Source text

The most terrible and most widespread stereotype in our country is the stereotype of irresponsibility. Hands fall when a person reads one thing in the newspapers, but sees another in life. They descend from constant confusion, mismanagement, terry bureaucracy. Hands drop when you realize that no one around you is responsible for anything and that everything is “to the point”. That's what gives up! The stereotype of mismanagement is the stereotype that behind it is always many years of experience, a habit. He is like a deep rut, knurled, comfortable, proven.

Over the years, he became with us almost integral part any profession. Here comes the absurdity. For example, each person individually knows for sure that winter this year will be mandatory. And accordingly, he prepares for it: he takes out a warm coat, buys warm boots, mittens, underwear ... But as soon as individual people who are personally ready for winter gather under the roof of some institution that is in charge of heat supply in the city, then winter, the most ordinary winter comes to us unexpectedly. Every year, they regularly justify themselves in articles that "winter, unfortunately, took us by surprise." Reading this, honestly, is funny! But then the funny ends. Then the accidents start.

Bursting pipes in houses. People freeze. And the new newspaper articles are already talking about the "heroic efforts" that had to be made in order to somehow rectify the situation. But sometimes harsh, terrible reports about the results of irresponsibility tear the soul, stun, do not let you sleep ... And sometimes the heart goes into pain ...

But how long will we plunge into a situation where, because of two or three slobs, hundreds, or even thousands of people are forced to demonstrate mass heroism? How long?!

This question only seems rhetorical. It can and should be answered.

I am convinced that we will plunge into such situations until we part with the damned stereotype of irresponsibility and disregard for work! Both to one's own and to someone else's

And every time, frankly hacking at work (“it will do! ...”), blinding something at random (“it will grind! ...”), not thinking something up, not calculating, not checking (“come on, it will cost ..."), turning a blind eye to our own negligence ("I don't give a damn..."), but we ourselves, with our own hands, with our own so-called labor, are building training grounds for the upcoming demonstration of mass heroism, preparing ourselves for tomorrow's accidents and disaster!

We write in the newspapers: “so-and-so has been relieved of his post...” Although sometimes you want to read: “the position has been relieved of such-and-such...”... It has been vacated like the earth. And now, perhaps, he will breathe freely... But after all, "released" does not always mean "punished." And it should have...

People, of course, should be sorry. But you have to ask them! And very seriously, not for show. Only then can we get rid of the stereotype of mismanagement that hangs like a weight on our feet.

(According to R. Rozhdestvensky)

Composition

Attention:

The style, spelling and punctuation of the author are fully preserved in the work.

Bureaucracy, irresponsibility, inaction... Unfortunately, these problems are eternal and, what is most terrible, they are most relevant now. I think that R. Rozhdestvensky's article is devoted to the disregard for work, for people, for society.

I fully share the position of the author: "The most terrible and most widespread stereotype in our country is the stereotype of irresponsibility." That's right: a stereotype, a habit, because all this has not surprised anyone for a long time. In addition, Rozhdestvensky says that all of us are to blame for this situation, and not just the officials who are so fond of scolding.

Let us recall the classics, at least the work of N.V. Gogol's Dead Souls. After all, it was not even a matter of the authorities, which overlooked, allowed a loophole in the law. In fact, the main thing is that the young adventurer is ready to pay, but why does he need them, but what's the difference! Only Korobochka caught on, and even then because of the fear of selling too cheap.

When it was? Two centuries ago, but the problem remained. It was freezing rain, and many people were left without electricity for long time. Some areas of the Moscow region even celebrated the New Year without electricity! In the yard of the twenty-first century, and winter in Russia is not the first time.

Everything is in our hands. change the situation in better side it will work out only when each of us does something for this. He doesn’t think, he doesn’t say, he doesn’t complain, but he realizes and does it!

Job evaluation

Criterion	What are points awarded for?	Maximum	In this composition	Total
K1	Statement of the source text problem	1	eat	1
K2	Comment on the problem	2	No	0
K3	Reflection of the position of the author	1	eat	1
K4	Your opinion and reasoning	3	eat	3
K5	semantic integrity, coherence, sequencing	2	eat	2
K6	Accuracy and expressiveness of speech	2	eat	2
K7	Spelling	3	0 errors	3
K8	Punctuation	3	1 error	3
K9	Language Compliance	2	0 errors	2
K10	Compliance with speech norms	2	0 defects	2
K11	Ethical Compliance	1	eat	1
K12	Factual Accuracy	1	eat	1
	Total:	23		21

Workshop

Literacy

K7. Compliance with spelling rules

Find spelling errors in the essay.

Total: no errors

K8. Compliance with punctuation rules

Look for punctuation errors in your essay.

Mistake: As a matter of fact none of the landlords was particularly worried about why Chichikov was buying from them, as it were, like already dead peasants.
Right: As a matter of fact, none of the landlords was particularly worried about why Chichikov was buying from them, as it were, like already dead peasants.
As a matter of fact- introductory combination.

Total: 1 punctuation error

K9. Language Compliance

Find violations of language norms in the essay.

Total: no language violations

K10. Compliance with speech norms

Find violations of speech norms in the essay.

Total: no violations of speech norms

K1. Statement of source text problems

Is the problem of the original text correctly formulated?

The problem of the original text is formulated correctly.

Russian language in modern world and in the future
Lesson in grade 11 using ICT
and communicative-activity forms of education

Teacher Yurko Tatyana Boleslavovna

The purpose of the lesson is to expand the understanding of language as a linguistic, spiritual, cultural and moral value Russian people.

Tasks:

- deepening knowledge of the Russian language

- Improving the skills of working with information

- fostering a sense of patriotism and caring

relationship with your language

During the classes:

Orgmoment and goal setting.
Creation of a problem situation and development of a program of joint actions.
Putting forward hypotheses of the language picture of the world in the future, based on personal intellectual experience.

4. Work in groups to search for information in Internet resources.

5. Discussion of the results of the search. Analysis of the collected material.

6. Presentation of group reports.

7. Generalization and conclusions. Lesson results.

8. Homework.

The whole earth had one language and one dialect.

And the people said to each other: “Let us build ourselves a city

and a tower as high as the heavens." And the Lord said:

“Here is one people and one language for all, and this is what they

began to do, and they will not lag behind what

thought. Let's go down and confuse their language, so

so that one does not understand the speech of the other.

And the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth...

The Book of Genesis

Problem question:

What language will the new world speak in the future?

Can Russian become the dominant world language inXXI century?

The world in the future will begin to speak the language of the country that will be the first to describe the new reality, put it into certain meanings and programs of action, the language of the country that will manage this reality.

A.Stolyarov

Questions of the educational topic:

The status of the Russian language in comparison with other world languages

The potential of the Russian language as a possible means of international communication

The use of the Russian language in naming processes, objects and phenomena of the rapidly developing modern world

Rating of the Russian language in the modern world

Work in groups No. 1 and 2

Hypothesis 1:

The Russian language is widely spoken in the world, it has sufficient internal potential and can become the dominant world language in the foreseeable future.

Hypothesis 2:

The Russian language is in crisis, losing its position in the world, it cannot become the dominant world language in the foreseeable future.

Task for group number 3:study the article by Y. Rozhdestvensky

"Is Russian good?" and present its main theses at the lesson.

An expert group of students observes the work of groups No. 1, 2,3 and summarizes it.

The main provisions of the report of group No. 1:

About 300 million people speak Russian, it occupies a huge space in the world - geographical, humanitarian, cultural, is one of the ten world languages, ranks 4th in the number of those who speak it after Chinese, English and Spanish.
The Russian language, after a significant decline in interest in it, caused by the collapse of the USSR, is once again becoming in demand by those who take part in the development of relations with Russia and the implementation of international cooperation projects.
70% of the population in the CIS speaks Russian.
1/3 of world scientific literature is published in Russian.
Russian is one of the official languages of the UN, IAEA, UNESCO, WHO.
Literary works have been created in Russian, which are included in the world classics.
The Russian language is studied in more than 90 countries around the world.

Advantages of the Russian language as potentially capable of becoming the dominant world language:

Huge vocabulary
Freedom of word-formation possibilities
Wealth of synonymy
Widespread use of evaluative vocabulary
Style variety
Literary and artistic development
Word Order Flexibility
Melody of speech
Ability to adapt borrowings from different languages

The power and greatness of the Russian language are indisputable evidence of the great forces of the Russian people, their original and high national culture, their great and glorious historical destiny. The Russian language is unanimously recognized as the great language of a great people. (Academician V.V. Vinogradov)

The main provisions of the report of group No. 2:

The number of the Russian-speaking population in the former USSR, the far abroad and the world as a whole is steadily declining and, according to analysts, will drop to 152 million by 2025. It is likely that in the near future the Russian language will come out of the ten main languages of mankind.
The base has shrunk and the culture of the spoken Russian language has declined.
The collapse of the USSR caused a significant drop in the popularity of the Russian language in the former republics and countries of Eastern Europe.
There is not a single Russian writer of the twentieth century who was as widely known abroad as his great predecessors.
Russian literature in the 20th century ceased to be a model of a normalized
literary language.
Domestic informatics lags far behind in the naming of processes and phenomena
and objects of the modern world.
Foreign dominance destroys the semantic links between Russian words.
Language permissiveness is not only demonstrated, but also declared by journalists, politicians, representatives of art in their printed works, public speeches, and in free communication.
There are very few new dictionaries of the Russian language, which include, in addition to general educational vocabulary, modern economic, legal, political terminology and technical vocabulary necessary for a person living in the world market economy and scientific and technological progress.

Output:

The Russian language as the language of international communication is losing its dominant position in the world to other languages, primarily English, due to the greater economic and technical power of such highly developed countries as Great Britain, the USA, France, Germany, and also due to the internal crisis of the language, due to demographic problems in the country and careless attitude towards it on the part of its carriers.

