. Academician I.P. Bardin, when asked about the emphasis with which he pronounces the word kilometer, answered: “At a meeting of the Presidium of the Academy - kilometer, otherwise Academician Vinogradov will frown. Well, at the Novotulsky plant, of course, a kilometer, otherwise they will think that Bardin is arrogant.”

Conscious deviations from the norm can be made for a specific purpose - irony, ridicule, language play. This is not a mistake, not an innovation, but a speech technique that testifies to the freedom with which a person uses language, consciously - with the aim of making a joke, playing on the meaning or form of a word, making puns, etc. - ignoring normative guidelines.

Conclusion

So, based on the above, we will draw brief conclusions.

A linguistic literary norm combines tradition and purposeful codification. Although the speech practice of educated, literary-speaking people is generally oriented toward the norm, there is always a kind of “gap” between normative guidelines and prescriptions, on the one hand, and how language is actually used, on the other hand: practice does not always follow normative recommendations.

The linguistic activity of a native speaker of a literary language proceeds in constant - but usually unconscious - coordination of his own speech actions with traditional ways of using linguistic means, with what is prescribed by dictionaries and grammars of a given language, and with how the language is actually used in everyday communication. contemporaries.

Violation of language norms can cause complete misunderstanding if, instead of a normative (well-known) word, some little-known (dialect or slang) word is used. Violation of normativity can manifest itself in incorrect stress in words, lexical and grammatical errors. In this case, the effectiveness of communication decreases, in addition to misunderstanding, for another reason: non-normative use always reveals the speaker’s lack of education and encourages the listener to treat him accordingly.

Language norms are a historical phenomenon. Changes in literary norms are due to the constant development of language. What was the norm in the last century, and even 15–20 years ago, today may become a deviation from it.

The historical change in the norms of a literary language is a natural, objective phenomenon. It does not depend on the will and desire of individual native speakers. The development of society, changes in the social way of life, the emergence of new traditions, the improvement of relationships between people, the functioning of literature and art lead to the constant updating of the literary language and its norms.

List of used literature

Ageenko F.L. Dictionary of accents of the Russian language / F.L. Ageenko, M.V. Zarva. - M., 2000.

Belchikov Yu.A. The Russian language is wealth, the heritage of Russian national culture / Yu.A. Belchikov. - M, 2001.

Vvedenskaya L.A. Russian language and culture of speech: Textbook for universities / L.A. Vvedenskaya, L.G. Pavlova, E.Yu. Kashaeva. – Rostov-on-Don, 2001.

Dantsev D.D. Russian language and culture of speech. Textbook for technical universities / D.D. Dantsev, N.V. Nefedova. – Rostov-on-Don, 2002.

Krasivova A.N. Business Russian language: Educational and practical guide / A.N. Krasivova. – M, 2001.

Modern Russian language: Textbook / Edited by N.S. Valgina. - M, 2002.

Peshkovsky A. M. Objective and normative point of view on language // Peshkovsky A. M. Selected works. - M., 1959. - P.55

Krysin L.P. Social marking of linguistic units // Questions of linguistics. - 2000. - No. 4.

See, for example: Eskova N.A. A brief dictionary of difficulties in the Russian language. - M., 1994. - P.88; Orthoepic dictionary of the Russian language. - M., 1997. - P.126.

Plan

1. The concept of a language norm, its characteristics.

2. Standard options.

3. Degrees of normativity of linguistic units.

4. Types of norms.

5. Norms of oral speech.

5.1. Orthoepic norms.

5.2. Accentological norms.

6. Norms of oral and written speech.

6.1. Lexical norms.

6.2. Phraseological norms.

Speech culture, as mentioned earlier, is a multifaceted concept. It is based on the idea of a “speech ideal” that exists in the human mind, a model in accordance with which correct, competent speech should be constructed.

Norm is the dominant concept of speech culture. In the Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language D.N. Ushakova meaning of the word norm is defined as: “legalized establishment, usual mandatory order, state.” Thus, the norm reflects, first of all, customs and traditions, streamlines communication and is the result of the socio-historical selection of one option from several possible ones.

Language norms– these are the rules for the use of linguistic means in a certain period of development of a literary language (rules of pronunciation, word usage, the use of morphological forms of different parts of speech, syntactic structures, etc.). This is a historically established uniform, exemplary, generally accepted use of language elements, recorded in grammars and standard dictionaries.

