The language of the city of Ufa: the functioning of various language subsystems and bilingualism Nuriya Vinerovna Ismagilova. Main directions in the study of the city language Recommended list of dissertations

Full text of the dissertation abstract on the topic "The language of the city of Ufa: the functioning of various language subsystems and bilingualism"

As a manuscript

Ismagilova Nuria Vinerovna 00305"7E4E

LANGUAGE OF THE CITY OF UFA: FUNCTIONING OF VARIOUS LANGUAGE SUBSYSTEMS AND BILINGUISM

Specialty 02/10/19 - theory of language (in philological sciences)

dissertations for competition scientific degree candidate of philological sciences

The work was carried out at the Department of General and Comparative-Historical Linguistics of the State educational institution higher vocational education"Bashkir State University"

Scientific supervisor Doctor of Phytological Sciences, Professor

Ayupova Lyudmila Lutfeevna

Official opponents Doctor of Philology, Professor

Yakovleva Evgenia Andreevna,

Candidate of Philological Sciences, senior teacher Galimyanova Venera Rinatovna

Leading organization State educational institution

higher professional education "Ufa State Aviation Technical University", Department of Language Communication and Psycholinguistics

The defense will take place in May 2007 at a meeting of the dissertation council D 212 013 02 of the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Bashkir State University" at the address: 450074, Ufa, Frunze str., 32, room ^^Z

The dissertation can be found at scientific library Bashkir state university at 450074, Ufa, Frunze street, 32

Scientific secretary of the dissertation council / Ibragimova V L

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK

In connection with the ongoing process of urbanization, the city continues to be the most important object of study for a number of humanities: philosophy, sociology, ethnography, history, linguistics, etc. Therefore, it is necessary A complex approach to the study of the linguistic situation of the city Linguistic study of the city is only one aspect of this problem

The language of the city is one of the insufficiently developed issues of domestic linguistics. The study of this problem in our country began relatively recently. In the second half of the 20th century, there was a new surge of interest in this problem. Currently, the study of certain forms of oral urban speech is being carried out in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Ryazan, Voronezh, Saratov, Elista, Nizhny Novgorod, Izhevsk, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Yekaterinburg, Ufa, Kazan, Arkhangelsk, Omsk, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk and other Russian cities

The object of this study is the functioning of the language of a multinational city, and the subject of the study is the various subsystems of the language of the city of Ufa - colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon - as well as the process and results of interaction between the languages ​​of the peoples living in this city

The relevance of the dissertation research is related to the importance of studying the language of a large multi-ethnic city, which makes it possible to analyze the dynamics of the development of the modern Russian language, its territorial and social variation in conditions of bi- and multilingualism, as well as the need for a comprehensive study of the linguistic features of the language of at least all large Russian cities

The purpose of this work is to identify the specifics of the language of the city of Ufa, a comprehensive description and analysis of language subsystems functioning in the city, and to study the consequences of language contacts within one large administrative-territorial unit

To achieve the stated goal of the study, it was necessary to solve the following problems

Identify the main historical, social and linguistic factors that influenced the formation of the language of Ufa,

To study the composition of the names of urban objects and their functioning in the city,

Consider the structure of the language of the city of Ufa from a linguistic and sociolinguistic perspective,

Identify and describe the main language subsystems operating in the city,

Explore the results of interaction between Russian and Turkic languages ​​in the city

All identified problems and assigned tasks are posed and solved taking into account the results and achievements in the field of the theory of general linguistics, Russian studies, domestic and foreign sociolinguistics

In accordance with the purpose and objectives, the following research methods were used: descriptive analysis using classification and comparison techniques, contextological analysis, interpretive analysis, observation

The theoretical basis of the dissertation is the works of famous Russian scientists B A Larin, L P Yakubinsky, V M Zhirmunsky, L I Barannikova, V A Avrorin, Yu D Desheriev, A D Schweitzer, F P Filin, V V Kolesov, L P Krysin, N A Baskakova, L A Kapanadze, E V Krasilnikova, E A Zemskaya, O A Lapteva, L I Skvortsova, O B Sirotinina, O P Ermakova, T I Erofeeva, L A Shkatova, Z. S. Sanji-Garyaeva, B I. Osipova , N A Prokurovskaya, M M Mikhailov, A E Karlinsky, L L Ayupova, E A Yakovleva, K 3 Zakiryanov and others, as well as foreign researchers B Baichev, M Videnov, J Gampertz, U Weinreich, C Fergusson, E Haugen, R Bell, J Fishman, U Labov, R I McDavid, etc.

The material for our research was primarily records of oral speech of Ufa residents contained in the card index of the Department of General and Comparative Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University, our own observations of the speech of Ufa residents, materials from various linguistic dictionaries, local history sources containing information on the history of various places in Ufa , statistics and results sociological research, maps of Ufa, city guides In total, about 3,000 thousand lexical units and 5,000 contexts were considered (mainly statements that contained lexemes necessary for analysis) During the analysis speech material nationality, gender, age, education of informants were taken into account

The scientific novelty of the research is as follows

For the first time, a comprehensive study and description is carried out current state language of Ufa, a large multinational city,

The system of official and unofficial names of urban objects of a given city is analyzed,

The features of various language subsystems of Ufa and the specifics of their functioning are studied,

The results of interaction between the three most common languages ​​in the city (interference, intercalation, borrowing) are considered.