Presentation of the article by Y. Rozhdestvensky “Is Russian good?”

As a linguist who has devoted many years to comparative linguistics, I responsibly affirm: there is not a single language on earth that would havesuch wide opportunities to convey emotions, images and concepts, like the Russian language. (Yuri Rozhdestvensky)

Summary of the expert group:

The status of the Russian language in the world can rise only if the demographic crisis in Russia is overcome, its influence on world processes increases, economic and scientific and technological progress in the country is introduced, targeted state programs are introduced to promote and spread the Russian language in the world, as well as to revive the age-old linguistic culture of the Russian people. Whether the world will speak Russian in the future largely depends on the policy of the state, on the attitude of its population to the problem, on each of us.

Homework: Write a miniature essay "We will save you, Russian speech, the great Russian word." (A.A. Akhmatova)

Individual tasks: Some linguists believe that synthetic languages are the future. Let's think about it. Using the Internet, answer the following questions:

1. What happened to Esperanto?

2. What is globish?

3. Will it take root in communication runglish?

Applications

Yuri Rozhdestvensky Is Russian good?(fragment)

What is necessary for the Russian language not to lose to English, French, Chinese and any other?

2. It is necessary to improve the norm of the Russian language. Publish a new dictionary of the Russian language for general use, which should include: 1) general educational terms (which is not currently available); 2) the achievement of new and latest poetic practice; 3) also general scientific and general technical vocabulary, which also does not exist now. It is necessary to develop editions of educational dictionaries of all types, and especially thesaurus dictionaries.

3. It is necessary to publish a series of full-fledged educational explanatory-encyclopedic dictionaries, stylistic dictionaries, spelling dictionaries. Among these dictionaries, a thesaurus of general education terms should take a prominent place.

4. It is necessary to research and develop Russian literature of the twentieth century. Understand the history of styles, identify the best stylists, select a corpus of the best works for the needs of a well-founded school anthology and for teaching new poets.

5. Develop a modern document system that meets the real needs of a market economy and provides public relations.

6. It is necessary to create a linguistic union of the CIS countries not only in the scientific, but also in the specific legal sense, providing it with measures to intensify the translation business, develop educational literature, and create common and differentiated educational schemes.

In addition to these main measures, it is useful to make small ones:

a) It is necessary that public speakers, especially political ones, use the normal words of the Russian language with proper diction, as they are taken as an example.
b) The press should not imitate bad examples of political speeches by disseminating good examples of political speech. This proposal especially concerns the activities of television.
c) It is necessary that a stylist-consultant with a good literary taste should take part in the creation of any public text of wide significance.
d) It is necessary that aesthetically perfect literary works that influence the language be promoted, and not authors that are influential in an imperious sense

The presentation of the lesson is presented on the page of the RMO of literature teachers of the Gatchina municipal district

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

Russian language and linguistic culture of modern Russia

INTRODUCTION

IN Lately The study of language in terms of its interaction with culture has become extremely relevant. The scientific approach most clearly manifested itself in the understanding of culture as a semiotic system, which, on the one hand, concentrates a certain amount of information useful to society, and on the other hand, appears as a tool for obtaining this information and satisfying society itself in it. In cultural studies, a semiotic view of the nature of culture leads to a refinement of those characteristics that allow us to consider it, like language, as a sign system. IN this case culture and language are brought to an equivalent level, where in the broadest sense, culture is understood as content, and language as a form of existence of this content.

Language is both a product of people's mental activity and one of the most important means of developing a person's ability to think abstractly. It is in language that one can discover the results of cognition - how language conceptualizes the surrounding reality, how it divides the world with the help of vocabulary and grammar and how it represents it.

The purpose of this work is to explore the features of the culture of the language of modern Russia.

communicative semiotic culture of speech moral

LINGUISTIC CULTURE OF MODERN RUSSIA

The history of Russia in the 20th century, the beginning and end of which was marked for our country by two revolutions, that is, complete revolutions, upheavals in the way of life, politics, economy, lifestyle, ideology, worldview, etc., is a unique material for linguists, historians, anthropologists and culturologists dealing with dynamics, development of processes in language, culture and society. Indeed, the most radical changes in the shortest possible time on the scale of a vast country - these unique experiments could make any scientist happy (no "violator of the subject under study" could even dream of such breaking and violence), if this scientist was not himself a part of this society , the bearer of this language and the product of this culture, and if his own worldview did not undergo the same violence and breaking. Ter-Minasova S.G. Language and intercultural communication Modern Russia through language and culture. [Electronic resource] Free access http://business.polbu.ru/terminasova_language/ch19_iii.html

Language culture is one of the components of the general culture of a person. The culture of language, speech reflects the culture of thinking, the culture of behavior, draws a spiritual and moral portrait of the individual.

The Russian language is currently in a state of crisis. Writers, scientists, and publicists have been writing about this with concern for a long time. M. Zoshchenko and A. Platonov back in the 20-30s of the XX century. clearly showed how the violence against history affected the language. K.I. Chukovsky at one time diagnosed the disease of the tongue: "clerical". But the judgment of Academician Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky: “... the current state of the Russian language is bad. This is noticeable in the decline of speech culture, the reduction in the number of scientific publications, the disappearance of personal correspondence, the undeveloped new document system ... ”Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Is Russian good? " Literary newspaper» 1998 September 4th. The causes of the crisis lie in life itself: the international position of the country has changed, as a result, the base of the Russian language has shrunk. The economy has changed, scientific and technological progress is taking place, and people communicate more by phone than in letters, the culture of correspondence is disappearing. The standard of living of part of the population has decreased, and books and magazines are becoming inaccessible to people. A wide stream of English-language words poured into our Russian speech. In addition, according to Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky, "the main trouble of the modern Russian language is the lack of rhetorical ethics." It is no coincidence that in 1996 the Federal Target Program "Russian Language" was adopted, which raised the development of the Russian language to the level of the most important state tasks.

An outstanding Russian philologist R.A. Budagov on the relationship between the concepts of "language culture" and "speech culture" suggests that the culture of the language is wider than the culture of speech. The first refers not only to sounding speech, but also to the text. And the culture of speech is, first of all, speech sounding, individual. We can say: "language is a global phenomenon, speech is a local phenomenon." "The very unity of the clarity of understanding of the object of study and the clarity of its linguistic expression puts forward the problem of language culture in the broadest sense." The ambiguity of the form of linguistic expression is in a direct and immediate connections with ambiguity, with poor knowledge, with poor training in the field of the science you are studying.Speech as language in action, in use and language as a system of signs, means of communication together form the phenomenon of language.

Possession of oral and written speech, the ability to express one's thoughts both in writing and orally is the most important characteristic of communicative competence.

The concept of communicative competence includes such indicators as:

awareness of linguistic theory, understanding it as a system of rules and general prescriptions that regulate the use of language means in speech;

knowledge of the theory of speech, possession of the main types of speech activity;

the ability to analyze the speech situation and, in accordance with it, choose a program of speech behavior in relation to various areas and situations of communication, taking into account the addressee and purpose.

Speech culture is the possession of the norms of oral and written literary language (rules of pronunciation, stress, word usage, grammar, style), as well as the ability to use means of expression language in various conditions communication in accordance with the goals and content of speech. The concept of speech culture includes 2 stages of mastering the literary language: the correctness of speech, i.e. observance of literary norms accepted by speakers and writers as an "ideal" or generally accepted and traditionally protected custom, model, and speech skills, i.e. not only following the norms of the literary language, but also the ability to choose from the existing options the most accurate in meaning, stylistically appropriate, expressive Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary, M. "Soviet Encyclopedia" Yu 1990, p. 247.

D.S. Likhachev said "The language of the people is an indicator of its culture, the language of an individual is an indicator of his personal qualities, the qualities of a person who uses the language of the people."

In this aspect, the question of the language norm arises. The language norm is the traditionally established rules for the use of speech means, i.e. rules of exemplary and generally recognized pronunciation, use of words, phrases and sentences.

The norm is obligatory and covers all aspects of the language. There are written and oral norms.

The diagram below shows the different types of standards.

Language norms are not invented by scientists. They reflect the natural processes and phenomena that have occurred and are occurring in the language and are supported by the speech practice of native speakers of the 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 linguists.

The literary norm depends on the conditions in which speech is carried out. Language means that are appropriate in one situation (everyday communication) may turn out to be ridiculous in another (official business communication). The norm indicates their communicative expediency.

What are the functions of norms?

Norms help the literary language to 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 the norms - the function of protecting the language.

In addition, the norms reflect what has developed in the language historically - this is a function of reflecting the history of the language.

Speaking about the essence of the norm, it should be remembered that the norm is not a law (although the similarity of these two concepts is obvious). The law is a necessity that does not allow any deviations, the norm is only prescribes, it should be. Let's compare the following examples: 1. A stone thrown up must then fall down (this is the law of nature); 2. A person living in society must comply with the rules of the hostel, for example, do not knock on the wall with a hammer after 23:00 (these are social norms); 3. A person in the process of verbal communication must put stress correctly (these are language norms). So, the norm only indicates how it should be - this is the function of the prescription.

An ideal language norm could be considered such a norm that meets at least two requirements:

1) does not change for several centuries;

2) exists in the speech of absolutely all native speakers (without exceptions for social, professional groups, as well as for population groups identified according to the territorial principle). However, the norm with these parameters is "difficult to achieve" or "completely unattainable" in real linguistic reality.

The culture of speech implies, in addition to observing language norms, the choice and use of language means in accordance with communicative tasks. (For each goal - its own means!) In accordance with the requirements of the communicative aspect of the culture of speech, native speakers must master its functional styles, as well as focus on communication conditions that significantly affect how we speak (or write) at the moment. So, for example, if the goal is to create a scientific text (article, term paper or thesis), this determines the choice of a scientific functional style that meets the requirements of conceptual accuracy, consistency, etc. If the goal is to write business letter, only the right choice in this case, it will become an official business style. The mixing of functional styles, the substitution of one for another (even if other norms of speech are observed) is evidence of the low culture of the speaker/writer.