Language norms are characterized by a number of features:

1) relative stability;

2) common use;

3) universally binding;

4) compliance with the use, tradition and capabilities of the language system.

Norms reflect natural processes and phenomena occurring in language and are supported by language practice.

The sources of norms are the speech of educated people, the works of writers, as well as the most authoritative media.

Functions of the norm:

1) ensures that speakers of a given language can correctly understand each other;

2) inhibits the penetration of dialectal, colloquial, colloquial, slang elements into the literary language;

3) develops linguistic taste.

Language norms are a historical phenomenon. They change over time, reflecting changes in the use of language. The sources of changes in norms are:

Colloquial speech (cf., for example, colloquial options such as Ringing- along with lit. callsIt; cottage cheese- along with lit. cottage cheese; [de]kan along with lit [d'e]kan);

Colloquial speech (for example, in some dictionaries they are recorded as acceptable colloquial stress options agreement, phenomenon, which until recently were colloquial, non-normative variants);

Dialects (for example, in the Russian literary language there are a number of words that are dialectal in origin: spider, snowstorm, taiga, life);

Professional jargons (cf. variants of stress actively penetrating into modern everyday speech whooping cough, syringes, adopted in the speech of health workers).

Changes in norms are preceded by the appearance of their variants, which exist in a language at a certain stage of its development and are actively used by native speakers. Language options- these are two or more ways of pronunciation, stress, formation of grammatical forms, etc. The emergence of variants is explained by the development of language: some linguistic phenomena become obsolete and fall out of use, while others appear.

In this case, the options may be equal – normative, acceptable in literary speech ( bakery And bulo [sh]aya; barge And barge; Mordvin And Mordvin ov ).

More often, only one of the options is recognized as normative, the others are assessed as unacceptable, incorrect, violating the literary norm ( chauffeur s and wrong. chauffeur A; catholOg and wrong. catalog).

Unequal options. As a rule, variants of the norm specialize in one way or another. Very often the options are stylistic specialization: neutral – high; literary - colloquial ( stylistic options ). Wed. stylistically neutral pronunciation of the reduced vowel in words like s[a]net, p[a]et, m[a]dern and the pronunciation of the sound [o] in the same words, characteristic of a high, specifically bookish style: s[o]no, p[o]et, m[o]dern; neutral (soft) pronunciation of sounds [g], [k], [x] in words like jump up, jump up, jump up and the bookish, firm pronunciation of these sounds characteristic of the Old Moscow noma: flutter, flutter, jump up. Wed. also lit. contract, locksmith And and decomposition contract, locksmith I.

Often options are specialized in terms of their degree of modernity(chronological options ). For example: modern creamy and outdated plum[sh]ny.

In addition, the options may have differences in meaning ( semantic options ): moves(move, move) and drives(set in motion, encourage, force to act).

Based on the relationship between the norm and the variant, three degrees of normativity of linguistic units are distinguished.

Standard I degree. A strict, rigid norm that does not allow options. In such cases, the options in the dictionaries are accompanied by prohibitive notes: choice s – not right. choice A; shi[n’e]l – not right. shi[ne]l; motionSolicitation – not right. petition; pampered – not rec. spoiled. In relation to linguistic facts that are outside the literary norm, it is more correct to speak not about variants, but about speech errors.

Standard II degree. The norm is neutral, allowing equal options. For example: a loop And a loop; pool And ba[sse]yn; stack And haystack. In dictionaries, similar options are connected by the conjunction And.

Standard III degree. A flexible norm that allows the use of colloquial, outdated forms. Variants of the norm in such cases are accompanied by marks add.(acceptable), add. outdated(acceptable obsolete). For example: Augustovsky – add. Augustovsky; budo[chn]ik and additional mouth budo[sh]ik.

Variants of norms in the modern Russian literary language are represented very widely. In order to choose the right option, you need to refer to special dictionaries: spelling dictionaries, stress dictionaries, difficulty dictionaries, explanatory dictionaries, etc.

Language norms are mandatory for both oral and written speech. The typology of norms covers all levels of the language system: pronunciation, stress, word formation, morphology, syntax, spelling, and punctuation are subject to norms.

