EntranceA reduced form of cooperative play. English language
I'm already pretty tired of inserting "decoding" reduced colloquial forms into parallel texts. It's easier to give the list itself.
At the same time, I’ll give you a list of generally accepted abbreviations (for those who have already forgotten about them).
Words that are among the most frequently occurring (by my count) are shown in bold. I mean: yeah, gonna, gotta, wanna, alright, out(t)a. And, on the contrary, rarely occurring words are given in italics.
Reduced colloquial forms found in works of art.
ain’t = am not/ is not / are not/ have not/ has not - can mean one of the listed negatives (depending on the meaning of the speech)
ain'tcha["eIn"tʃə] = ain’t you
alright[ɔ:l"rait] = all right: a - satisfactory; adv- satisfactory, acceptable; like an interjection- ok!, I agree!, it’s coming!
betcha ["betʃə] you bet! = you betcha! = just betcha! - Certainly! do not doubt! you can be sure!(I agree, I want, etc.);
2) betcha = bet you – we argue!
"bout [" baut] = about – oh, regarding, about(here more often as an object of conversation, worries, etc.); most often in the expression How "bout...? How about (to)...?
bro" - shortened form of brother type pal, friend or buddy. More often than not, American blacks call each other bros
cantcha = can’ tcha= can't you
‘cause = because – because, since
c’mon = come on – 1) come on!, come on!, let’s go!; 2) quit!, stop!, stop!
coulda = could have – here could in combination with the Perfect form is translated as could, could and so on.
(a) coupla ["kʌpl] = (a) couple of – pair
D
didja["deja] = did you
dontcha = don'tcha= don't you
dunno = don "t know – I don’t know, I don’t know, I don’t understand; overwhelmingly Cases like I dunno. = I don't know. I don't know.
d'ya= do you
Well what d"ya know? |
Okay, what do you know/do you know? |
'em = them – them, them;(meets super often, they usually say that in colloquial speech)
fella ["felə] = colloquial from fellow - man, guy, friend, old man
G
g’by = good by – goodbye, goodbye;
Phrasal verbs with base get They are not usually found in this style, but they are pronounced like this in American:
Gerraway["gɛrəwei] = get away – slip away; leave, leave; away! and etc.
gerrin["gəriŋ] = get in - enter; get into transport and etc.
gerrit["gerit] = get it – understand; find out; win; have and etc.
gerron= get on - sit on/in; start/continue business and etc.
gerrup["gærəp] = get up - get up; get up (wake up); intensify; become more expensive and etc.
getchaorget"cha["getʃə] = get you. Similar to gotcha (see below), but refers to the present or future (unlike gotcha - to the past). It is very rare.
gimme ["gimi] = give me - give(those)/pass(those)/give(those) and so on. to me
g’ night= good night - Good night;
gonna["g(ə)nə] = going to. Used in turn to be goingto: (am/ is/ are + going + infinitive with to)intend to do something; 1) Used to express the intention to perform an action in the future; 2) To express the high probability or inevitability of actions in the future (predicted future). More often it is not translated separately, but the action expressed by the subsequent infinitive is simply translated into the future tense.
gotcha ["gɔtʃə] = got you. Depending on the context: 1) I understood you). (caught your thought) ;
2) Yeah! Gotcha!(literally or figuratively, when someone is cunning);
3) deliver/place someone somewhere, (meet. rarely)
gotta["gɔtə] = (have) got to - should, must(...us), need and so on. (expresses an obligation, have is often completely dropped without loss of meaning)
H
hadda["hadə] = had to – expresses an obligation regarding the past
hafta= have to – expresses an obligation regarding the present and future
(a) helluva ["heləvə] = (a) hell of – as an adjective: damn, terrible, creepy, hellish, unbearable, cool and so on. (both in the negative and positive sense: admiration, etc.)
hellya= hell are you in questions like What the hell are you...? What, craptake it, You …?
I
"im = him - his
kinda = kind of: 1) if we are talking about something. action, process, situation, etc., then: something/something like, like, something similar, as if, as if and so on.;
2) if we are talking about a noun, then it is translated: variety, class, type, species and so on.
lemme ["lemi] = let me let me, let me and so on.
letcha= let you let/give/permit you/you
let "s = let us. Combination of abbreviated verb construction let" s in meaning " Let's" with the infinitive has the connotation of invitation or advice.
lotsa["lʌtsə] = lots of - full, many, many
(a) lotta= (a) lot of - full, a lot of, a bunch of
'member["membə] = remember - remember
musta= must have - in combination with the perfect infinitive is translated as must be, probably, probably and so on.