The theoretical significance of this work is determined by the fact that the observations and conclusions made during the study allow a deeper understanding of the nature of the functioning of various language subsystems in a large multi-ethnic city and can be useful in similar studies using linguistic material from other cities. Study of the functioning of various subsystems of the language of urban residents, results interaction different languages in a given city, should contribute to the study of the language of other Russian cities

The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the results of our research can be used in training courses and special courses in general linguistics, the course “Sociolinguistics Psycholinguistics”, when creating

textbooks for the special course “Language of the City”, compiling a dictionary of the language of the city (based on the language of the city of Ufa)

1 Various subsystems of the Ufa language colloquial speech, vernacular, semi-dialect, zharyun - is characterized by territorial variation, especially clearly manifested at the level of vocabulary, due to the remoteness of the city from the capital, the influence of a multinational urban environment and characterized by the presence of various specific lexemes, a large number of borrowings at the level of language and speech, in particular from Turkic languages

2 Of all the subsystems of the city’s language, the most common means of communication for people born in Ufa is Russian everyday colloquial speech interspersed with colloquial and slang elements

3 Everyday (everyday) colloquial speech of the residents of Ufa is not strongly influenced by dialects, such as, for example, colloquial speech in various cities of the Ural region (Perm, Chelyabinsk, etc.) It is generally focused on the capital’s language pattern at the phonetic, lexical, grammatical levels , although its variation in a multilingual environment is inevitable

4 In Ufa there is a mass national contact heterogeneous bilingualism

Testing of results and practical implementation of the work. The main provisions of the dissertation and the results of the research were presented in reports and communications at various conferences, namely at the international scientific conference “Sentence and Word” (Saratov, September 2005), All-Russian scientific conferences“Ural-Altai through the centuries into the future” (Ufa, June 2005) and “Science and Education-2005” (Neftekamsk, October 2005), interregional scientific and theoretical conference “Literature, language and artistic culture in modern processes sociocultural communication"(Ufa, October 2005), interregional scientific-practical conference“Language policy and language construction in the Republic of Bashkortostan (Ufa, November 2005), the republican conference of young scientists “Current problems of philology” (Ufa, April 2005) - as well as at 3 meetings of the interuniversity postgraduate seminar on topical problems of modern linguistics in philological Faculty of Bashkir State University in 2005, 2006 ir The main content of the dissertation is reflected in eight publications

Some materials and theoretical aspects of our work were used during seminars and practical classes in the course “Sociolinguistics Psycholinguistics” at the Faculty of Philology of Bashkir State University (2004-2005 academic year)

The dissertation was discussed at a meeting of the department of general and comparative historical linguistics of Bashkir State University

Structure and scope of the dissertation. The dissertation consists of an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion. At the end of the dissertation there is a biblio! raffia and app

The introduction provides a rationale for the choice of topic, argues for its relevance and scientific novelty, defines the object and subject of the research, formulates its purpose and objectives, characterizes the material being studied and methods for its analysis, reveals the theoretical significance and practical value of the dissertation work, describes its structure

The first chapter, “City Language as a Linguistic Problem,” provides an overview scientific literature on the issue being studied, an idea is given of the language of the city and its main components of colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon

§ 1 “From the history of studying the language of the city” briefly describes the history of the study of this problem

In domestic linguistics, as a rule, there are two main directions of studying the language of the city - linguogeographical and sociological

Representatives of the linguistic and geographical direction point to the need to study literary language in a spatial projection, raise the question of its territorial variation under the influence of the dialect, supra-dialect and foreign language environment. The local coloring of the literary language in the 19th - early 20th centuries was pointed out by I I Sreznevsky I A Lundel, A I Sobolevsky, A I Thomson, V A Bogoroditsky, A A Shakhmatov, N M Karinsky and others Currently, local elements in literary colloquial speech are studied in the works of T I Erofeeva, E V Erofeeva, F L Skitova, L A Shkatova, O B Sirotinina, N A Prokurovskaya, 3 M Almukhamedova, N V Parikova, E. A. Yakovleva, L. L. Ayupova, etc.

Representatives of the sociological direction pay attention to the problem of the influence of social factors on the language of the city, the problem of social variation of language in the city, the linguistic competence of citizens, the study of the language situation of the city, urban bilingualism, the results of language contact in the city, etc. The theorist of this direction was B. A. Larin, who was the first to domestic linguistics (20s of the XX century) put forward the problem of a comprehensive study of the city language. The problem of the city language was also addressed by E D Polivanov, A M Selishchev, V V Vinogradov, LP Yakubinsky and others. The idea of ​​a comprehensive sociolinguistic approach to the study of the city language in recent decades finds itself in the works of 3 A Iskhakova on bilingualism in the cities of Tatarstan, L Grumaden on the problem of social conditioning of speech variation in Vilnius, X Paunonen on the social variation of Finnish colloquial speech in the cities of Helsinki, Tampere, Turku and Jyväskylä, B Baichev and V Videnov on a Bulgarian city Veliko Tarnovo, in a collective interdisciplinary study of urban bilingualism in Brussels, etc.