In accordance with the main levels of the language system and the areas of use of linguistic means, the following types of norms are distinguished.

There are written and oral norms.

Oral norms are divided into grammatical, lexical and orthoepic.

Language norms(norms of a literary language, literary norms) are the rules for the use of linguistic means in a certain period of development of a literary language, i.e. rules of pronunciation, spelling, word usage, grammar. A norm is a pattern of uniform, generally accepted use of language elements (words, phrases, sentences).

A linguistic phenomenon is considered normative if it is characterized by such features as:

compliance with the structure of the language;
massive and regular reproducibility in the process of speech activity of the majority of speakers;
public approval and recognition.

Linguistic norms were not invented by philologists; they reflect a certain stage in the development of the literary language of the entire people. Language norms cannot be introduced or abolished by decree; they cannot be reformed administratively. The activity of linguists who study language norms is different - they identify, describe and codify language norms, as well as explain and promote them.

The main sources of language norms include:

works of classical writers;
works of modern writers who continue classical traditions;
media publications;
common modern usage;
linguistic research data.

The characteristic features of language norms are:

relative stability;
prevalence;
common use;
universal obligatory;
correspondence to the use, custom and capabilities of the language system.

Norms common to oral and written speech relate to linguistic content and text construction.

Lexical norms, or norms of word usage, are norms that determine the correct choice of a word from a number of units that are close to it in meaning or form, as well as its use in the meanings that it has in the literary language. Lexical norms are reflected in explanatory dictionaries, dictionaries of foreign words, terminological dictionaries and reference books. Compliance with lexical norms is the most important condition for the accuracy of speech and its correctness. Their violation leads to lexical errors of various types:

· incorrect choice of a word from a number of units, including confusion of paronyms, inaccurate choice of a synonym, incorrect choice of a unit of the semantic field (bone type of thinking, analyze the life activity of writers, Nikolaev aggression, Russia experienced many incidents in domestic and foreign policy in those years);

· violation of the norms of lexical compatibility (a herd of hares, under the yoke of humanity, a secret curtain, ingrained foundations, has gone through all stages of human development);

· the contradiction between the speaker’s intention and the emotional and evaluative connotations of the word (Pushkin correctly chose the path of life and followed it, leaving indelible traces; He made an enormous contribution to the development of Russia);

· the use of anachronisms (Lomonosov entered the institute, Raskolnikov studied at the university);

· a mixture of linguistic and cultural realities (Lomonosov lived hundreds of miles from the capital);

· incorrect use of phraseological units (Youth was flowing out of him; We must bring him out into fresh water).

Grammar rules are divided into word-formation, morphological and syntactic. Grammatical norms are described in "Russian Grammar", prepared by the Academy of Sciences, in Russian language textbooks and grammatical reference books.

Word formation norms determine the order of combining parts of a word and forming new words. A word-formation error is the use of non-existent derivative words instead of existing derivative words with other affixes, for example: character description, salesmanship, hopelessness, the writer’s works are distinguished by their depth and truthfulness.

Morphological norms require the correct formation of grammatical forms of words of different parts of speech (forms of gender, number, short forms and degrees of comparison of adjectives, etc.). A typical violation of morphological norms is the use of a word in a non-existent or inflectional form that does not correspond to the context (analyzed image, reigning order, victory over fascism, called Plyushkin a hole). Sometimes you can hear the following phrases: railway rail, imported shampoo, registered parcel post, patent leather shoes. There is a morphological error in these phrases - the gender of the nouns is incorrectly formed.

Syntactic norms prescribe the correct construction of basic syntactic units - phrases and sentences. These norms include rules for word agreement and syntactic control, relating parts of a sentence to each other using the grammatical forms of words so that the sentence is a literate and meaningful statement. Violation of syntactic norms is found in the following examples: while reading it, a question arises; The poem is characterized by a synthesis of lyrical and epic principles; Married to his brother, none of the children were born alive.

Stylistic norms determine the use of linguistic means in accordance with the laws of the genre, the features of the functional style and, more broadly, with the purpose and conditions of communication. Unmotivated use of words of a different stylistic connotation in the text causes stylistic errors. Stylistic norms are recorded in explanatory dictionaries as special notes, and are commented on in textbooks on the stylistics of the Russian language and speech culture. Stylistic errors consist of violating stylistic norms, including units in the text that do not correspond to the style and genre of the text.