The communicative component of the culture of speech also implies accuracy, intelligibility and purity of speech. So, excessive, inappropriate use of borrowed words in oral speech makes communication difficult, and jargons and swear words violate the purity of speech.

The ethical component of the culture of speech prescribes the knowledge and application of the rules of linguistic behavior in a particular situation. Ethical norms of communication are understood as speech etiquette ( speech formulas greetings, requests, farewells, gratitude, congratulations, etc.; appeal to "you" or "you"; choice of full or abbreviated name, form of address, etc.).

Consider here one example relevant to our time. Our communication always begins with an appeal to a person. Before the revolution of 1917, there were several forms of address in the Russian language (although the degree of their use was different):

1) sir - sir(not commonly used);

2) Your Excellency(functioned in a narrow sphere);

3) Mr. teacher / Mr. Nikolsky(widely used).

After the October Revolution, these appeals basically disappeared from speech practice, they were replaced by others: comrade, citizen. It was assumed that comrade will replace all previously existing appeals: it called a person regardless of gender; could be used both in combination with a surname (profession, rank), and without it ( comrade Petrov; comrade director; come on, comrades); from an ideological point of view, it meant the equality of the speaker and the addressee.

Appeal mister in colloquial speech of the Soviet period it was often used with irony, and in later Soviet times sir / madam And Ladies and Gentlemen survived only as appeals to foreigners from non-socialist countries.

At present, attempts to simply replace the treatment comrade on the mister often lead to comical situations: Gentlemen, do not throw cigarette butts on the floor! Gentlemen, do not leave on the tables dirty dishes ! Failed and reversal gentlemen(instead of Ladies and Gentlemen accepted in international communication) to a heterosexual audience. Apparently, it will take a lot of time for the system of appeals to "settle". However, there are a number of recommendations in this regard.

1. The following appeals to strangers are considered indecent and impolite: Man, come in! Wait woman! Father! How to get to the grocery store? Papa!.. Mama!.. and etc.

2. Contact to a stranger today it is better not to use special forms, i.e. should say: Excuse me, could you... Please tell me... Would you be kind... etc.

3. Having met a person, you should remember his name, and in the future address him by name and patronymic, trying not to make mistakes.

The ethical component of the culture of speech imposes a strict ban on foul language in the process of communication, condemns the conversation in "raised tones". Knowledge of etiquette in its various forms is also very important in the business sphere, for example, when conducting oral business negotiations, meetings, presentations. The ethical component of the culture of written business speech involves knowledge of the etiquette of official letters, the etiquette of drafting.

Thus, the linguistic, communicative and ethical components of speech are responsible for the effectiveness of our communication.

Violation of any of the three components of the culture of speech negatively affects the appearance of the speaker and can lead to misunderstanding or cessation of communication.

Violation proper linguistic norms can cause complete misunderstanding if some little-known (dialect or jargon) word is used instead of a normative (well-known) word. So, for example, residents of the Arkhangelsk region, who speak the northern dialect, use a lot of words in their speech that are incomprehensible to native speakers of the literary language, in particular: chocote ny(light rain) hbut shores(ice edge near the shore), hAnd pestilence(smoke), exchangee nysh(bad person) (this was discussed above).

Violation of normativity can manifest itself, as we have already said, in incorrect stresses in words (* excitation caseuh born, *when detecteduh zheniya, *can nb chat), and in lexical and grammatical errors. In this case, the effectiveness of communication is reduced, in addition to misunderstanding, also for another reason: non-normative use always betrays the lack of education of the speaker and encourages the listener to treat him accordingly. Thus, the authority of many deputies of the Russian parliament was seriously affected precisely by the fact that they discovered a poor command of the norms of the modern Russian literary language.

Similarly affects the effectiveness of communication and violation ethical standards : unethical appeal to the interlocutor, the use of the so-called obscene language can interrupt communication for a reason that in everyday life is formulated as follows: "I don't want to talk to this rude man at all!"

A prime example of violation communication norms the use of Anglo-American borrowings in the speech of young business people can serve, for example: appliquha(from English. application) - applied software; expenses(from English. expenses) - expenses; cancel(from English. cancel) - cancel; review(from English. to review) - write a review of the employee's activities; happyboy(from English. happy birthday) - celebrate the employee's birthday.

This so-called English Russian slang is a real language disease of many companies.

Nowadays (especially among young people) one can hear the opinion that language rules are not needed, they only complicate life ( I speak the way I want, and everyone understands me! This is my own business!..)

Let's draw a parallel with the norms of morality, morality. There is a belief that the sphere of morality is also a personal matter for everyone. A person himself sets the norms of his behavior, he himself evaluates his actions, as his inner world tells him. An act can be called moral or immoral only in relation to the person who committed it.

What can be said to this? Indeed, a person, taken in isolation, outside of his relationship to society, to other people, can be guided by precisely such rules: to do as he wants and speak as he wants (recall the hero of the famous novel by D. Defoe "Robinson Crusoe": on an uninhabited island, he could do anything). However, a person living in a society is subject to this society. And any norms (both moral and linguistic) are not the requirements of a person to himself, but the requirements of society to a person. It is not the individual who determines how he should treat others, but society. Not a person determines how to speak, but society.

An analysis of any kind of norms (social, moral, legal, etc.) will indicate their social character. And linguistic norms are no exception.

CONCLUSION

An indispensable component of a person's national self-consciousness is a sense of pride in their native language, which embodies cultural and historical traditions people. Any developed language, be it Russian or Chinese, Spanish or Mongolian, English, French or German, is extraordinarily beautiful and rich. Many people remember the inspired lines of M.V. Lomonosov about the Russian language: “Charles the Fifth, the Roman emperor, orator, used to say that it was decent to speak Spanish with God, French with friends, German with enemies, Italian with women. But if he Russian language was skillful, then, of course, he would add to that that it was decent for them to talk with all of them. For I would find in it the splendor of Spanish, the liveliness of French, the strength of German, the tenderness of Italian, and, moreover, the richness and brevity of the Greek and Latin language, strong in the image.

The state of the modern Russian language (the loosening of traditional literary norms, the stylistic decline of oral and written speech, the vulgarization of the everyday sphere of communication) has long been of concern to both philologists and representatives of other sciences, all those whose professional activities are related to verbal communication. The decrease in the level of speech culture of different strata of Russian society, including the intelligentsia, is so obvious and large-scale that it is time to revive continuous language training at all levels of education. The decline of speech is also facilitated by the general coarsening of morals, the growth of crime, social and ethnic clashes in everyday life, at work, and in social speech practice. Another disturbing trend in Russian speech is the influx of English words, and in some cases the media, abusing borrowings, make contact with the reader almost inaccessible. It is hard to deny that the press and television, in addition, from the most ordinary words of the Russian language, create lean, stamped expressions that turn into people's everyday speech.

Currently, there are conditions when the demand for a specialist in the labor market, his competitiveness largely depend on the availability of competent speech (oral and written), the ability to communicate effectively, on knowledge of the methods of speech influence, persuasion. It is today that interest in their native language is becoming a recognized necessity for millions of young people who are striving to achieve success in life with the help of professional knowledge and skills.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

1. Vasilyeva A.N. Fundamentals of speech culture. - M.: Russian language, 1990.

2. Vvedenskaya L.A., Pavlova L.G., Kashaeva E.Yu. Russian language and culture of speech: Tutorial for universities. - Rostov-n / D: Phoenix, 2001.

3. Verbitskaya L.A. Let's speak correctly: A guide to the Russian language. - M., 2001.

4. Golub I.B. Russian language and culture of speech. - M.: Logos, 2001.

5. Kuznetsova E.V. Lexicology of the Russian language. - M., 1989

7. Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Is Russian good? "Literaturnaya Gazeta" 1998 September 4.

8. Ter-Minasova S.G. Language and intercultural communication Modern Russia through language and culture. [Electronic resource] Access mode http://business.polbu.ru/terminasova_language/ch19_iii.html is free.

9. Shmelev D.N. Modern Russian language: Vocabulary. - M., 1977

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Modern language situation. Factors influencing changes in the Russian language. Causes of mass speech errors and ways to improve the speech culture of speakers. Language situation in Russia. Changes in Russian.

abstract, added 06/02/2008

Modern theoretical concept of the culture of speech. Language and related concepts. Oral and written forms of speech, their features. The structure of the modern Russian language. Oratory, its content. Business negotiations: characteristics, stages.

cheat sheet, added 06/23/2012

Basic concepts and aspects of the culture of speech, its relationship with the literary language. Language norm, its definition and features. Correctness, accuracy, clarity, richness and diversity, purity and expressiveness as communicative qualities of speech.

abstract, added 03.10.2009

Formation of the norms of the modern Russian literary language from A.S. Pushkin. Codified norms of the literary language. The communicative aspect of the culture of speech developed in literature and folk life. Styles of speech, culture of speech, ethics and language skills.

presentation, added 05/16/2010

The subject and tasks of the culture of speech. Language norm, its role in the formation and functioning of the literary language. The norms of the modern Russian literary language, speech errors. functional styles modern Russian literary language. Fundamentals of rhetoric.

course of lectures, added 12/21/2009

The place of the Russian language in the modern multinational world and the attitude towards it from the peoples of other countries. Actual problems of speech culture, its normative, communicative and ethical aspects. Definition and functions of the Russian language as a national one.

abstract, added 11/17/2014

Origin of the Russian language. Characteristics of the concept of "culture of speech". Functional styles of literary language. Normative aspect of speech culture. Organization of verbal interaction. Basic units of verbal communication. The concept of oratory.

tutorial, added 07/27/2009

The culture of speech as an urgent problem of society. Means of speech expressiveness. Speech as a social phenomenon. Language norm and its violations (mistakes). Oral and written speech. Feature of youth slang. Modern jargon and its influence on language.

abstract, added 06/11/2017

Culture is a set of productive, social and spiritual achievements of people. Language as an integral part of culture, its substructure, foundation and universal means; their interaction. Influence of culture on language, vocabulary, phonetics, grammar.

presentation, added 02/12/2013

Modern Russian language and social changes in society. Shattering traditional literary norms. Language modification: the emergence of new and the revival of old words; borrowing foreign; active "introduction" of slang words. A culture of speech.