In § 2 “The language of the city as a linguistic problem” the essence of the concept “language of the city” is revealed. The following terms are used in the scientific literature, synonymous with the concept of “language of the holy fool”: “linguistic appearance of the modern city”, “linguistic life of the city”, “single language of everyday communication” ”, “linguistic state of the city”, “linguistic formations existing in the city”, “language of the urban population”, “language of the city collective”, “living speech of the city”, etc.

It should be noted that some of these concepts are either too generalizing (the linguistic state of the city, the linguistic appearance of the modern city), or affect only one aspect of this problem (a single language of everyday communication). The difficulty of creating a single term to designate a given linguistic object is due to the need to combine in one concept diverse phenomena that make up the language of the city

The language of the city is heterogeneous in its structure; within its composition one can distinguish various linguistic subsystems that are in constant interaction with each other. These include the literary language, colloquial(lowered language of everyday communication), vernacular, semi-dialect, jargons, argot, various professional languages, etc. Each of the subsystems of the city’s language is characterized by its own set of characteristics and has its own range of speakers, and two varieties of language and more of them can coexist in the minds of one individual. In the study of the language of a multinational city, it is also necessary to take into account the interaction of different languages ​​with each other in a particular city and the consequences of such language contact. In addition to the approach to the language of the city from the point of view of the subsystems that make it up, it is possible to outline other aspects of the study of this object. For example, written and oral forms of urban speech in the form of analysis of written texts created by residents of a particular city, and tape recordings of spontaneous and prepared speech of citizens. Research can also be carried out different kinds communications in the city personal, public, mass, public, etc. The sociolinguistic approach includes the study of the linguistic situation of the city, urban bi- and multilingualism, etc.

In the work under review, the language of a city is defined as a set of different language subsystems that are in constant interaction, as well as codified and uncodified language means used by residents of a particular city in oral and writing, the combined use of which is not assessed as an unacceptable deviation from the norms of the literary language

In § 3 “The concept of colloquial speech” we analyze different approaches to the definition of colloquial speech

The study of colloquial speech as a special variety of literary language began in the 50s of the XX century, but the beginning of the study of oral informal, i.e. uncodified, speech was laid in the works of dialectologists of the 19th century. A study of urban colloquial speech of gay men in Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Perm, Samara, Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Saratov, Taganrag (Voronezk, Astrakhan, etc.

In linguistics, various terms are used to denote spoken language: “oral speech”, “direct spoken language”, “oral-spoken language”, “oral-spoken style”, “conversational style”, etc.

Among scientists there is no unambiguous understanding of the term “colloquial speech.” It has different meanings. Understanding colloquial speech as an oral variety of the Russian literary language is typical for the works of O. A. Lapteva, B. M. Gasparov, etc.

Colloquial speech is considered one of the functional styles of a literary language: V G Kostomarov, A N Vasilyeva, M A Kormilitsyna, L K Pavlova, E A Stolyarova (Klochkova), etc.

E A Zemskaya, Yu M Skrebnev separate Russian colloquial speech from the codified literary language and consider it as an independent phenomenon opposed to it

I. R. Galperin considers colloquial speech to be a special type of speech, opposed to all book styles of speech at once, and not to each of them separately.

Other scientists (O B Sirotinina, G G Infantova) interpret the concept of “colloquial speech” broadly. According to O B Sirotinina, we can talk about literary, dialect and other varieties of colloquial speech. In later works, O V Sirotinina distinguishes different types of speech cultures. Delineation of types of cultures. and their carriers are made on the basis of such criteria as level of education, family relationships, age. AB Sirotinina identifies following types speech culture elite, “average literary”, literary-colloquial and familiar-colloquial These types unite native speakers of a literary language The dominant type is the “average literary” type

G A Orlov also distinguishes between the literary variety of colloquial speech, using the term “colloquial literary speech”, and the reduced variety, calling it “everyday speech”. Based on the classification of G A Orlov, A N Eremin distinguishes two forms, two registers of colloquial speech - colloquial literary and everyday colloquial From his point of view, the latter variety in the strict sense of the word cannot be called literary. In our study, we prefer to use the terminology of G. A. Orlov and A. N. Eremin

§ 4 “The concept of vernacular” gives an idea of ​​this phenomenon Scientific study vernacular began in the works of domestic linguists of the 19th and first third of the 20th centuries A A Shakhmatov, A I Sobolevsky, S P Obnorsky, V V Vinogradov, LP Yakubinsky, B A Larin, G O Vinokur and DR

Many researchers point out the ambiguity of the term “vernacular.” Most often, this term is used in two meanings: 1) vernacular is one of the forms of the national language, along with dialects, jargons and literary language, which represents the speech of the poorly educated urban population and has a supra-dialectal character, that is , in contrast to dialects and jargons, is generally understandable to native speakers of the national language, 2) vernacular - a set of linguistic means of a reduced, crudely expressive nature, constituting a special stylistic layer of the literary language