N
'n' = and – And or than - how
naw = no – no, no
nope = no – no, no
O. K./ OK/ Ok/ ok = okay [əu"kei] - OK.; Fine.; Agree.; Right.; Yes.; Order.; Fine.; Going; Eat!; I obey! and etc.
oughta [ɔ:tə] = ought to – should, should, should; (expresses obligation; blame; assumption)
outta/outa["autə] = out of – from , from , With
R
" scuse= excuse – excuse. Usually in the version "Scuse me. Sorry / Forgive me.
seeya= see you see you!, bye!, everything!(at goodbye)
shoulda ["judə] = should have, future in the past in the Perfect form, translated as should, should and so on.
shurrup= shut up – shut up, shut up. It is very rare in this spelling, but is pronounced like this in American.
sonuvabitch/ sonovabitch/ sonofabitch/ sonofa-bitch/ sum-bitch etc. = son of a bitch – Son of a bitch, bastard, bastard and so on.
sorta ["sɔ:tə] - sort of - like, like, like(literally – species, genus, type, variety and so on. something)
so's = so as - as well as (and), also
speaka= speak to – to talk to smb.
" spect= expect believe, expect, hope; or suspect assume, suspect
" pose= suppose – believe, admit
T
talka= talk to – talk/conversate with smb.
tellya= tell you – I say/ I'll tell youyou/ to you
tha's[ðiz] = that is - ThisThere is …
U
usta = used to - have a habit: usually, used to, used to usually / often and so on.
V
wanna [British"wɔnə, Amer."wʌnə] = want to – want, desire do something (want + verb infinitive); an example of an absolutely logical colloquial abbreviation, otherwise you can simply “break” the language.
whaddaya = what do you… – WhatYou / You …?
whatcha = what do/ did/ are you - WhatYou …? ; In questions like What do you want? What do you want? What are you doing? What are you doing? Auxiliary are is generally reduced in the overwhelming majority of cases in colloquial speech. It doesn't come out at all, but we can barely detect it by ear.
whatta= depending on the meaning, it can mean: 1) what do/ are – in questions:
2) (less often) what a – in exclamations in meaning what, what, what, For example:
whattaya / whatta ya= what do you... – WhatYou/ You …?
willya= will you (usually in requests and questions)
woulda ["wudə] = would have, future in the past in the Perfect form, translated as would
wuddaya= what do you... – WhatYou/ You …?
X
Y
ya = you / your you, you/your, your
ye= you – you you(very rare)
yeah= yes – Yes(very rare)
yeah= yes – Yes(it’s even written this way very often, but is spoken almost always; the word yes with “swallowed” [s])
yep = yes – Yes(much less common, akin to “nope” – nope)
yup= yes – yes, yeah(very rare)
Often present participles (IV form or –ing form) are written with an apostrophe at the end instead of a g, for example: doin" = doing, livin" = living, tryin" = trying, etc.
Common abbreviations.
aren't = aren't
can't = cannot
couldn't ["kudnt] = could not
didn’t ["didn(ə)t] = did not
doesn’t ["dʌz(ə)nt] = does not
don't = don't
hadn't ["hædnt] = had not
haven't = have not
hasn’t ["hæz(ə)nt] = has not
he'd = he had / should / would
he'll = he will
he's = he is / has
here"s = here is / has
I'd = I had / should / would
I'll = I shall / will
I'm = I am
I've = I have
isn't = isn't
it’ll ["it(ə)l] = it will
it's = it is / has
let's = let us
mayn't = may not
mightn't ["mait(ə)nt] = might not
mustn’t ["mʌs(ə)nt] = must not
shan’t [ʃa:nt] = shall not
she’d [ʃid] = she had / should / would
she'll [ʃi:l] = she will
she's [ʃiz] = she is / has
shouldn't ["ʃudnt] = shouldn't
that'll [ðætl] = that will
that's [ðæts] = that is
there's [ðəz] = there is / has
they’d [ðeid] = they had / should / would
they'll [ðeil] = they will
they're ["ðeiə] = they are
they've ["ðeiv] = they have
wasn’t = wasn’t
we'd = we had / should / would
we'll = we shall / will
we're = we are
weren't = weren't
we've = we have
what's = what is
won't = won't
wouldn't ["wud(ə)nt] = wouldn't
you'd = you had / should / would
you'll = you will
you're = you are
7.1. For many reasons, including the possibility of comparing the values of different characteristic functions on the same coalition, it seems convenient to carry out a kind of normalization of the characteristic functions.