There is talk about the state of the Russian language. The Duma intends to listen to the question of the Russian language in the CIS countries and discuss it in the Tauride Palace. The President formed the Russian Language Council. It is possible that they will give big money. It would seem, what to worry about? However, there is cause for concern.

We know how to write papers, the meaning of which is to frighten the authorities that manage money. And since the authorities are frightened, the money goes. The question is, for what?

The Russian language really has unique qualities. I will not quote from Lomonosov, Turgenev and others. I will say: freedom of word-formation possibilities, the breadth of synonymy, the possibility widest application evaluative vocabulary, a huge number of borrowings from a wide variety of languages, revealing the widest language contacts that diversify style, literary and artistic development, completeness of terminology in all areas of technology, science and art, flexibility of word order and therefore limitless rhythmological and melodic possibilities make the Russian language containing a wide variety of subtleties of meaning.

As a linguist who has devoted many years to comparative linguistics, I responsibly affirm: there is not a single language on earth that would have such ample opportunities to convey emotions, images and concepts as the Russian language.

And yet the current state of the Russian language is poor.

We ourselves, the native speakers of the Russian language, are to blame for this.

The base of colloquial Russian has been reduced. The Russian language lost a large number of its official speakers. Twenty or even twenty-five million Russians live outside of Russia and have become involuntary emigrants. For the sake of political fashion, people of other nations who know the Russian language well either pretend that they do not know it or try not to use it. To be Russian, to know Russian culture has become, as it were, indecent in some circles. Church preaching has not yet matured, and the speeches in the meetings are far from perfect, and the skills of oral communication wither in primitive business negotiations. Educational oral speech often loses the features of literature, since it is conducted by "the middle peasant who has gone into science."

Epistolary culture is in the lowest state. It fell due to the general rudeness of the last seventy years; decreased even more due to the high cost of postage, the disgusting work of the post office and the virtual absence of secrecy of correspondence. Who's working on love letters these days?

The document system has been destroyed by the transition to a new economy, and it is not clear that someone will begin to develop a new document system for the civil, political and economic realities of modern society. The number and circulation of scientific publications has decreased, the scientific shift, according to the circumstances of life, began to look for commercial applications, and the term-creating and term-standardizing work has been reduced. At the same time, developments in informatics that have cultural and linguistic significance, such as information retrieval systems and computer-aided translation, have been weakened or suspended. The Internet and similar systems lack a legal and ethical basis. Similar systems have yet to be built in Russian.

Language is the people's property, and the people are its master. In order to develop oral, epistolary, documentary, bookish Russian, an ethical base is needed. Artistic literature deliberately evades elegance, painting the backyards of the life of the spirit in the language of these backyards. Here is the "interesting" book by Andrei Izmailov "The Idiot". The novel is written from the point of view of a female chemist who has become a saleswoman for "stupid jokes" (practical jokes) and produces these "stupid things" at home. The language of the book recognizably accurately maintains a certain style of speech from the first to the last page:

"... No! An ancient domestic joke does not help. I'm afraid! I stand like the last fool in front of the door of my own apartment and I'm afraid. Just horror with a gun! ... There is no one there, no! And it can not be.
The light bulb, bastards, was bombed again in the entrance, damned hippie-drippies! After all, there were matches, after all, there were! Fumble for them in this mess." [See p. 8 Moscow, Lokid. 1996]

Yes, that's exactly what the female intelligentsia says. It is a style of speech and a style of life. The leading theme of this style is race, money, fear, disorder and a sense of organic unhappiness and restlessness, lack of education. The leitmotif is "Wednesday stuck."

But the heroine is the environment itself. First of all, speech. The proverb says: "all troubles are from the tongue." At the end of the book, the unfortunate heroine, tortured by racketeering and her ex-husband, quits her job. And he does the right thing, because "he eats awkwardly and speaks awkwardly."

Any "project", no matter how simple, requires "public relations" (public relations - it would be better to say "explanation with the public") - for example, opening a stall on the street. The founder of this enterprise must establish relations with the administration, delve into the needs of the surrounding public, he needs to deal with racketeering, establish good relations with neighboring stalls, persuade the store manager to provide goods and, finally, talk to the surrounding residents in such a way that they do not inadvertently burn the stall or didn't break the glass. In addition, the stallholder has to read newspapers and watch TV in order to navigate the market in the broadest sense of the word and to be informed about "business" and laws from acquaintances.

The opening of the stall turns into a long chain of speaking and listening, writing and reading. If the stallholder does not do this, then he will not see trade. Before any counting of money and accounting for goods, and in the course of this, it is necessary to perform a huge number of speech actions and constantly support them, adhering to the proverb "know how to deal with a fool, and a smart one will manage with you." Hence - not knowing the language will not cope with the stall, if he speaks like "Idiot".

The main number of modern professions are speech professions. There are only eight types of labor, distributed according to the degree of complexity: 1) physical labor, 2) trading labor, 3) labor of a financier, 4) labor of a manager, 5) labor that provides recreation, health and self-preservation (entertainment, sports, medicine, military and police work), 6) the work of an inventor, 7) the work of a person involved in culture (in particular, the work of a computer scientist), and, finally, 8) the work of teachers. Physical labor is represented only in production and partly in trade, the rest of the types are verbal labor. This means that society is built on language, that is, on the invention of thoughts expressed in speech. "In the beginning was the Word."

That's what everyone always thought. Only in the middle of the nineteenth century did some people begin to think differently. Feuerbach's materialism, Marxism, and positivism have instilled in some the strange belief that everything depends on physical labor. Therefore, the doctrine of socio-economic formation is not a doctrine of the development of the spirit, but of the development of production relations, and society is not a community of people, but an organism to which "levers" must be applied, as to a machine. For some reason, desperate heads believed this and began to believe that the "superstructure" would arrange itself if the "basis" so ordered. However, both our and world experience shows that the creation of capital depends on the mind and those speech actions that the mind creates in order to form capital.

The poor heroine A. Izmailova got down to business, having a poor capital of speech and mental actions. A. Izmailov is right: collapse is inevitable and one does not pity the heroine, although she is pitiful.

Our materialists, following the materialistic understanding of history, believe that if everything is in order with finances, then social mechanisms automatically transfer one "formation" to another from capitalism to socialism and vice versa. And the spirit, the human soul, will itself submit to matter, for "the basis is primary" and "the superstructure is secondary." But something doesn't work out that way.

A naive materialistic view of the matter is combined with a cosmopolitan conclusion that today, with the presence of global means of communication and international capital, people, moving freely, seem to lose their national identity and become citizens of the world. Reality refutes this, for the Scripture says: "Honor your father and your mother, and it will be good for you, that you will be long-lived on earth." And everyone understands that good (including material) depends on the veneration of ancestors.

In cosmopolitan materialism, the common ancestor of all people is a monkey, so the search for good and longevity among the citizens of the world should be reduced to the temper of a monkey. The kingdom of the "monkey people" has come, as M.M. prophetically wrote. Prishvin.

Textbooks on advertising translated into Russian or retold (torn) state: the ideal is the desired. It is necessary to inspire a desire, to make an ideal out of it, an ideal of something that is recommended, namely, goods and services. I still thought and still think that the ideal is not pleasing mammon, but a complex mental construction about how I should live. And then he just wanted a "video recorder" - your ideal video recorder, he wanted a "wheelbarrow" - your ideal car: he sat down - a sofa on wheels and a hundred-horsepower motor, ride, push.

Let the reader not think that I am against cars, VCRs, fashionable clothes, machine tools, plumbing, and even "leisure and - phone number" ads. I'm for advertising. But I am also for correctly understanding the word "ideal". I am an idealist. Therefore, my ancestor, whom I revere, is a man, and even a specific one - the people, the founder of the Russian language.

The style of speech is the style of life. In Russian, you can speak monkey and human. The point is what meanings and how they are expressed in Russian, because words are chosen according to thoughts. Proverbs say: "a person is hidden behind his words, if you want to know a person, listen to his speech" and "a horse is recognized in riding, a person in communication." I hear from TV: "The Prime Minister has dealt with his deputies," I turn on the radio "Mayak" - I hear a flirtatious inviting lady's intonation and the corresponding vocabulary. I open AIF, No. 30, 1996 (823) - there is an interview with director A. German. I quote his speech, transmitted (probably from a tape recorder) by Maria Vardenga: "... I'll just pretend that after bombing the whole week on the set, I have to talk platitudes about the dying of cinema ...

But there is another wisdom of the Odessa anecdote that is closer to me: "The first point of the charter of a brothel is not to fuss under the client" ...

Journalist enthusiastically: Oh-oh-oh, how interesting! Herman dejectedly: - Yes, damn it's not interesting! It's just, like it or not, you have to poke around in it ... "

On page 16 of the free supplement of the same issue of the AIF [No. 30 (160), 1996], Mark Rozovsky explains: “If they had eaten so much shit, these today’s rather superficial children who received freedom on a silver platter and are now cultivating some kind of a new pseudo-thing, passing it off as a new avant-garde!"...