According to the terminology of FP Filin, vernacular in the first meaning is extra-geratorial vernacular, and in the second meaning - literary vernacular. AE Zemskaya also calls literary vernacular expressive, and extra-geratorial - natural

Other researchers believe that one should not differentiate between two types of vernacular, since literary (expressive) vernacular is only “a form of existence of non-literary, natural, vernacular in the language fiction, journalism, in the colloquial speech of a native speaker of a literary language But still this is vernacular"1

Sometimes vernacular is interpreted broadly, since it means not only vernacular itself, but also jargons, argot, professional languages, that is, various uncodified varieties of the national language

In some cases, the term “vernacular” is identified with the terms “national Koine”, “urban Koine”, “semi-dialect”, but most researchers distinguish between these concepts

In addition to urban vernacular, some researchers talk about the vernacular of village residents, whose speech is significantly different from the archaic type of dialect

The place of vernacular in the system of the national language has been determined. It occupies an intermediate position between dialects and literary colloquial speech. It is no coincidence that it is difficult to distinguish vernacular elements from dialectal ones, as well as colloquial from colloquial ones. Many researchers (V Vinogradov, A N Gvozdev, GF Mitrofanov, L I Rakhmanova and others) draw attention to the fact that even in dictionaries the distinction between colloquial and colloquial, colloquial and dialect words is carried out inconsistently

If the dialect is usually uniform for a certain territory, then the vernacular of a large modern city is heterogeneous. It consists of different dialect elements. Therefore, it has such features as supra-dialectality and territorial non-attachment, that is, “the vernacular cannot be attributed to any locality and associated with any specific a dialect or a group of dialects"2 Researchers also identify other features of vernacular speech, such as non-normativity, spontaneity of functioning, low social prestige, etc.

In domestic linguistics, the prevailing opinion is that vernacular is asystemic, non-normative, functionally monotonous, and does not know genre divisions (V D Devkin, E A Zemskaya, M V Kitaygorodskaya, etc.) But over the past ten years, works have appeared in the domestic science in which researchers prove the existence of regional vernacular norms

As can be seen from the above, the term “vernacular”, due to its polysemy, is vague, which is undesirable for any understanding apparatus scientific discipline. However, despite some vagueness of the concept

1 Eremin A N Vernacular - The norm! English-explanatory dictionary - Speech of a native speaker of a literary language // Semantics Functioning Text - Kirov, 2001 - P 15

2 Krysin L G1 Relationships between modern literary language and vernacular // Russian language at school - 1988 - No. 2 - P 82

“vernacular”, it continues to be actively used, obviously due to tradition. We also use this term in our research. The subject of our research is vernacular as one of the forms of the national language, which is the speech of the poorly educated urban population who do not speak the norms of the Russian literary language

In § 5. “Relationship of the concepts “jargon”, “argot”, “slang”, a distinction is made between these terms

The concept of “jargon” has different contents. Traditionally, jargon is interpreted as “a type of speech used primarily in oral communication by a separate, relatively stable social group that unites people based on profession, position in society, interests or age”3 This term is universal

In some works, the term “argo” appears as a synonym for the term “jargon” (O S Akhmanova, D E Rosenthal, M A Telenkova). However, most often, researchers usually distinguish between the terms “jargon” and “argo.” The term “argo” began to be used under the influence of French sociological school of linguistics, where it was understood in the meaning of “special language.” As a rule, argot is interpreted as any secret, conventional language. For example, V. D. Bondaletov understands argot as the conventional, or secret, languages ​​of itinerant traders, artisans and related social and professional groups In a narrow sense, argo denotes a way of communication among declassed elements, primarily criminals (L I Skvortsov, V M Zhirmunsky, etc.)

The terms “jargon” and “slang” often do not differ (V S Elistratov, S V Vakhitov) If these terms differ, then slang can be understood as youth or professional jargon

Thus, some terminological instability remains in the delimitation of the concepts “jargon”, “argot”, “slang”

We believe that the terms “jargon”, “argot” and “slang” must be distinguished. By jargon we understand one of the forms of the national language, which is a means of oral communication of a separate stable social or other group united by common interests and contains a large number of lexical means, different from commonly used, including artificial, sometimes conventional ones. By slang we mean youth jargon, and by argot we mean conventional, or secret, languages

The classification of jargon is not developed deeply enough. However, as a rule, in scientific works the typology of social dialects is more often considered than the typology of jargon itself. One of the most famous typologies of social dialects is the typology of V. D. Bondaletov. He classifies social dialects as: I) the actual professional dialects (sublanguages, lexical systems) 2) group or corporate jargons (features of speech pupils, students, athletes, soldiers, sailors and others,

3 Linguistic encyclopedia / Chief editor VN Yartseva - 2nd ed. - M Great Russian Encyclopedia 1998 - P 43

predominantly youth groups), 3) conventional, or secret, languages ​​(argot) of artisans, otkhodniks and traders, 4) thieves' jargon (“thieves' music”) - the speech of declassed elements

S V Vakhitov proposes to distinguish the following types of jargon according to the social stratum of society, which has created its own subculture, largely predetermined by the way of life - thieves, metalheads, drug addicts, rappers, hippies, etc., according to the social stratum of people united by a common activity (study, work, service in the army, politics), - military, political, school, student, professional (railway, computer, police, etc.), according to the social stratum of people united by common interests in the field of leisure, - card players, speleologists, domino players, track players, football players fans, etc.