Definition. The characteristic function v over / is called 0 - 1 -reduced (has a 0 - 1-reduced form) if
v(i) = 0 for any /Є/, (7.1)
From the definition it follows that any 0-1-reduced characteristic function is non-negative and therefore non-decreasing: from K with L it follows
v(Kv(K) + v(L\K)< v(L) .
7.2. Theorem. Every essential characteristic function is affinely equivalent to some 0 - 1-reduced characteristic function, and, moreover, exactly one.
Proof. Let v be an essential characteristic function. We will construct the required affine equivalence transformation by finding the corresponding k and at from Section 5.1.
To do this, we write a system of n + 1 equations with n + 1 unknowns:
v"(z) = kv(i) + ar- = 0 for /Є/, (7.3)
v"(I) = kv(I) + 2 ar = 0. (7.4)
/ є /
The matrix of this system
. . O u(1) .. O u(2)
. 1 v(n) . . 1 v(l).
has a determinant equal to
v(I)~ Z v(i), I = 1
which, due to the importance of the characteristic function, is positive. Thus, the theorem being proved becomes an elementary algebraic fact. ?
7.3. The actual solution of system (7.3) - (7.4) is not difficult. Subtracting all equations (7.3) from (7.4) gives us
k(v(I)- 2 v(i)) = 1, і є /
from where immediately both the sought-for and everything is found
2
.g-v(0(v(/)- 2 i(/)G
/e/
- For example, in the case of the game from Example 2 of Section 2.2, the 0 - 1-reduced form will be the characteristic function v, for which v(K) = = В(К)/В(1).
- Note in passing that the set of all 0 - 1-reduced characteristic functions over a given set of players is convex.
- In accordance with what was said in section 3.4, instead of a separate characteristic function, we can consider a whole class of affinely equivalent functions. Instead of such a class, we can, in turn, consider one of the representatives of this class.
- Just as the 0 - 1-reduced forms of characteristic functions can be considered for arbitrary a and b (na Φ b), their “a-reduced” forms can also be considered, understanding such characteristic functions vfor which v"(0 ~ a> i^Iy v"(L ~ b.
In addition to the already mentioned 0 - 1-reduced forms, game theory also considers 1-0 - reduced forms.
More on the topic § 7. O - 1-REDUCED FORM:
- 6.10. Perron's criterion and its generalization6.10.1. Perron criterion
- 7.2. Cointegrated time series. Error Correction Models
- 2.4 Recommendations for improving methods for providing content services by cellular operators in the regional market.
480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays
Stoika Daria Andreevna. Reduced forms of Russian speech: linguistic and extra linguistic aspect s: dissertation... candidate of Philological Sciences: 02.10.01 / Stoika Daria Andreevna; [Place of defense: Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education St. Petersburg State University], 2017
Introduction
CHAPTER 1. Oral spontaneous speech as an object of linguistic research 17
1.1. Oral speech as the main form of existence of language 17
1.2. About genres oral speech 25
1.3. Phonetic specificity of oral spontaneous speech
1.3.1. Reduced forms of high-frequency words in the “supercore” of the lexical system of the Russian language 33
1.3.2. Norm and implementation of oral spontaneous speech
1.4. Codification of pronunciation norms: retrospective and current state 44
1.5. Dynamics of lexicographic fixation of reduced forms of Russian everyday speech 58
1.6. Corpus approach to speech research 63
CHAPTER 2. Reduced forms of Russian speech (linguistic aspect) 66
2.1. Research material. Principle of selection of high-frequency units 66
2.2. Types of phonetic reduction and reasons for its occurrence
2.2.1. Phonetic structure of word 69
2.2.2. Morphemic-phonetic structure of word 74
2.2.3. Frequency of a word or its form 75
2.2.4. Position of the word in syntagma 77
2.2.5. Speech rate 77
2.3. Signs of lexicalization of reduced forms 83
2.3.1. Pronunciation variability 85
2.3.2. Variation of spelling 93
2.3.3. Phonetization 95
2.3.4. Spelling 97
2.3.5. Graphic abbreviation 98
2.3.6. Desemantization, resemantization and pragmaticization 99
2.3.7. Differentiation of meanings of full and reduced forms of a word 107
2.3.8. Completion of the process of lexicalization of reduced forms
2.4. Models for generating reduced forms 111
2.5. Reduced forms in the linguodidactic aspect (experience of lexicographic description) 115
CHAPTER 3. Reduced forms of Russian speech (extralinguistic aspect) 122
3.1. Materials and research methods 124
3.1.1. Creation of a research subcorpus. Balancing speech material and composition of informants 126
3.1.1.1. Gender 127
3.1.1.2. Age 129
3.1.1.3. Profession or occupation 132
3.1.2. Characteristics of a balanced subframe 134
3.2. Results of the study of reduced forms in the extralinguistic aspect 135
3.2.1. Dependence of the appearance of reduced forms on the gender of the speaker 137
3.2.2. Dependence of the appearance of reduced forms on the age of the speaker 139