Masters of literary speech, masters of theater and cinema, the first purpose of whose work is the dissemination of correct speech, speak to the public in a non-literary language. However, the actors, and therefore the directors, are folk jesters. They are allowed a lot. But dirty words cannot express pure thoughts, although pure words in the mouth of a hypocrite can cover up dirty thoughts.

Let's look at the matter from the point of view of prose. A.I. The swan uttered the words: "Truth and order" - a sensible thought. Nikolai Shmelev responded to her. "Order - what is it?" [Delovoy Mir newspaper, July 26-August 1, 1996.] "The country, which has been in chaos for many years in a row, longed for order, it yearns for it..."

But what is this - "order" ... Is it only the fight against corruption, organized crime and lawlessness in the streets? Or is it something more, covering all aspects of our life? ... its main sphere (that is, life - Yu.R.) is the economy ... "

"Of course, Chechnya is also a mess, but disorder, chaos ... are created by the actions of the state not only in politics, but, perhaps even more directly in the economy and social sphere..." (Hence, I think, the source of unhappiness is in the economy, and the cause of unhappiness is in the state).

"... if... the state manages to overcome in the near future (and in the distant future? - Yu.R.) the consequences of its own own behavior, first of all in the economic and social life of society...", then "... order in our society will be... restored"... (and if it fails? - Yu.R.)

What is the fault of the state?

N. Shmelev - a prominent figure in perestroika, a politician, an economist - gives the following answers to this:

"The reforms began ... disgustingly: with the open robbery of all the savings of people made in their entire working life ... the state's failure to pay for its orders already placed and already completed and long delays in salaries for public sector workers (and this is almost half of all employed in the country). .. the non-payment crisis, incredible in its scale ... was generated ... first of all by the state ... ... The state itself also, by its conscious actions, gave rise to the current wave of illegal enrichment, turning many Russian officials ... into millionaires - ... through various schemes of "nomenklatura" privatization, which turned directors and other officials into full-fledged owners of the former state property ... "

(This is our state. N. Shmelev himself, as they say, is "in power" and, therefore, knows what he is talking about.) Further it is written:

"But what's done is done. Any serious redistribution of property is fraught with unrestrained bloodshed, and economically, apart from changing personalities, it will not give the country anything"...

(That's the moral. He grabbed the thieves by the hand, and now he says: let them continue to steal. You can’t drive away. The thieves will also slaughter you - I think.)

And N. Shmelev suggests:

- "to block... the channels, in essence, of criminal enrichment..."; - put an end to the "zhlobskoy" tax policy, combined with the helplessness of the tax authorities..." - create a "registration" principle when opening a new business..." - command "face" so that all this unsightly public is behind bars in the blink of an eye. ..

This would, of course, be a gigantic step forward in the improvement of the country...

The most important criminal in the country (not by words, but by actions) is the state itself. And until it, the state, finally abandons its very often criminal methods ... until it creates ... - (the terms of the author's agreement with the state follow - Yu.R.) ... order and genuine security in the country, no matter what anyone says and no matter what they threaten, they will be unattainable.

Consider the logic of a specialist and a participant in events.

1. The state is a gang of thieves. 2. If you touch thieves, they will kill you. 3. It is necessary to enter into an agreement with the thieves on the terms of N. Shmelev.

The question is whether the thieves will enter into an agreement with N. Shmelev. What's the benefit to them? So the case is hopeless. There will be no law and order.

I believe that Professor Shmelev would like to conclude an agreement with the state, but does not hope for it. So, his threats and scolding should be understood as follows: "Down with the capitalist monsters!" But N. Shmelev himself does not want this!

Neither A. German, nor M. Rozovsky, nor N. Shmelev are aware of the power of the printed word. They act as if they were chatting in a home circle. But the reader is not related to them, he does not understand that this is said for the "red word". It turns out that both poets and prose writers have lost responsibility for the spoken word. But "the word hurts more than an ax, only blood does not flow." They spread the assertion: there is no need to fulfill election promises: lie what you can - everyone does it. But can society as a social contract exist on the proclaimed deception? It is impossible to conclude a contract with the help of bad words or nonsense. Chattering without the effort of thought is our vice, but "once a liar who will believe?"

The main trouble of the modern Russian language is the lack of rhetorical ethics.

Mass media adheres to the same rules, or rather, the absence of rules.

The magazine "Business People", although enticing in turns of speech, is solid. I am not a business person, but I believe that there are very clever articles there - otherwise they would not have been published in such a beautiful magazine.

Let's read the headlines:

- "Pay for democracy";
- "Incomes of domestic racket determined";
- "Oil and gas "barons" gathered in Moscow";
- Tatyana Kirillova-Ugryumova: "It remains to relax and enjoy";
- "Supervision is almost invisible" (about insurance);
- "Truth and order" in Turkish ";
- "The aluminum industry is in a tailspin";
- "Happiness is not in money, but in its quality" and the subtitle "The most famous counterfeiter of Soviet times, the police consider Viktor Baranov, former driver of the first secretary of the Stavropol regional committee of the CPSU Mikhail Gorbachev."

And then there's "AIF" prints a map of Russia, which shows the regions controlled by criminal groups (30 or 40% of the territory of Russia), and the article is called "Triumphal procession of crime."

Around crime. Is it so? Why don't these people tell who the thief is? I live a long time in the world, I have many friends and acquaintances. There are no thieves among them.

Of course, the press, defending the rule of law, should criticize, should arouse people's indignation in relation to violations of the norms of morality and morality. But for some reason this is done in the language of violators of morality and ethics? In order to propagate morality and morality, you need a language and style that suits this subject. Language licentiousness is the licentiousness of irresponsible thought.

The materialistic view of history has led to the fact that the transition from a planned economy to a market economy is made without a systematic explanation to people of what a market economy is in the professional, everyday and emotional sense of the word. Since this is not explained, the people are silent in amazement, since it is impossible to take up any business and show enterprise under the influence of only naked material interest. This has long been known to serious practitioners.

Our theoretical economists, of course, have learned a lot in the US and are specialists in macro- and microeconomics. However, in the United States, not only the teachings about macro- and microeconomics have developed, but also the teachings about speech: content analysis, speech science, communication theory, and especially the doctrine of "public relations" (public relation), not counting private disciplines, such as advertising theory, journalism, consulting, public administration, project management, etc.

In accordance with this richness of thought, one should not take on any business without preliminarily explaining it to society, telling what the innovation is, why it is, what is its use and, most importantly, how it is consistent with morality.

Therefore, the implementation of economic reforms without their preliminary interpretation, what everyone needs to know and what everyone needs to feel, happens in such a way that, in the opinion of a "simple worker", which I am, in particular, everything is just a hoax. Thus, a good desire to make people's lives better because of the ignorance and arrogance of "specialists" turns into evil - because instead of trusting economic reforms, their rejection is born, and only the suffering of these reforms during the years of stagnation allows society to endure, hope for the future.

Which of the inhabitants, to which I belong, knows what a voucher is? Why should I, who have been working for more than 50 years, receive as many privatization checks as my daughter, who is still studying, why do I not legally receive dividends from Albee Diplomat, where I gave the vouchers (and many gave them to some funds that are unknown where now!)? Where is the honesty that characterizes capital? (Maybe, in general, capital is just a scam?) It follows from this that the shortcomings of the Russian language described above, and above all the lack of rhetorical ethics, for which I, along with my fellow philologists, are responsible, are hitting reforms, economics and, most importantly, they hit on human relations, make communication between people unbearable. It is necessary to change the style of communication and lifestyle. A "naked" economy cannot do this. Only speech, sanctified by morality, meaning, ideal, can do this.

Let's take the Chechen crisis as another example. We still do not know how to call Basaev, Raduev, Dudayev and others. Who are they? Separatists? Patriots? Bandits? Terrorists? Abreks? Robbers? Bribers? Public Enemies? As you can see, all these are assessments that exist in our press. However, they are different words with different meanings. Separatists mean politicians, patriots mean civic-minded people, bandits mean criminals, and so on.

Without choosing a specific name for these people that characterizes their essence from the point of view of the government and newspapers (and newspapers will always be pro-state, no matter what direction they take), it is impossible to say that any reasonable action regarding the Chechen crisis can take place. . Everyone talks about weapons, explosions, but no one will explain what and how to talk to the Chechen people, how to characterize this misfortune, how to reveal to the Chechen people the essence of their tragedy. Even Confucius said: "If the name is given incorrectly, then the words do not obey, and if the words do not obey, then the deed does not form."

Everyone is waiting for someone to come and explain this riddle to us. What's the use of scolding boy journalists who naively feel they are the masters of the universe! The question is: where are the adult uncles, philologists, historians, Caucasian scholars? Why don't they, specialists, write and publish papers about this problem? Where is the power of their thoughts and language? Why is the opinion about the essence of the Chechen problem not confirmed?

Naturally, the philologist is primarily responsible for the language. I myself am a philologist, and therefore I bear responsibility, together with others, for the trouble in Russian speech. Perhaps the trouble lies in the Russian language itself? Let's look at the real reasons for the weakness of the Russian language from the point of view of a philologist.

The first weakness of the Russian language lies in the insufficient command of the language of those who are engaged in linguistic labor. Recently, my guest was a graduate of the Physics and Technology Institute, candidate of philological sciences, computer scientist, chief researcher of the first television program. At the table, besides him, among the guests were two people, let's say, of non-Russian origin by parents, a Kazakh and half Armenian, Fiztekhovets from TV began his speech by announcing that all CIS countries improved their lives at the expense of Russians - "sucked Russia". He didn't even think about the tactlessness of his words. Attempts to introduce the conversation into the framework of a tactful conversation failed. The physicist from TV shouted, repeated and could not connect the thought. I had to disperse.

He is not at all evil person. He simply does not speak and does not know how to argue, he has not learned. Our intelligentsia is weak not only in pronunciation, but, above all, in the ability to conduct a conversation, in dialogue - they do not speak.