There are typologies of jargon on other grounds. Thus, according to the age of its speakers, children's, teenage and youth jargons can be distinguished; by locality - Moscow, St. Petersburg, Chelyabinsk, Ufa, etc. However, there are no strict boundaries between the jargon vocabulary of different social or professional groups. in one area can move into another, which is why scientists talk about the existence of a so-called general jargon, or interjargon

The second chapter, “Linguistic landscape of the city,” contains a study of the system of unofficial nominations of urban objects in Ufa. The beginning of the chapter provides brief historical and demographic information on the city of Ufa

Ufa was founded as a fortress in 1574. In 1586, Ufa received the status of a city. In the 17-18 centuries, it gradually transformed from a military settlement into the political and economic center of the region. Since 1708, the city has been part of the Kazan province, since 1728 it has been the center of the Ufa province, whose governor was subordinate directly to the Senate, since 1744 it has been part of the Orenburg province, in December 1781 it becomes the center of the Ufa governorate, in 1796 it is again subordinate to the Orenburg province, in 1802 it receives the status of a provincial city, since 1865 it has been the center of the Ufa province, since June 1922 - the capital of the BASSR, since 1991 - the capital of the Republic of Bashkortostan

The population of Ufa grew relatively quickly, especially in the 19th-20th centuries. If at the beginning of the 17th century there were only 279 inhabitants in the city, in the middle of the same century there were already about 1.5 thousand people, and at the end of the 18th century - more than 2 thousand. According to the census results In 1897, the population of Ufa was 49.3 thousand people, in 1913 - 100.7 thousand people, in 1939 - 250 thousand. people 1959 - 546.9 thousand people In 1981 - 10099.0 thousand People 1996 - 1099.4 thousand people According to the results of the All-Russian Census of 2002, the population of Ufa was 1042437 people, of which 476,205 people (45.7%) were men and 566,232 people (54.3%) were women

For a general designation of the realities of the urban structure and life, the following synonymous terms are used: “vocabulary of the holy fool” (E V Krasilnikova, L A Kapanadze), “with that in the urban environment” (K P Mikhalap, T V Shmeleva), “language code of the city” (L A Shkatova), “semiotics of the city” (N A Prokurovskaya)

You can also propose other terms for the general designation of objects of the urban environment, for example, “linguistic landscape of the city”, “linguistic space of the city”, etc. The presence of quite a large number of formulations indicates the difficulty of accurately reflecting in one term the totality of those phenomena that are meant by it. These terms leave room for a broader interpretation. The terms “city vocabulary”, “city word”, “city language code”, for example, can be understood as the entire set of lexical means used by residents of a particular city. In our research we use the term “ linguistic landscape of the city,” by which we mean a system of nominations reflecting the features of the urban space

The names of the realities of the urban structure include the following onomathemes of the urban linguistic landscape: 1) urbanonyms themselves, 2) the so-called “words on signs”, 3) the name of urban transport and its varieties

Urbanonyms (urbonyms, urbanisms) - a set of onomathemes naming intracity objects Urbanonyms of a modern city, from the point of view of N. V. Podolskaya, include the names of “bridges, squares, shopping arcades, streets, alleys, passages, parks, cemeteries, monuments, famous for -or houses, palaces, canals, stadiums"4

Urban horonyms include city horonyms (planar urbanonyms), hodonyms (linear urbanonyms), oikodomonyms, etc. Horonyms (planar urbanonyms) usually include the official names of territorial administrative districts, as well as unofficial urbanonyms naming microdistricts, urban settlements, individual sections of urban territory, having any features Hodonyms (linear urbanonyms) are the names of urban objects characterized by linear extension, namely the names of streets, boulevards, alleys, driveways, descents, tracts, lines, highways, embankments, entrances, avenues, dead ends Oikodomonym - “name own building Usually this is the name of a building in the city, which is known not only as an architectural monument, but also as an institution, in this case it is a type of ergonym"5

The linguistic landscape of the people of Ufa was formed gradually, as the city developed. The system of city names underwent serious changes at turning points in the history of the country. City names of Ufa of a particular period reflected the political, cultural, ideological atmosphere of their time

4 Podolskaya N. V. Urbanonymy of the ceitrate regions of the RSFSR // Issues of geography - 1974 - No. 94 - P 124

^ Podolskaya I V Russian Dictionary onomastic terminology-M Nauka, 1988 -C

The linguistic landscape of the city of Ufa is made up of official and unofficial nominations that reflect different types of speech culture. Official names are given to city objects administratively by local governments. Thus, this class of names is systematic and purposeful in nature, which brings them closer to the terms Unofficial names are secondary nominations