3.2.3. Dependence of the appearance of reduced forms on the professional affiliation of the speaker 143
3.3. Conclusions 149
3.4. Prospects for the study of reduced forms in linguistic and extralinguistic aspects 150
Conclusion 153
List of abbreviations accepted in work 156
List of used literature 158
Introduction to the work
Relevance work is determined by the following factors: firstly, the allegro forms of high-frequency words in Russian speech are familiar today to any speaker or reader of Russian. AFs have long and very thoroughly taken their place in our speech and in written texts (the practice of recording them in writing goes back more than 200 years), and in Lately AFs are increasingly found in modern literature, in online communication, and simply on Internet sites. Secondly, the path to the complete lexicalization of allegre forms began a long time ago, as noted above, and is actively continuing before our eyes, providing an opportunity to witness the birth of new words, which explains the interest in studying the process of transition of reduced forms “from speech to language.”
Scientific novelty The work consists of compiling a corpus of allegro forms, describing their variability in both forms of speech, features of functioning and reasons for their occurrence. For the first time, AFs are described from the point of view of their orthographic representation, their pronunciation is analyzed for the first time on the material of spontaneous speech, organized in a corpus, and models of linguistic evolution are identified using the example of AFs. In addition, the materials of the Sound Corpus of the Russian Language (ZKRYA), in particular, the block “One Speech Day” (ORD), make it possible to analyze the features of the use of allegro forms in the spontaneous speech of various speakers, taking into account their social characteristics, as well as to study the functioning of AF in various communicative situations.
Theoretical significance The research consists, firstly, in describing and differentiating the causes of AF. Secondly, in describing the stages of the process of formation of a new word, on its way to obtaining lexicographic fixation. In addition, the theoretical chapter of the work describes the history of recording pronunciation features in dictionaries of the 17th-21st centuries. The results of the study may be useful for specialists in oral spontaneous speech in any linguistic analysis of Russian texts and, in general, for further research into spontaneous speech.
Practical significance research is determined by the fact that the presence of a body of reduced forms, with maximum full description units in their oral and written existence, can be very useful in the practice of teaching the Russian language in a foreign language audience. The inclusion of such forms in materials for teaching foreigners will help the teacher
Russian phonetics to teach a foreign language student to perceive allegro forms by ear and visually and correctly correlate them with the corresponding complete ones (that is, to understand what is heard).
Research hypothesis: reduced forms of high-frequency words in Russian speech represent a special group of units that function both in oral and writing, characterized by maximum variability, as well as being at different stages of the path “from speech to language”, which, ultimately, can lead to the lexicalization of one or another form and its receipt of lexicographic fixation.
Provisions for defense:
Allegrian forms of Russian speech are not a fact of “damage”, but of the evolution of the language; the process of their lexicalization, or the path “from speech to language,” proceeds literally before our eyes and can end with the complete lexicalization of one form or another and the receipt of its lexicographic fixation.
The process of speech reduction occurs according to various models: (1) full form (PF 1) (AF = PF 2) ( sir -With); (2) PF 1 (AF = PF 2) (twice reduced form (DAF) = PF 3) ( you see you see look); (3) PF 1 (AF = PF 2) set of DAF n ( please, sir Please please, please, please and so on.); (4) [*PF 1 (AF 1 = PF 2)] + (PF 3 *AF 2) (AF 3 = PF 4) ((* activities de) + (say *roll) = they say); (5) PF 1 (set of AF n = set of PF n) ( quiet shh! +shh! +tsh! + chsh!+tss! + ss!).
On the way “from speech to language”, AF can go through several stages of lexicalization: change (variability) of the sound and written appearance, desemantization, resemantization and pragmaticization of the unit; At the same time, on a synchronous cross-section, different AFs of Russian speech are at different stages of this path.
The functioning of allegre forms in a person’s speech can be one of the signs that allows one to identify the speaker’s belonging to a particular social group: gender, age or professional. The groups of young people (under 30 years of age) and “manual workers” are most clearly distinguished by this parameter.