Language education is carried out in a grammatical, and not in a rhetorical spirit. Children are taught to write correctly in the spelling sense and for this they resort to literary classics (which, by the way, always have the author's spelling). Children are not taught to express their thoughts, they are not taught to understand rhetoric as the art of inventing ideas (which is the main thing in rhetoric). They will say: now they began to teach rhetoric. Yes, but instead of rhetoric, they teach at best diction and eloquence - subjects are also very useful, but these subjects do not constitute the essence of rhetoric, but constitute the initial training of an actor - an art opposite to the art of a rhetorician.

The main difference between an actor and a rhetor is that the actor pronounces someone else's text, and the rhetor creates his own meaning of speech. Therefore, the actor is not responsible for the meaning of what was said, and the rhetor is primarily responsible for the content of the speech. Modern mass information creates two heroes: actors and politicians. Everywhere these roles are different, we are very close and it turns out that an actor, as a rhetorician, is responsible for his words, and a politician, as an actor, is not responsible. Television convincingly demonstrates this feature by broadcasting meetings of representative bodies, speeches of political commentators and other near-political people. This is the result of speech education. Recently, many school textbooks on rhetoric have appeared, but all of them actually interpret rhetoric as the art of elegant, beautiful speech, as an external manifestation of a person's pronunciation. Finally, the very subject of speech taught in these rhetorics, in fact, covers mainly only oral speech, as if we are still living in the Greek ancient polis.

Ancient rhetoric was a tool for a civil career, that is, by learning rhetoric, they actually prepared for management and self-government. But already in the Greek policy, in addition to civil speech, then judicial, demonstrative, deliberative speech, there was domestic speech, dialectics (philosophical conversation), there were documents, people exchanged letters, read and wrote compositions. Only from these writings do we know what rhetoric was like in ancient times. Our rhetoricians quote Aristotle's "Rhetoric", but do not read his own writings on the state, ethics, where, in fact, the role of rhetoric is interpreted. The same thoughts that rhetoric is the art of thinking and managing were adhered to by Cicero. Quitillian elaborated by saying modern language, management training school. Modern speech communications, in addition to those types of speech that are mentioned above, contain a developed document system, private correspondence, Holy Bible and adjacent texts of classical literature, scientific, fiction and magazine literature, mass information and advertising, information systems. In each of these types of words, the invented thought is embodied in a verbal series, that is, in the subject of modern language education. It is clear that it is necessary to improve speech education in order to prepare a person who is "comprehensively developed" in speech terms, since a person who has graduated from school, entering the labor field, must actively master all types of speech. If this is not the case, it means that he is quite helpless in the affairs in which he is engaged.

Modern professional speech actions are impossible without knowledge of the laws of all types of speech, all forms of speech communication and speech influence. This knowledge is necessary, first of all, in order to be able to take a critical attitude and responsibly understand what they say and write to you, to have your own opinion. Without this, creative choice of activities is impossible.

Our higher school is focused mainly on the acquisition of technical knowledge, now economic and legal knowledge have been added, which are perceived as narrowly professional. And now, excellent masters of technology, among whom are remarkable scientists-inventors, do not know how to attach their inventions or design developments, they do not own the arsenal of speech actions that are needed for this. Consequently, their works perish in vain and become morally obsolete, and in higher technical, economic, legal schools, instead of modern rhetoric covering all types of speech, they usually teach under the guise of cultural studies, the science of culture, and the history of art. Thus, the lack of a full-fledged rhetorical education and upbringing of rhetorical ethics gives rise to general passivity. The stagnation has not been overcome, although they have been trying to overcome it for ten years now by economic means. This is the fault of philology.

The world has long understood the role of active speech actions for the development of intelligence, social dynamics in general. It was said above that a series of new philological sciences has been created in the USA that studies speech and has applications in practice. Our public is still enthusiastically reading the popular Carnegie manual, which is not very consistent with our speech traditions. The Japanese began their economic breakthrough not from the economy, but from the development of speech relations and created their own rhetorical doctrine - "the linguistic existence of the people."

I also wrote a book on general philology about 25 years ago. Which of the politicians and economists knows about it? She came out with great difficulty - after three years of ordeals in the publishing house. The dialogue with reviewers went like this:

The book is out in half.

The second weakness of the Russian language is the lack of knowledge of the modern economic and legal dictionary among the people.

The modern common dictionary of the Russian language, the dictionary of traditions of S.I. Ozhegova (now published by N.Yu. Shvedova), unfortunately, does not contain all the words and concepts that characterize what a modern person who has entered the world of a market economy should know. This is how economic timidity, the illiteracy of the people, and the fear of being active are prepared. People are ready to work actively, but only when someone has organized something for them. This is the specific fault of the Department of Language and Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Until a new dictionary of the Russian language is compiled, which includes the basics of general educational terminology and especially economics, it is difficult to count on the fact that the people, as it were, will learn this by themselves. The backwardness of the Academy of Sciences, whose main task is to shape the language, is perhaps most evident in this.

The third weakness of the Russian language is disrespect for native literature. The great and mighty Russian language is especially good in poetry. It is also good in order to express by phonic, graphic means a noble and elegant thought about love, philosophy and, as they said before, the truth of life.

I must say that in some respects the Russian language is still lucky. Until the 1960s, Russian writers, unlike writers of other nations, did not write so-called bestsellers. They wanted to be classics and wrote conscientiously, developing a literary language. So there was a magnificent abundance of literature. These are thousands of authors and hundreds of thousands, if not a million, works of fiction.

What of this wealth can we reasonably use in order to instill a taste for good speech in people who communicate in Russian. Unfortunately, very little, because there is no communication, not even solid work on the language and style of Russian literature of the twentieth century.

Most of the literary criticism is directed at the biography of writers and what he experienced under the "damned communist totalitarian regime." Interestingly, the classical scheme of Marxist literary criticism, which misinterpreted Engels, is preserved. Pushkin is good because he was persecuted by the tsar and the reaction, Dostoevsky is good because he suffered in hard labor, and so on. There is no analysis of what was previously called the beauties of style. They do not know how to love a coherent and beautiful speech, a style of thought.

The language of the latest realist, modernist and postmodernist works after the 60s. often just dirty. The choice of words is terrible, the author's maxims are far from grace.

What is the language of literature of the twentieth century from the point of view of the aesthetics of the word? We must do a great deal of work on studying the peculiarities of verbal aesthetics and publish works on this, and not choose authors only on the basis of which of them suffered and how, as if suffering is a synonym for a literary text.

The fourth weakness of the Russian language. The economic life has changed, new laws are being adopted, but the document system has not been developed. Is it possible to think that economic life can be adjusted if the documentary system is disordered? It is precisely due to the absence of a new system of documents that there is a legal possibility of all kinds of fraud. If in the office of any government agency you can find more letters that begin with the words "deeply respected ... name of the rivers!" than documents on the case, then this means that the institution is taking bribes, because the letter does not imply a mandatory action on it and control over the action, as the document suggests. Such a letter almost always includes a request and the words "as an exception ...". And exceptions are always exceptions to the law and rules. The fifth weakness is new. This is the abandonment of all those who, not being Russian, use the Russian language outside of Russia: in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Belarus, Australia, Germany, the USA ... all over the world. There are many fans of the Russian language and literature. Unfortunately, our philology has lost its influence on this environment of linguistic communication in Russian.

Neither the language nor the new and latest Russian literature is promoted in these countries. People who have spent years mastering the Russian language and literature use the texts of a limited number of authors, and the explanation of these texts is primitive. Political, if you can call it politics.

Therefore, there is a lot of strange gag in the teaching and learning of the Russian language outside of Russia, the history of the language in samples is little known. There are innovations in toponymy, outside the academic norm.

It's time to unite the efforts of at least the CIS countries around the language problem. For the CIS countries, no matter how you call the Russian language - "the official language", "the language of the compactly living population" or in some other way - it is still the leading means of intellectual communication, and many people want to know it.

The Russian language has been and will be respected. Not we, but our ancestors tried to make it the basis of the content of education. In addition, the power of the Russian language in science and technology has always made itself felt. It will be such if we adequately and responsibly represent economics, law and a wide range of humanitarian disciplines, primarily the theory and history of culture.

We are doing little to form a pedagogical union of the CIS countries. The Academy of Pedagogical Sciences became the Russian Academy of Education and expelled Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Uzbeks from its ranks ... - cheap savings on the principle of "twice two - a stearin candle." It is necessary to create such an alliance and raise the moral prestige of not just Russians, but of all those who love and use the Russian language. The CIS countries will find means and measures for this. The main problem - the sixth weakness of the Russian language - is that intelligent native speakers do not like their native language. It is believed that eternal thoughts can be expressed in any words. Deep delusion.

Language is a means of educating meaning, understanding history, a sense of the harmony of the world. The intelligentsia often refers to the fact that the world is not good for them, they are suffering and therefore, they say, they have the right to express themselves close to swear words. But the world is not good mainly because we treat it like this: ambition torments, petty pride, greed gnaws, the inability to see one’s shortcomings exhausts, and one wants, of course, to express oneself without regard for the public, to teach everyone and everyone, even if in a trolleybus.

Our fair and conscientious, hospitable and merciful Russian language is against this. God stops the mouth of the foul-mouthed. And we should be proud of our language.

Every language - English, Russian, Chinese - has its own unique history. The uniqueness of the history of a given language is the uniqueness of its origin and the uniqueness of its development. If in English borrowings make up 70% of words of Romance origin, that is, words from Latin and French, then this, willy-nilly, leaves an imprint on the way thoughts are formed in English from the point of view of deep correlation in English with Latin culture.