It can be argued that in the uncodified subsystems of the language of Ufa, a whole system of unofficial names has developed. The reasons for the emergence and functioning of uncodified nominations are different. Some designations arise as a means of linguistic economy, others help to distinguish between objects that have the same official names. An unofficial name sometimes appears in contrast to the official one for the purpose of language game, in order to create an expressive designation. In some cases, city residents may simply not know the full official name of the object and use only its unofficial version

If the creation of official nominations is purposeful, orderly, then in the “unofficial sphere a name often arises spontaneously and taking into account the mentality, lifestyle and activities of the urban population”6 Official names of the Soviet and post-Soviet period are predominantly complex formations consisting of two, three or more words (street General Gorbatogo Street, Bashkir Academic Drama Theater named after M. Gafuri, etc.), while unofficial nominations often have a simple, monosyllabic structure (Zelyonka - microdistrict "Green Grove", Knitwear - "Ufa Knitting Factory", etc.)

Unofficial nominations are characterized by variability, and also often have an emotional, evaluative and expressive connotation. Such nominations are often of an occasional nature. Many expressive unofficial nominations are formed in a semantic way, for example, Ufa Sahara, Desert - the unofficial names of the Sipaylovo microdistrict (due to the location of the microdistrict on the sandy bank of the Ufimka River ), Broadway - Lenin Street (one of the most beautiful and well-maintained streets in the city), etc. The most common word-formation methods for creating unofficial nominations are the following: a) suffixation Dimka - the unofficial name of the Demsky district of Ufa (from the Bashkir name Dim); b) semantic contraction (univerbation) Ordzhonik - the unofficial name of the Ordzhonikidze district, Khlopchatka - Ufa Cotton Mill, c) truncation Chernya - the unofficial designation of the Kalininsky district of the city (from Chernikovka), Gafur - Gafuri Street, etc., d) suffixation of the truncated stem “Molodezhka” - the unofficial name of the Molodezhny microdistrict, Belaga - the Belorechensky microdistrict, Nekhayka - Nekhaeva Street, Yubileyka, Yubilyashka Skirt - the Yubileiny Palace of Culture

6 Prokurovskaya N A The city in the mirror of its language On the linguistic material of Izhevsk -Izhevsk Publishing House of Udm University 1996 -P 61

A comparative study of official and unofficial urbanonyms of Ufa and other Russian cities makes it possible to say that the system of these nominations, differing in some nuances, demonstrates the commonality of both the principles and methods of naming, indicating the pattern of formation of these names, although the specific implementation of these principles and methods of nomination in the vocabulary of a city’s language are, as a rule, individual

The third chapter, “The functioning of various language subsystems in Ufa,” examines the three most common language subsystems in the city: colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon

In §1 “Features of colloquial speech of the city of Ufa” a description is given of the phonetic and lexical features of Ufa colloquial speech

Many features of oral colloquial speech at the phonetic, lexical, grammatical levels are discussed in detail in the fundamental works of E. A. Zemskaya, O. A. Lapteva, O. B. Sirotinina, etc. The phenomena described in these studies are also characteristic of Ufa colloquial speech

When considering the phonetic level of Ufa colloquial speech, it can be noted that in its system of vocalism the aka form of pronunciation (moderate akanie) predominates. Okanye, incomplete okanye, is found in the speech of speakers of the semi-dialect and migrants from various Ural regions. hard consonants in place of the orthographic o in the first pre-stressed syllable and the reduced [ъ] in the second pre-stressed and post-stressed syllables. A specific feature of the oral colloquial speech of the native Ufa people can be called the pronunciation of the long [L] in the first pre-stressed syllable, for example x[L]roshy, d[l] obviously, p[a]m[l]gi Because of this pronunciation, it seems to residents of other Ural cities that Ufa residents drawl out their words. A characteristic feature of the colloquial speech of Ufa residents is also a moderate hiccup in accordance with the literary pronunciation norm. However, in the speech of speakers of a semi-dialect, hiccups may occur, yak, yak

At the level of consonantism in the colloquial speech of the city of Ufa, there is a tendency towards hardening of the consonant before a soft consonant, for example, the hard pronunciation of labial and dental consonants before soft labial [vm"]este, [dv"]er, pol[zn"], etc., the pronunciation of [zh ] instead of [zh "] in the words yeast, squeal, rattle, burn, go, go, etc.