The most typical stylistic errors are:

· stylistic inappropriateness (goes in cycles, royal lawlessness, doesn’t care, the love conflict is depicted in all its glory - in the text of an essay, in a business document, in an analytical article);

· the use of cumbersome, unsuccessful metaphors (Pushkin and Lermontov are two rays of light in a dark kingdom; These flowers - the messengers of nature - do not know what kind of violent heart beats in the chest under the stone slabs; Did he have the right to cut off this thread of life that he did not hang ?);

· lexical insufficiency (I am deeply concerned about this issue);

· lexical redundancy (He wakes them up so that they wake up; We must turn to the period of their life, that is, the period of time when they lived; Pushkin is a poet with a capital P of the word);

· ambiguity (While Oblomov was sleeping, many were preparing for his awakening; Oblomov’s only entertainment was Zakhar; Yesenin, preserving traditions, but somehow did not love the fair female sex so much; All actions and relationships between Olga and Oblomov were incomplete) .

Spelling standards- these are the rules for naming words in writing. They include rules for designating sounds with letters, rules for continuous, hyphenated and separate spelling of words, rules for the use of capital letters and graphic abbreviations.

Punctuation standards determine the use of punctuation marks.

Punctuation means are as follows functions:

· delimitation in a written text of one syntactic structure (or its element) from another;

· fixation in the text of the left and right boundaries of a syntactic structure or its element;

· combining several syntactic structures into one whole in a text.

The norms of spelling and punctuation are enshrined in the “Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation”, the only most complete and officially approved set of spelling rules. Based on these rules, various reference books on spelling and punctuation have been compiled, the most authoritative among which is considered to be the “Handbook of Spelling and Punctuation” by D.E. Rosenthal.

Orthoepic norms include norms of pronunciation, stress and intonation. Compliance with spelling norms is an important part of speech culture, because their violation creates in listeners an unpleasant impression of the speech and the speaker himself, and distracts from the perception of the content of the speech. Orthoepic norms are recorded in orthoepic dictionaries of the Russian language and dictionaries of accents. Intonation norms are described in “Russian Grammar” and Russian language textbooks.

Related information.

On September 1, the order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of June 8, 2009 came into force, defining a list of dictionaries, grammars and reference books containing the norms of the modern Russian literary language. ITAR-TASS reports this.

The Ministry has approved a list of dictionaries recognized as exemplary in terms of the norms of the Russian language. From now on, the status of official authorities is given to the "Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language" by Bronislava Bukchina, Inna Sazonova and Lyudmila Cheltsova, the "Grammar Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by Andrey Zaliznyak, the "Dictionary of Stresses of the Russian Language" by Irina Reznichenko and the "Big Phraseological Dictionary of the Russian Language" with cultural commentary Veronica Telia.

All of them, by the way, were published by the same publishing house - AST-press. But the dictionaries of the luminary of the Russian language - Dmitry Rosenthal - turned out to be unclaimed and were not included in the list of mandatory use. Allegedly, because other publishing houses did not submit applications for research to a special commission, notes the Rosbalt news agency.

For example, the author of one of the dictionaries approved by the Ministry of Education, a member of the Spelling Commission at the Department of Historical and Philological Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, associate professor Bronislava Bukchina admitted that coffee can now be neuter. Therefore, please do not grimace when asked to make you “strong coffee with a spoonful of sugar.” Bookchina and her colleagues also decided that people who get married are no longer “getting married”, but “getting married.” And now what to sign - “agreement” or “agreement”, and “on Wednesdays” and “on Wednesdays” - everyone can choose for themselves. By the way, the signing of the “agreement” can be sealed with “yogurt” or “yogurt”, and then go to “karate”.

Despite the events of August last year, when Russian state television channels massively switched to the word “Tskhinvali” instead of “Tskhinvali”, from now on “Tskhinvali” is allowed to be written only with an “and” at the end. “Facsimile” is pronounced with emphasis on the second syllable, adds the Rossiya information portal.

Serious spelling problems are often caused by borrowed words, in particular those starting with re- and ri-. New reference books come to the rescue here too. You can find the words “realtor” and “remake” in them, as well as “offshore”, “digger”, “fax modem” and “file server”. On the other hand, it was not possible to find in the dictionaries such recently popular words as “diversify” (there is only “diversification”) and “nightmare.”