This correlation with Latin culture, a culture that encompasses the ecumene of the Mediterranean, the educational principles of which are part of the modern English language, determines the picture of the English-speaking world. English as the language of education covers the world like the former medieval Latin and has many of its qualities, such as the desire to write business and scientific letters, the desire for legal accuracy of wording, the pragmatism of ideas embedded in the text, the desire for brevity and accuracy of expression.

The Russian language, unlike English, has Greek and Church Slavonic as its cultural ancestors. This is, as it were, the source of the literary Russian language. Another source is the clerical language of the 16th-17th centuries. If Church Slavonic is the language of philosophy, morality, history, then the clerical language is the language of action, but not the language of verbal struggle, which is characteristic of law and English. Our language is so arranged that we live not by judgment, but by truth. In addition, the Russian language has amazing ability to draw in through oral borrowings a huge number of Germanisms, Turkisms, borrowings from the Finno-Ugric and Caucasian languages, not to mention Latin, Greek, Arabic, etc.

This side of the Russian language can be called its internationality not in the sense of a universal means of communication, but in the sense of respect for a foreign culture, the ability to take into account its interests and take everything that is useful that you can take. Therefore, people who speak Russian are not too eager to sue and argue, and thereby prove their strength. But they love to philosophize (albeit on a kitchen scale) and admire everything that is not in their culture and in themselves. Philosophy, poetry and effectiveness - that's the strength of the Russian language.

Since the language is different in terms of its style and meaning, even closely related languages, such as German (English belongs to them) and Slavic (Russian belongs to them), turn out to be peculiar. This originality is the meaning of the existence of different languages and peoples.

The Bible says that when in conceit and pride people began to build the Tower of Babel in order to get to God, God "confused their language" and people began to speak different languages. It turns out that only in different languages can one worship the Lord.

A monolingual person is always somewhat ugly. Therefore, every person on the territory of the former USSR who spoke more than one language is always smarter and stronger in creative potential than a monolingual person. Therefore, the fear of the dominance of English or other languages (Ukrainian, Kazakh, Lithuanian, etc.) is in vain. The main thing is that there are no weaknesses in the Russian language.

What is needed to ensure that the Russian language does not lose out to French, Chinese and any other?

1. It is necessary to restructure language education so that a person has a deep enough knowledge of all types of literature and is able to invent a thought and be responsible for the meaning of his speech - to own speech ethics. Then the expression "if you're so smart, why are you poor?" will be correctly understood: "You are not smart, you are stupid." A full-fledged modern philological school should become the center of language education. 2. It is necessary to improve the norm of the Russian language. Publish a new dictionary of the Russian language for general use, which should include: 1) general educational terms (which is not currently available); 2) the achievement of new and latest poetic practice; 3) also general scientific and general technical vocabulary, which also does not exist now. It is necessary to develop editions of educational dictionaries of all types, and especially thesaurus dictionaries. 3. It is necessary to publish a series of full educational explanatory-eccyclopedic dictionaries, stylistic dictionaries, spelling dictionaries. Among these dictionaries, a thesaurus of general education terms should take a prominent place. 4. It is necessary to research and develop Russian literature of the twentieth century. Understand the history of styles, identify the best stylists, select a corpus of the best works for the needs of a well-founded school reader and for teaching new poets. 5. Develop a modern document system that meets the real needs of a market economy and provides public relations. 6. It is necessary to create a linguistic union of the CIS countries not only in the scientific, but also in the specific legal sense, providing it with measures to intensify the translation business, develop educational literature, and create common and differentiated educational schemes.

In addition to these main measures, it is useful to make small ones:

A) It is necessary that public speakers, especially political ones, use the normal words of the Russian language with proper diction, as they are taken as an example.
b) The press should not imitate bad examples of political speeches by disseminating good examples of political speech. This proposal especially concerns the activities of television.
c) It is necessary that a stylist-consultant with a good literary taste should take part in the creation of any public text of wide significance.
d) It is necessary that aesthetically perfect literary works that influence the language be promoted, and not authors who are influential in an authoritative sense.

Reference and information portal "Gramota.ru" appeared on November 14, 2000. Slowly and patiently, like a snail from the logo, he developed educational activities. Now the number of answers from the “information bureau” has reached almost 290,000: the portal is necessary and important for a Russian-speaking person. However, literacy is now in demand. About what is happening with the language, how our attitude towards it is changing, about the "toys of the language" and about the main mission - in an interview with the editor-in-chief Vladimir Pakhomov.

- Why be literate?

So that we can speak the same language, understand each other. The norms of the language and spelling rules can be compared with the rules of the road: if in one region of Russia the green light is permissive, in another - blue, in the third - purple, then it will be very difficult to understand how to cross the road. The same is true with language rules. We have a large country, there are a lot of people who speak Russian. The Russian language in one region of Russia is slightly different from the Russian language in another region. There are differences in the language of young people and older people. It is necessary to observe the norms so that we - native speakers of different ages living in different parts of Russia - can understand each other.

- It used to be fashionable to be illiterate. Is it fashionable to be literate now, or is such an attitude towards literacy just beginning to emerge?

No, already, of course, it is fashionable, and prestigious, and important. For example, you can’t get a good job without an interview, which also assesses the quality of speech. Many of my colleagues compare ignorance of norms and rules with greasy spot on an expensive tie. If it was once fashionable to boast of illiteracy, it is already in the past. The pendulum that has swung the other way is now in balance.

- What about informal communication? Literacy is a priority, or is it still not being paid due attention?

Look, let's take any discussion on the Internet (about anything: politics, religion, economics, culture, sports). How do people prove their case when there are no arguments left? “Yes, you first learn to place commas”; “Yes, you look in the dictionary, find out what this word means.” That is, "you first learn how to write correctly, so that I can generally listen to what you state." This argument to the language is very popular. Maybe, at the dawn of the Internet, they did not pay attention to this, but if now someone starts writing with errors, they will definitely notice it right away - IMMEDIATELY.

- You often say that when discussing language issues, anger and rage wake up in people, but that this has always been the case. Is it so?

It turns out that way. A wonderful quote by Nadezhda Teffi confirms this: “A lot has been written about the need to protect the Russian language, handle it carefully, not distort, not innovate. This call works. Everyone is trying. Many now do nothing but protect the Russian language. They listen, correct and teach.

As you said? "Try on seven times and cut one off"? This is absolutely wrong! Since a person measures seven times, it is clear that the form must be used multiple times. Try on seven times, but don't try on.

What? - the other is outraged. - Did you say "take it out and put it in"? From the verb put the imperative mood will be "put" and not "put". How is it possible to spoil the Russian language in such a way, which we must cherish like the apple of our eye?

As you said? I hope I misheard. Did you say "I'm going for wine"? So the wine goes ahead of you, and you follow it? Otherwise, you would say: "I'm walking on wine," so they say: "I'm walking on water," - that's how it should be said.

They crush, dry, suffocate!

Well, as if it was written about today! 1922, almost a hundred years ago. It turns out that there was no time when the Russian language was spoken calmly.

- Why do you think people have such an attitude?

The main reason is the desire to save, protect the native language from the dangers that threaten it, according to native speakers. True, these dangers are often imaginary, as linguists constantly talk about. But people are very afraid that the language can be spoiled, they are afraid of any changes in the language. Linguists have repeatedly noted that the strongest conservatism possible is conservatism in relation to language. A good Russian language is always in the past for us, we negatively assess its current state and are full of pessimism about its future. This is an eternal position. But there is another reason for the heated debate about the language: we, alas, often lack tolerance for the right of another native speaker to speak a little differently than we do. Choose a different stress, use a word with a different meaning. When evaluating the speech of others, we are often stricter than the most rigorous academic dictionaries.

- Concerning the issue of borrowings, what do you think: do they enrich the language or do we not need them at all?

Any native speaker (non-specialist) will say that borrowing is bad. Why should we take words from other languages, is it really impossible to call everything Russian words - this is the most common point of view. And a linguist will say that borrowing is normal, because all languages borrow from each other (some more, some less).

This is how the fate of the Russian language developed, that for centuries, throughout its history, it took a lot from other languages. The Russian language in all eras was open to words from other languages. Starting from the Old Russian era: words came from both the north and the south (not only ships, but also words moved along the famous route “from the Varangians to the Greeks”), and from the west and from the east. My native word is literacy - from Greek: gram is a letter in Greek. The Petrine era is generally a wave of foreign words, mainly from Dutch, German. Early 19th century - word flow from French. The end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century - a huge number of borrowings from the English language. It's just that there are periods of calm, and there are periods of surge in borrowing. But there have always been borrowings, are and will be. I often think about one question: would the Russian language be so great, powerful, truthful, free, the language of international, interethnic communication, if at one time it would be tightly buttoned up from any foreign words? Not sure.

- And now, rather, a surge or, on the contrary, a decline in borrowings?

There was a surge when computer vocabulary flooded in, and this is the 90s. Now it seems that this surge has passed. Of course, words are borrowed, but at a slower pace. And now, in a sense, the Russian language “sorts things out”: it filters out something, processes something, forms its words from borrowed roots (for example, from the word blog: blogosphere, blogger, blogger, blogging, even occasional blogging ... There is already a whole word-formation nest!). Now there is a kind of inventory.

- And how do the words that we actively use on the Internet (cuteness, lol, etc.) affect the language? Can they somehow harm the language?

The way we write and speak when we communicate on the Internet is one thing, but our literary language is another completely. Of course, some elements of such a language penetrate the literary language, but very few. Well, Pelevin had a novel called "The Helmet of Horror: Creatiff about Theseus and the Minotaur." Some such singular things. Therefore, it is unlikely that all this can somehow damage the language.