Most of the colloquial words in Ufa belong to commonly used vocabulary, known everywhere. A significant number of colloquial lexemes are the names of 1) enterprises, institutions, premises: rayonka - “district hospital”; confectioner - “confectionery factory”, etc.; 2) housing, such as the layout of apartments: five-story building - “five-story building”, etc., panel, concrete block - “house built from panel blocks”, etc., 3) vehicles ambulance - “ambulance”, passenger car - “passenger car” car", disabled woman - "car for disabled people", etc., 4) newspapers and magazines "Vecherka" - "Newspaper "Evening Ufa", "Molodezhka" - "Molodezhnaya Gazeta", "Voskreska" - "Voskresnaya Gazeta", 5) documents payment slip - “payment order”, record book - “grade book”, etc., 6) household items

twist - “sealing hook”, frost - “freezer”, etc., 7) leather jacket - leather jacket, denim jacket - “denim jacket, denim”, windbreaker - “windproof jacket”, etc., 8) shoes sandals - “ light summer shoes with a partially closed top, usually without backs", wedges - "shoes with soles that thicken towards the heel, as well as such soles themselves", etc., 9) food products - carrots - "carrots", potatoes - "potatoes" "and others, 10) money, types of payments cash - "cash, cash payment", non-cash - "non-cash payment, non-cash money", kopeck piece, three ruble five, etc. - "coins or banknotes of various denominations" etc., 11) persons according to various criteria: traffic cop (ustar) - “traffic police officer”, utility worker - “utility service employee” and much more

AT 2. “The Vernacular of Ufa” analyzes the phonetic, word-formation, grammatical, and lexical features of the Ufa vernacular

At the phonetic level of Ufa vernacular, the following phenomena are observed: the transition of [e] to [o] after soft consonants under stress in a number of cases that contradict the literary norm of modern [m"o]ny, [d"o]rzhit, etc., the presence of an inserted vowel in a word . ve[r"b]x, chetve[r"b]g, ku[l"u]turny and others, assimilation and dissimilation of vowels [kublu]ki, [muku]latura, [ant]tiresny (interesting), etc. , loss of vowels in pre-stressed and post-stressed syllables [sm]nevatsia, ki[pt"]ilnik, etc., contraction of vowels [p"i]nerka (pioneer), [n"i]byazatechno, etc., pronunciation of hard hissing [zh], [sh] instead of the pronunciation required by the literary norm of long soft hissing [zh"], [sh"] [sh]elka (click), pla[sh] (cloak), vop[she] (in general), etc., weakening of consonants, more often total affricates, for example [sъ]llofan (cellophane), zna[sh"]it (mean), do[sh"]ka (daughter), etc., affricatization of the whistling [s] kon[tse]rvy, [tsi]garka, assimilation and dissimilation of consonants se[r"]viz, shaking[p"k"i], [kur]kuchyator (calculator), [karak]ter (character), etc., diaeresis [zba] (hut), [l"ik ]tricka (electric train), [sk]uchit (get bored), etc., prostheses [¡e]that, [in]osty, etc., epentheses [pra]congratulate (congratulate), fe[nor]men (phenomenon), etc. p, metathesis ¡1o[zht]tsy (scissors), [dru]shlag (colander), [tub]retka (stool), etc., substitution of vowels or consonants, for example - [su]sed (neighbor), [b] atrushka (cheesecake), [fu]ligan (hooligan), etc. At the accentological level, it is natural for Ufa vernacular to shift the stress from the final to the non-final syllable (shop, quarter, briefcase), as well as the opposite tendency - placing stress on the final syllable case, cold, peasant

At the word-formation level, it should be noted the prevalence of the suffixes -ag(a) -ug(a"), -uh(a), -ezh-, -an-, -ai-, -tai-, -en-, -uy-, - l-, -ikh(a), -sh(a) in nouns (poor fellow, thief, hunger, blabbermouth, golovan, slobber, zchyden bolduy, gorge, doctor, librarian, etc.), suffixes -ush, -enn, -ast , -oe- -ev-, -in- for adjectives (thin, hefty, handy, engineer (machine), etc.), prefixes s-, y-, po- (instead of na-) for verbs of the owl type (demolish ( bring), think up (come up with, think up), keep up (have time), etc.), the suffix -anu- in verbs of the owl type (push, jump), etc. In addition, prefixes are often used, which introduce additional semantic

shade, but are excessive (lover, always, cheap, decide, etc.)

At the morphological level, the following features can be distinguished among colloquial nouns: the presence of correlative generic forms in persons with the meaning of kinship, professional affiliation spouse - spouse, author - author, etc., discrepancy between the gender and declension of the noun in colloquial speech and its gender and declension in the Russian literary language surname ( instead of surname), kiosk (instead of kiosk), bed (instead of bed), etc., the predominance of inflection -y in the forms gender and preposition pad ed h, (no sugar, full of snow, etc.); the use of inflection -e in the form of the sentence pad ed h instead of -u (e forest, in the corner), the dominance of inflection -a in the form im n mn h of nouns of all genders (queue, driver, hair, etc.), formation of the form im n mn h some nouns from the stem na using inflection -a (teeth, eyes), the predominance of inflection -ov/-ev in the form gender pad pln number of nouns m and sr (delov, right), etc.

Colloquial adjectives have the following features: the presence of contracted forms (a good girl, this thing is serious), the greatest productivity of the suffix -she in the formation of forms of comparative degree compared to the literary language (broader, longer), etc. In Ufa colloquial speech there are pronouns that do not exist in the literary language in the language personal (one), possessive (evon, ey, ikhny, ikha, iho, ihi, nashensky, vashenskii), demonstrative (entot, enta, ento, eftot, efta, efto), etc.