5.
Allegro forms should become part of educational materials in practice
teaching Russian as a foreign language, which will help
RFL teacher to teach a foreign language student to perceive AF in
auditory and visual, as well as correctly correlate them with the corresponding
full forms.
Approbation of work. Main provisions and results of the study
were presented at all-Russian scientific conferences at the Russian State Pedagogical University named after. A. I. Herzen “The Word. Dictionary. Literature: The text of the dictionary and the context of lexicography" and "Dynamic processes in language, speech and dictionary" (St. Petersburg, 2009, 2015), international conference students, graduate students and young scientists "Lomonosov" (Moscow, 2010), international conference of young philologists at the University of Tartu (2010), conference AATSEEL - American Association of Teachers of Slavic and Eastern European Languages (USA; 2011), international virtual conference on Russian studies , literature and culture " Educational technology in the virtual linguistic-communicative space" (USA; 2011), XIII and XIV conferences at the Nevsky Institute of Language and Culture "Nevsky Readings" (St. Petersburg, 2011-12), III conference young Slavists (Budapest, 2013), XLIII, XLIV and XLV International Philological Conferences (St. Petersburg, 2014-16), International scientific conference“Voices of the city: linguistic variability and communicative diversity” (St. Petersburg, 2015). 20 works were published on the topic of the dissertation, of which 4 were published in journals recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation.
Dissertation structure. The work includes an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, lists of accepted abbreviations, used literature and dictionaries, as well as six appendices, which provide, in particular, lists of reducing units (lexemes, word forms or entire phrases), a frequency list of their implementations and a complete set of options of all identified AFs. In addition, a special dictionary of reduced forms of high-frequency words in Russian speech (on electronic media) is attached to the work.
Codification of pronunciation norms: retrospective and current state
Language is a living organism that is in constant motion and evolves. In the history of the Russian language, a process has been taking place for several centuries that can be called the “allegrization” of the phonetic structure of a word (cf.: tea, seba-sya, really something, you see, you see), in which the allegristic form becomes the norm of the language, a full-fledged lexical unit. Even superficial observations of the functioning of such forms in our speech convince us that here we are dealing with the fact of linguistic evolution taking place literally before our eyes. Turning to the language corpora - Sound and National (NKRY) - easily convinces how widespread these forms are in our speech and how long ago they received their written representation, and then a lexicographic description.
This chapter deals with the main source of the emergence of allegre forms - spontaneous speech, its phonetic specificity and the reflection of pronunciation features in dictionaries, starting with the minimal orthoepic characteristics of the word (stress) in dictionaries already in the 17th century and ending with a full range of various recommendations for pronunciation in the dictionaries of the most recent years publications
Oral speech (UR) is sounding speech that functions in the sphere of direct communication, and in a broader sense it is any sounding speech (see, for example: Zemskaya 1979b: 363; 1997: 582-583; Tumina 2005: 529-531) . Interest in the study of live oral speech has remained stable and even increasing for a very long time. This is explained by the fact that oral speech, in contrast to written speech, “is the first and true state of language, and every language is revealed in its fullness only in living use, in the speech of the speaker (author’s emphasis. - D.S.)” (Humboldt 1960: 68), “sound matter is the only mandatory form existence of language" (Zinder 1997: 11). Historically, the oral form of speech is primary; it arose much earlier than writing. N.V. Bogdanova notes that living speech is primary not only chronologically, in terms of the time of its occurrence, but also in the influence that it has on a person as a person, as an individual, as a native speaker: “With the help of a living word, people communicate with each other friend, the living word helps and heals; the written form of speech is built on its basis, creating all the conditions for the formation of an exemplary variety national language– codified Russian literary language(KLYA)" (Bogdanova 2001: 6).
Written speech, both in the history of society and in the life of an individual, appears significantly later than oral speech and is formed on its basis. The importance of written speech is extremely great. It is in it that the entire historical experience of human society is consolidated. Thanks to writing, the achievements of culture, science and art are passed on from generation to generation. The main function of written speech is the fixation of the literary language, with the goal of preserving it in space and time: “Writing is a means of communication between people in cases where direct communication is for some reason impossible for them, that is, practically when they are separated by space (geographically) ) or time (chronologically)” (Shcherba 1974: 191). The main property of written speech is the ability to store information for a long time: “The written form of the literary language is carefully recorded, convenient for observation and detailed study. It is the results of these studies of the written form of modern CL that primarily constitute the content of dictionaries and grammars, are the subject of study at school and university, and also the main object scientific description.