It would seem that quite recently the “Padonkoff language” was popular on the Web, the same “Albanian” language that gave rise to the Krosavchegs, Preveds, Medveds ... In November, I was in the city of Vladimir with a lecture on modern Russian. The lecture was attended by schoolchildren, class 8-9 (those who are now 15-16 years old). I asked them about the words preved, bear, handsome, whether they are familiar to them. In response: “No. What is it?". The fashion for "Albany" was about 10 years ago, that is, they were then 5-6 years old. Naturally, they did not catch this and now they no longer know what “afftarzhot” is. I remember very well what discussions there were 10 years ago about this language, how everyone was worried whether there would be anything left of literary Russian because of all these krosavches, preveds, medveds. And journalists asked such questions, and there were panic articles. Well, that's all, it's gone, forgotten.

- So you say that the Russian language is alive. It turns out that he played with these words and quit?

Yes, I played, and got tired, and already stopped making everyone laugh. Now nyashki, it seems, are also no longer very amusing. I think that if in 10 years you ask schoolchildren in grades 5-6 what cute and cute faces are, there will be the same misunderstanding. It passes so quickly: they played, they quit, they played, they quit.

Maxim Krongauz gave an example: after all, the “Albanian” language is also not an innovation, it’s just that this phenomenon has become widespread on the Internet. But linguists are well aware that in 1920-1930 philologists, graduate students and students of the outstanding linguist D.N. Ushakova, were carried away by the fact that they came up with deliberately wrong words: instead of a teacher - to teach (as a verb), instead of a graduate student - an ozberand. Here it is, this very "Albanian" language. Stirred up - played - abandoned. Forgotten for almost a hundred years. The Internet appeared - the Internet broke out. And again forgotten. Games with language have always been, always will be.

- What would you outline the main vectors, directions of language development in recent times?

Now there is a lot of talk about the trend towards analyticism: that which used to incline, ceases to incline. First, geographical names cease to decline. Hence the heated debate: in Altufyevo or in Altufyevo. In recent decades, people have become accustomed not to decline toponyms in everyday speech. And therefore, when you say that these names have always been declined, you meet with misunderstanding: “How is it, we always did not decline them!” The hosts of many radio and television channels, journalists of regional newspapers complained to me that listeners, viewers, readers regularly call and write letters: “Stop persuading Altufyevo”, “what kind of illiteracy is in Pulkovo ?!”, “who taught you to speak” in Ivanovo ?”, etc. Although a strict rule obliges journalists and broadcasters to inflect these names, the non-inflected option is spreading more and more.

The declension of compound numbers is gradually destroyed. Seven hundred and eighty-nine already in lively speech, few people will say.

Some constructions appeared under the influence of the English language. Linguist Irina Borisovna Levontina gives a very good example. We used to say strawberry yogurt, strawberry-strawberry yogurt, and now strawberry-strawberry yogurt (on packages). And we can say to you: Give me strawberry-strawberry yogurt. But for the Russian language, such constructions are uncharacteristic - this is the influence of English.

But the spread of indeclination of individual words and groups of words is not a unique situation for the Russian language. For example, short adjectives were declined in the Old Russian language, but now we do not decline them. Only in set expressions- “in broad daylight”, “on bare feet”, etc. - these declining forms remained. In other words, the Russian language has experienced a situation more than once when something was inclined, and then it stopped.

- In 2015, the Oxford Dictionary announced emoji as the word of the year: a man laughing to tears. Google announces messenger, where communication will be based only on emoji and emoticons. Do you think it will somehow affect the language?

We need to see how it will work. Of course, one can wonder if the spread of emoticons will lead to the fact that we will forget how to write words. On the other hand, we now know how to switch registers. We can put twenty emoticons on the network, but when compiling an official document, we do without them.

And emoticons really help a lot, because sometimes you can’t convey intonation without them. Let's say you need to ask for something. How can you soften this request as much as possible? Put a smiley. We have a choice: it is possible with emoticons, it is possible without them, or you can combine them. I think the more options the better. I do not think that communication only with the help of emoticons is fraught with any threat to the language. So far it looks like just another toy.

Now you can scold the Internet as much as you like and call it garbage, but without the Internet you can’t go anywhere. This is a given, this is life, and we must adapt to this. The language very quickly responded to this and quickly developed new sphere- what we linguists call "written language" colloquial speech". When we communicate online, we write, but the way we write is very similar to speaking. There are emoticons to convey intonation, there capital-lowercase letters are often forgotten, and punctuation marks are not put there either.

- Can I ask a more personal, rather, question: when you need to write an urgent message, do you sometimes sacrifice punctuation marks?

Yes, and I can donate in capital letters. At the same time, if I am writing an article or an answer to Gramote.ru, for example, then, of course, I will re-read it many times, check that all punctuation marks and capital letters are in place. And in parallel in the messenger I can very quickly write an answer without capital letters, without punctuation marks. It's perfect different areas the functioning of the language. And, of course, the ability to switch registers should be taught at school. Of course, we cannot forbid the modern schoolchild to write “Hello!” in the chat, but we have to teach him that "Hi!" appropriate in chatting with friends, and if you write a letter to the teacher, then you need to start it with the phrase Dear Lyudmila Petrovna!

- I heard the opposite opinion. Here children come to school, and they are told that they need to write like that. And then they come home, text their classmates, and don't use any of the rules they're told in school. It discourages a person and somehow weaned him from the norm. Do you think that this is not so and now it is perceived as a switch?

You touch on a very important issue - how children perceive Russian language lessons at school. My colleague Maria Rovinskaya, a philologist, coordinator of the Total Dictation in Moscow, who has a very rich teaching experience both at school and at the university, says that now there are two completely different Russian languages in the minds of children. One is a museum. The language of Pushkin, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov. They learn the rules of this language, they place commas in a sentence in which Tolstoy already placed commas 150 years ago. This language in their minds is an exhibit on a shelf in a museum. But there is another language in which they correspond in networks, chats. And these two Russian languages do not intersect in their minds. It seems to me that the task of the school is to bring these languages together in the minds of children. To show that this is all - our one big Russian language, it just has different styles, different areas of operation. And what is appropriate in one style is ridiculous in another. And literacy in the modern world is no longer only knowledge of the rules, but also the ability to switch registers and understand which words and phrases in which style are acceptable.

- Two years ago, the use of profanity was banned by law. Do you think this can impoverish our language, or is it, on the contrary, a defense of the language?

That it is forbidden to use profanity in works of art is a good thing, because it saves the profanity itself. Of course, the Russian language needs it. This is a very special layer of language, which (ideally) we resort to in the most extreme situation, when we no longer have other words. If we use these words as a bunch of words in a sentence, we shoot sparrows from a cannon, then what will be left when a stronger weapon is needed? It won't work anymore. Therefore, the checkmate must remain in its role. If we use a mat for a bunch of words, we will lose it.

- And how do you feel about this layer of vocabulary? Does it cause fear and dislike?

Well, it’s hard to be disliked… Linguists generally love all words. This is a strong Russian word, and this is its uniqueness, this is its beauty and this is its peculiarity. But this beauty, uniqueness, peculiarity are good when they are forbidden in ordinary speech. After all, it is unique in itself that in the Russian language there are words that we ourselves call “unprintable”. Here, too, this effect of the pendulum: before everything was impossible, then everything became possible, now the pendulum is coming into balance.

- For 16 years of operation of the portal's help service, 290,000 questions have come to you. Who is the most keenly interested and asks questions among the visitors of your portal? Are they divided into any groups?

We have a very younger audience in recent years. The core of our audience is mainly users aged 20 to 35 who graduated from school 5, 10, 15 years ago, but have already forgotten the rules, and who need help right now. Most of them are office workers. They work with documents and doubt how to write. Naturally, there are a lot of school audiences: the schoolchildren themselves, their parents and teachers. Those who professionally work with the word: editors, proofreaders, translators. And just everyone who is interested in the Russian language, who asks the question: what is the right way? where did it come from? why do they say so? I never thought about it in my life, but then I thought about it and wrote.

- What do you think, is it likely that we will not need literacy? There will be auto-correctors that will correct absolutely any mistake - will literacy be needed then?

It can be assumed that sooner or later the technology will come to the point that we will take a microphone and instead of typing, we will speak, and the program itself will convert our oral text into written one. The system will read our intonation and write it out in writing with all the punctuation marks corresponding to the standard. But in this case, we will need to pronounce this text perfectly clearly. This means that literacy will become a matter of mastering the norm of oral speech. And not all shades of speech and not all the meanings of the computer will be able to catch. In any case, literacy will never become unnecessary.

- What are you working for, what is your ideal social mission and goal?

I would name three goals of the portal. First, to inform about everything that happens with the Russian language. The second task is to advise: to provide Internet users with the opportunity to check words in dictionaries, answer questions about the Russian language. And the third mission is to educate: to talk about how the Russian language works, what is the norm, why dictionaries are needed and how to use them, why there are discrepancies in dictionaries.

In a word, to be a bridge between the linguistic community and native speakers - non-specialists, non-linguists, to maintain this dialogue so that those who are not professionally connected with the language can learn more about it and have the opportunity to ask a professional a question.

Well, here the man does not know the rules, he said wrong. He does not know that the norm is blinds, and said blinds. What to do in this case? How to deal with people who make mistakes? A lot of people will answer using words that are somehow connected with some kind of punitive actions: fine, expel from work (if we are talking about a person for whom working with a word is a profession), and also beat, flog, shoot, hang .. It makes me very sad that here we absolutely do not operate with such concepts as explaining, enlightening, telling, teaching.

He does not know: blinds or blinds. You can point your finger at him and say: "Fu, what an illiterate." And you can tell how and why. Moreover, to give a stunningly interesting history of this word. After all, it means "jealousy." Otherwise, such shutters were called Maghreb - and the Maghreb was the region of Africa, which included Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco. These countries were colonies of France, and the design of the blinds was borrowed by the French from there. Such shutters allowed Muslim women to observe what was happening on the street without being noticed. Naturally, this suited the jealous harem owners. And what is much more important for Africa - light and air entered the premises, and this flow could be easily controlled.