Also, the new reference books leave unchanged the norms for pronouncing the words “cakes” (with emphasis on the first syllable), “calls” and “more beautiful” (on the second).

Meanwhile, homegrown linguists explain that language is a living system that is constantly changing. Officially established norms usually do not keep pace with this development. But if all new trends were immediately recorded in dictionaries, then the next generation would have difficulty understanding the previous one.

“The norm always lags behind the development of language, and rightly so. If the norm allowed too much, then the next generation would have difficulty understanding the previous one,” notes Leonid Krysin from the Vinogradov Institute of Russian Language.

And one of the creators of the “Spelling Dictionary,” Inna Sazonova, said that all four dictionaries are the result of enormous research that has passed the strictest examination in scientific institutes. And in the Spelling Dictionary, special attention is paid to those grammatical forms where people most often make mistakes.

“Here’s the word “coffee.” Look in the Big Academic Dictionary. It says: coffee - m. and wed. r (colloquial). That is, the neuter gender is used in colloquial speech. We removed this mark and wrote that the word “coffee” is used in the masculine and neuter gender. The first is the masculine gender, which means that the masculine gender is the main gender in this case, and the neuter gender is additional, but also possible.

Let us recall that in 2002, “Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation” were published. The rules covered a whole range of spelling phenomena that were not reflected either in the 1956 rules or in existing reference books and manuals on Russian spelling. At the same time, the negative public reaction to certain proposals to change spelling rules was also taken into account.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation has already hastened to call the recently approved list of dictionaries and reference books containing the norms of the modern language advisory, “open and not final.” The list of 4 books can be expanded to 30 and even 50 dictionaries.

Supporters of the next reform believe that the language should be “closer to the people,” continues the Rosbalt news agency. According to the candidate of philological sciences Ivan Leonov from the Pushkin Institute of Russian Language, the dictionary only records how it is customary to speak in a given language in a given era. According to Leonov, the change in norms is due to the real state of affairs. The word that is the norm is chosen as a sample, and in second place is an everyday but acceptable option.

If you follow this logic, then, in unifying the language and trying to bring it closer to the people, you need to learn the Russian language from market traders and minibus drivers. That is, the more people say incorrectly, the more you need to follow it.

“Every 25 years in Russia there is an attempt to publish new dictionaries. The development of language is regularly confused with changes in language, but this is not the same thing,” writer Mikhail Weller commented on the situation to Rosbalt. – Language is an objective phenomenon and exists according to its own laws, regardless of dictionaries. The task of a dictionary is to reflect reality, but highly learned linguists fall into the illusion that they know everything about everything better than the people. You shouldn’t touch your tongue unless absolutely necessary.” Weller believes that there is another very important nuance in the constant attempts at reform: “These are bonuses, circulation, fees and salaries. This explains the frequent appearance of new dictionaries. It’s best if linguists leave dictionaries alone.”

Writer Andrei Kivinov is also convinced that it is not the correct Russian language that needs to adapt to the street, but the street needs to rise to the level of norms: “Of course, there must be some canons, otherwise people will cease to understand each other, everyone will speak and write as they wish.”

TV journalist Pavel Sheremet also calls the innovations too radical. “Language is a living substance, it is constantly transforming, and this is understandable,” he believes. “However, attempts to reduce everything into a rigid set of rules are not always justified. Here the mistake lies not in the set of new rules itself, but in the adoption of several variants of words. That is, the coordinate system is lost, and if earlier we laughed at the pronunciation of uncultured people saying “agreement” or “lie,” now, it turns out, this is also becoming the norm. The very attempt to record the achievements and development of the language is correct, but in form it is wrong.”

The trend towards simplification of the Russian language is very harshly described by political scientist Natalya Androsenko: “For a language to work productively, it needs certain restrictions. When language is blurred, it ceases to be. And instead of a language, it will turn out to be some kind of politically correct bastard, spoken by hardworking migrants as a linguo franco.”

Grigory Solganik, head of the department of stylistics of the Russian language, commenting on these innovations, admitted to GZT.RU that he is categorically against the new changes. “The norm is a model. There is, for example, a literary norm “agreement, agreements”. And agreements are common parlance. To allow the possibility of such a pronunciation means making peace with the elements. Neuter coffee is also a colloquial form, and turning it into a literary form is wrong.”