Living speech, remaining as if in the shadow of its written model, nevertheless retains its leading role in human life, its primary essence and amazing power of influence on native speakers” (Bogdanova 2001: 6-7). Oral speech is much more active than written speech: we talk and listen more than we write and read3. Wider and its expressive capabilities. The English playwright B. Shaw remarked on this matter that “there are fifty ways to say yes and fifty ways to say no, and only one way to write it” (quoted from: she 2002: 19).
But awareness great power sounding word requires the correct use of units of live speech. This is especially true for the most active representatives of the speaking society, who shape the state of modern living speech, exerting a decisive influence on all other speakers of the Russian language. Among these most active representatives of the speech community, V.V. Khimik includes young people, journalists, government officials, politicians, businessmen, creative and technical intelligentsia (see: Khimik 2004: 7). Being “the most linguistically influential social categories of persons speaking Russian,” they “to some extent determine the future development of the Russian language as a whole” (ibid.). L.A. Verbitskaya wrote about the responsibility of those who bring the living word to us: “The circle of people whose speech in a certain way influences the speech of others has expanded and therefore must be correct. Oral speech has become a means of even wider communication than written language” (Verbitskaya 2013: 3).
Phonetic structure of the word
A relevant question is the answer to which is in the book by I. A. Veshchikova: what gives the right to classify dictionaries with such different names as dictionaries of the same type - orthoepic? The fact is that the goals, objectives, and types of lexicographic information in all of them turn out to be similar.
From the point of view of the tasks solved by the dictionary, most of the listed publications follow the tradition laid down by the first dictionaries of this kind: they provide answers to specific questions about the correct pronunciation of individual words and expressions, serve as manuals on general issues of Russian literary pronunciation and stress, and contain warning instructions for those cases when the pronunciation or stress of a word does not correspond to the norms of the modern Russian literary language, but is widespread in the speech of speakers. Thus, all the dictionaries under consideration have a common goal - recording literary pronunciation norms.
The question arises about the presentation of literary pronunciation norms by dictionaries - the question of norm and variability. Dictionaries of orthoepic type are normative dictionaries. However, normativity does not exclude the presence of variants: “variability of the norm is recognized as a natural phenomenon of the literary language” (Eskova 1997: 307). Dictionaries solve this problem in two ways.
The first approach to solving the issue of pronunciation options is reflected in the “Dictionary of Stresses for Radio and Television Workers” (Ageenko, Zarva 1960). Of the equal pronunciation variants coexisting in the language, the dictionary recommends only one, so as not to provoke inconsistency on the air. On the one hand, such a solution helps to cope with the problem of choosing from two equal options, but, on the other hand, the question of “which of the remaining options have the status of literary, and which and to what extent compromise the speech of the one who uses them” ( Veshchikova 2007: 54), remains open.
The second way to solve the problem is that the dictionary must reflect all variants of the norm existing at a given stage of language development and, as accurately as possible, qualify them. A similar point of view was expressed by L.V. Shcherba: “Very often the norm allows two ways of expression, considering both to be correct. A standard dictionary would act extremely carelessly if it rejected one of them, guided by the sheer arbitrariness or personal taste of the editor: we must not forget that synonymy is the wealth of the language, which allows it to develop, providing the speaker or writer with ample opportunities for more subtle nuances of their thoughts (the same applies, of course, to emerging literary languages, where at first glance it sometimes even seems that there is no norm at all, but upon closer examination it turns out that it is simply very broad)” (Shcherba 1974e: 277). This approach is reflected in almost all spelling-type dictionaries. According to K.S. Gorbachevich, “a figure of silence regarding fluctuations and variants of the norm hardly contributes to a scientifically organized language policy, since it deprives it of its main component - a dialectical approach to a continuously evolving (emphasis added - D.S.) object. The requirements for absolute invariance of norms do not correspond to the modern state of the Russian literary language” (Gorbachevich 1978: 3). Language develops, so it is impossible to keep norms unchanged, and it is even more impossible to reduce the whole variety of linguistic facts to a simple opposition between norm and abnormality. There is a special scale of normativity that adequately reflects the real state of affairs, i.e., it qualifies options that are within the norm from the point of view of their admissibility, stylistic coloring, rate of speech, etc.
The system for qualifying variants adopted in the first orthoepic dictionary (Orthoepic Dictionary 1983) is supported by the majority of dictionaries of the orthoepic type, and the composition of modern dictionaries is largely based on the ideas of R. I. Avanesov and S. I. Ozhegov. “The qualification of options recognized as being within the norm comes down to three cases: a) Options are recognized as equal (connected by the union and); examples: thinker [sl and sl] ...; b) One of the options is recognized as less desirable (it is assessed as acceptable - acceptable); examples: cottage cheese and allow. cottage cheese … ; c) One of the options, recognized as less desirable, is additionally characterized as older, on the way to extinction (possibly obsolete - permissibly obsolete); examples: hypocrisy and tolerance. outdated hypocrisy" (Eskova 2005: 24). Dictionaries record various types of pronunciation and accentological variants: variants related to the time scale, variants associated with the stylistic dimension, variants typical for a particular sphere of functioning of the literary language (labels “in official speech”, “in poetic speech”, “in professional speech”, “colloquial”, “in common speech”, etc.).
Differentiation of meanings of full and reduced forms of a word
Despite the unusual phonetic appearance of this unit (see Fig. 3), it is understandable and easily recognizable in speech due to its frequent use and, therefore, predictability in a specific communicative situation. According to L. R. Zinder, it is precisely this property of language, such as redundancy, that makes it possible to recognize phonetically distorted units: “The high redundancy of the language, indicating the primacy of the semantic side over the sound side, ensures the identification of individual units of utterance even if their sound appearance is defective” (Zinder 1981: 106).
The speaker neglects the external form of the statement not only in everyday communicative situations, but also in official communication. IN scientific literature The hypothesis that the appearance of reduced variants is not characteristic of the official style of communication has long been refuted: “Such forms, as observations have shown, are found not only in fluent colloquial speech, but also in the official business style of communication” (Bogdanova 2008: 31). The presence of uncodified forms of literary words in official communication was considered a sign of new times and was explained by the weakening of the “rigid framework of official public communication” (Zemskaya 2000: 13). Options like vobsche, voshche, sche, in the words of M.V. Panov, are “quite literary” and do not “hurt the ear” (Panov 1967: 276), not only when aimed at informal communication. Whatever we talk about, in our speech there are elements of both codified and colloquial (real) norms: “It is well known that any oral speech is characterized by the presence of reduced word forms to one degree or another. Such a reduction, according to our data, is regularly observed even in the full style of pronunciation, for example, in texts solemnly read by the famous speaker Yuri Levitan. But the reduction manifests itself most clearly and on a large scale, of course, in spontaneous speech” (Ventsov 2012: 44). Thus, during the analysis of the phonetic implementation in spontaneous speech of the words what and what, it was established that the speech of the same informant contains both normative implementations of what, what, and
and colloquial options, “and these options are not always associated with the features speech communication(official-informal style of communication)” (Ryko 2010: 109). Thus, compressed pronunciation options are not only acceptable, but quite natural in any functional variety oral literary speech, regardless of their significance in cultural and social terms.
Having long ago been thoroughly entrenched not only in our spontaneous oral form, but also in the written form of the language, many allegre forms claim to receive the status of full-fledged units of our lexicon. Analysis of materials from the Sound and National Corpuses of the Russian language showed that modern AFs are at different stages of movement towards a new status of an independent word, and made it possible to identify the peculiar stages of lexicalization of these forms in the language, which are described below.
As noted above, allegra forms are not only a phenomenon of oral speech. The existence of a written recording of the AF of Russian speech is confirmed by turning to the materials of the National Corpus of the Russian Language. From the numerous examples found in the NKRY, it is clear how widely and diversely the seemingly speech, compressed, forms of many high-frequency words are represented in the written form of the Russian language. Examples have shown that AFs have long and very thoroughly taken their place in the written form of the Russian language, i.e. they have begun the path to complete lexicalization - in the words of N.V. Bogdanova, the path “from speech to language” (Bogdanova 2008: 31). The practice of recording allegre forms in writing goes back more than 200 years and goes back to D. I. Fonvizin, V. V. Vyazemsky, N. G. Pomyalovsky, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, D. N. Mamin-Sibiryak, N. S. Leskov, F. M. Dostoevsky and A. P. Chekhov. Wed. the earliest examples of AF fixation:
Recently, in modern spontaneous written speech (literary texts, Internet communication), one can increasingly find abbreviated versions of high-frequency words (see, about them, for example: Andryushchenko 2011), and the range of variability in their orthographic representation is quite wide. The written recording of AF, as well as a number of other processes, which will be discussed below, testify to the lexicalization of modern reduced forms taking place literally before our eyes.