The dictionary must guard literary and spelling patterns. A dictionary is a set of classical rules that always lag behind the modern state. And this is its advantage, says Solganik.

“In the 30s there was a saying: 90 percent of our assistant professors say “portfolio.” And 10 percent of our associate professors say “portfolio”. What I mean is that the masses should not decide anything in the language,” continues the specialist.

“There are, of course, exceptions: in the word “yogurt” the stress initially fell on the last syllable, but no one accepted this norm, and the stress had to be changed. In dictionaries, codification is done in accordance with the pronunciation and use of words by authoritative speakers: for example, writers (not all, of course). And if you contradict the laws of language, the norm will not take root. In general, the dictionary should adhere to the golden mean.

Philologists were also irritated by the fact that the dictionaries were not very well-known authors.

A specialist in the stylistics of the Russian language, who wished to remain anonymous, in a conversation with GZT.RU said: “They really do spelling, but I would not be able to call these dictionaries complete and authoritative. The very idea of selecting four from all dictionaries is false. There are good and bad dictionaries, and they seem to compete. And this cannot eliminate the inconsistency, especially now, when many new words and new spellings have appeared. But singling out a certain number of dictionaries looks unconvincing. There is a completely authoritative dictionary edited by Lopatin. There are already classic authors - Avanesov and Rosenthal. But for some reason they are not on this list,” said the interlocutor of GZT.RU.

Diana Flishman, a proofreader for one of the major Russian newspapers, agrees with the anonymous source. “No one will follow these standards, and no one can force us to use dictionaries approved only by the Ministry of Education and Science. Proofreaders argue on their forums: how to write certain words: o(f)fshore, bre(e)nd? And none of the controversial words are in these dictionaries. That is, the compilers avoided these cases, leaving us alone with these difficulties,” says Flishman.

However, not all linguists reacted negatively to the innovations. Thus, Associate Professor of the Department of Stylistics of the Russian Language of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University, author of the “Dictionary of Exemplary Russian Accent” Mikhail Shtudiner called the approved books “very good” in a conversation with GZT.RU. And I drew attention to the fact that all the above-mentioned norms are enshrined in the spelling dictionary.

“Modern journalists are not very educated linguistically. And they don't understand that a spelling dictionary doesn't answer word choice questions. He also indicates the pronunciation; this is done by a spelling dictionary. For example, the word “karate” has long been written with an “e” at the end, but for some reason there are still disputes around it and some people still write “karate”.

The same goes for the word “coffee”. “It has long been established that this word is used in the neuter gender, and this corresponds to a trend that has been living in the language for many decades: all inanimate indeclinable nouns - cinema, metro, muffler - gravitate towards the neuter gender,” says Studiner.

In addition, according to the scientist, it is impossible, when reading the new spelling dictionary, to conclude that the words “agreement” and “agreement” are now equivalent. “The same situation was with the word “editors,” which many considered correct to pronounce “editor” simply because it came first in the dictionary,” recalls Studiner.

“It is impossible by some decree to force all people to speak according to certain rules, but dictionaries do not try to do this. Grammar does not affirm the law of the language, but its customs,” the specialist concluded.

According to Sergei Bogdanov, dean of the philological faculty of St. Petersburg State University, the vocabulary standards established by the order of the Ministry of Education and Science for officials using the literary language in official correspondence will not necessarily appear everywhere in the spoken language.

“In fact, this is just the beginning, these are only the first four sources,” he told RIA Novosti, noting that the list will expand.

According to Bogdanov, all four publications are of sufficient quality and were included in the approved list because the publishers were active and turned to expert organizations.

At the same time, Bogdanov stated that those norms that are recorded in dictionaries are the only correct ones.

“Norms are generally divided into non-variant, when only one variant of use is recommended, and multi-variant. Where variant norms are acceptable, this is not significant and this does not affect the function of the Russian language as the state language,” he said.

Bogdanov said that such an examination can only be carried out by an expert organization, for example Lomonosov Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, Vinogradov Institute of Russian Language, Pushkin Institute of Russian Language and Institute of Linguistic Research.

“Here it is very important that the examination is provided by the organization, and not by an individual linguist,” Bogdanov concluded.