It seems that on the way to obtaining lexicographic (or simply written) fixation, one or another speech unit must go through several stages of changing its properties: phonetic, semantic, pragmatic, etc. The frequency of use of a unit leads, first of all, to a change in its sound and written appearance , then to desemantization (weakening the connection between form and content), resemantization (the acquisition of a new meaning by a unit) and - at the final stage - to its pragmaticization (a change in the speech functions of the unit).
The processes of desemantization of a unit, or “washing out” of semantics, as well as its resemantization, expand the range of contexts in which it can function, as a result of which the part-speech affiliation of the word may also change. Acquiring new semantics, pragmatics and prosody, as well as syntactic independence, individual lexemes move to the communicative-pragmatic level of language and sometimes become purely pragmatic units. Thus, the processes of desemantization, resemantization and pragmaticization can lead to the emergence of a new, independent unit.
On modern stage In the development of language, some allegra forms of high-frequency words, having received a new orthoepic and orthographic appearance, also acquire a new semantic-stylistic and/or pragmatic status, for example AF shchas (now), zdrast e (hello), vashche (in general), zhys (life).
An appeal to the Sound Corpus of the Russian language revealed the limits of phonetic variability of many allegre forms29. It is most convenient to illustrate the range of options using the material of interjections, which are distinguished by their high frequency and very unstable phonetic appearance. Thus, the interjection (etiquette form) please in everyday speech of native Russian speakers is represented by 8 different sound options:
Results of the study of reduced forms in the extralinguistic aspect
When considering the influence of social factors on speech, it should be taken into account that it rarely manifests itself in its “pure form”; gender and age are mixed into the professional conditioning of speech. Since it is impossible to separate social and biological factors(each person has a whole set of such characteristics), it turns out to be difficult to distinguish between their influence in the real speech process: various deforming forces can act on the speech structure at the same time: gender, age, as well as the type of education and level of speech not analyzed in this work competence or, for example, psychological characteristics speaker. However, it can be assumed that within groups distinguished by one or another social characteristic, there is a certain general tendency in the choice of options, specific to each group. Thus, the analysis of gender groups showed a tendency towards a greater use of allegro forms in the speech of men and greater variability of AF in the speech of women. In age groups, there is a tendency to use predominantly allegro forms in the speech of the younger generation, and in the speech of older informants, the share of use of full forms exceeds the share of AF. The percentage ratio of PF and AF in each professional group of informants showed that a tendency to use AF in speech is observed among informants of such groups as “physical labor workers”, “representatives of law enforcement agencies” and “service sector workers”, and full forms predominate in speech “knowledge workers”, “office workers” and “creative intelligentsia”. Analyzing the total number of allegro forms found in the speech of the informants, we can conclude that the largest number of AFs is used by “physical labor workers,” and the smallest by representatives of the “creative intelligentsia.” The conducted study of reduced forms (in linguistic and extralinguistic aspects) provided answers to many questions raised about the causes of the emergence and features of the functioning of AF, but at the same time it posed new tasks and opened up ways for the future development of this topic. Despite the importance of this area of speech research, reduced forms have not yet received proper scientific description, which is due to the complexity and multimedia nature of the object of study - spoken speech. A full-fledged study of the system of such forms is impossible without the use of statistically representative speech material, reflecting the existing variability of phonetic forms in the language, as well as without special linguistic resources (multimedia corpora) and appropriate tools for processing and annotating speech data. The creation of the Sound Corpus of the Russian language opens up new opportunities for studying phonetic reduction and obtaining its systematic and statistical description.
The study conducted within the framework of this work showed that, based on the analyzed material, the frequency of use of reduced forms actually differs in the speech of different social groups, most often manifested in the speech of men, younger informants age group, as well as in the speech of “manual workers”. In addition, it is necessary to study the influence of other important factors– pragmatics of utterance and conditions of speech communication in a broad sense. Thus, the task of separating phonetic reduction itself from the speaker’s use of a reduced form as a stylistic device characteristic of a particular genre of oral speech, implemented in certain communicative conditions, or being a marker, is promising and fundamental. verbal communication certain social group, or the individual characteristics of the speaker.
This topic is also promising given the constant development of the language. Language evolves, lives: “Nothing in it stands still. Every word, every grammatical element, every expression, every sound and every intonation gradually changes its shape, submitting to the invisible but objectively existing drift that constitutes the essence of the life of language” (Sapir 1993: 157). Often, changes occur literally before the eyes of researchers, which explains the interest in studying, in particular, reduced forms, which, gradually becoming entrenched in our lexicon, become evidence of the development of language.