In colloquial verbs, the following features can be distinguished: the presence of alternation k//k\ g//g" in the forms of verbs with the base of the infinitive in -ch (burn - burn - burn, oven - bake - bake, etc.), changing some verbs to - speak in common parlance according to productive class I with the elimination of alternation (takes photographs, kisses, etc.), correspondence to the literary forms of verbs of the form with suff -ыва-/-iva- colloquial forms with suff -a- (to shake off, unfasten), etc., use of inflection -ut in the form of 3 l plural verbs of the second conjugation (smoke, ask, wear), etc., pronunciation -si (after consonants) and -sya (after vowels) in the forms 2 l ed h nast vr (feared, burned) When functioning verb forms, the following features are observed: the widespread use of forms ending in -lice (-mshi) (don’t eat, don’t spam, care.mshi, etc.), the functioning of passive participles with the suffix -t- (torn, cleaned), etc.

The characteristic features of Ufa vernacular at the syntactic level are the following prepositional-case disorder (This applies to everyone, He is a native of Bashkiria), the use of full adjectives and passive participles as a predicate instead short form(Yes, she agrees to everything, Potatoes there are boiled separately), the presence of constructions with the pronoun nobody, in which the verb agrees in number not with the given pronoun, but with the subject, expressed noun or personal pronoun (What, your parents didn’t go to the garden99 , The employees didn’t call you”), the use of a related subordinating construction consisting of the modal particle never and the conjunction so (He never, so

get drunk, loves sobriety, Masha never, to be rude, to shout, she is always so affectionate) etc.

The vocabulary of Ufa vernacular contains both lexemes of all-Russian vernacular (perhaps, I suppose - “probably”, painfully - “very”, hello - “quickly, soon, very”, zavsegda - “always”, etc.), and Ural regionalisms (tank and so - “so”, portamonet - “purse”, shorkat and shirkat - “to rub in order to clean”, etc.), as well as dialectisms (lelya - “godmother”, zakhmatny - “crazy”, vekhotka, vekhot - “washcloth”, Podlovka - “a pantry in a house, an attic”, etc.), borrowings from Turkic languages ​​(babai - “old man”, chumichka - “slob, dirty”, baybak - “lazy person”, aida - “go, let’s go”, etc.)

§3. “Ufa Jargon” is devoted to the study of the lexical features of Ufa jargon

When studying the Ufa interjargon, we set the task of identifying its distinctive features. A specific coloring of the Ufa jargon is given by jargons of Bashkir and Tatar origin, for example, sabantuy, sabantuychik - 1 “Any holiday” 2 “Party, noisy gathering”, 3 Chaos in the house, pogrom, allayar and allayarin - 1 “One who does not know how to behave in society” 2 “Simple” 3 “Village resident” (from the Turkic name Allayar), etc.

Speakers of Ufa slang also use complex formations, consisting of Russian and Turkic or only Turkic words, which are the result of a language game, for example, kolotun-babai - 1 “Father Frost” 2 “Severe frost”, strem-babai - “unpleasant, ugly person”, zur chief - iron “big” boss” (from Turkic zur - “big”), zur hi - “big hello”, etc.

In addition, in the jargon of Ufa there are special jargons recorded only in the “Dictionary of Ufa Slang” by S. V. Vakhitov and not found in other dictionaries of Russian jargon, such as archaeologist - 1 “A non-modern person interested in the past” 2 “A man of old habits”) , paher - “smell” (verb to smell), phlegma - “phlegmatic”, etc. Such lexemes can be called local jargon

Among local Ufa jargons, a special group consists of unofficial names of districts, microdistricts, streets and other city objects (see Chapter I). The specificity of Ufa jargon is also manifested in the fact that its polysemic lexemes, as a rule, are used in fewer meanings than the jargons described in various dictionaries of Russian jargon. For example, in the dictionary of S. V. Vakhitov, the lexeme call has the recorded meanings 1 “Disclose secrets” 2 “Chat”, and in the BSRG - meanings 1 “Shout, raise the alarm” 2 “Lie, deceive” 3 “Dismiss absurd rumors" 4 "Disclose thieves' secrets" 5 "Talk, chat" 6 "Serve a sentence in a correctional facility

In the Ufa jargon there are also specific stable expressions (slang phraseological units), noted only in VS Vakhitov’s dictionary, for example, take vipka - “not to believe”, chew paper - “rewrite a lecture”, see a running horse - “tell a lie”, etc.

The fourth chapter, “Interaction of the Russian language with the Turkic (Bashkir and Tatar) languages ​​in Ufa,” examines the results of contact between the three most common languages ​​in the city (Russian, Bashkir, Tatar), which manifest themselves in the form of interference, intercalation, borrowing, etc.

Interference phenomena that arise in the speech of Ufa bilingual residents are considered in accordance with language levels. The most characteristic manifestations of phonetic interference in the field of vocalism in the Russian speech of Turkic-speaking persons are the rounded pronunciation of the vowel [a] [contract] (contract), the short pronunciation [s] [ kamash] (reed), lack of vowel reduction in unstressed syllables [beard] (beard), [cow] (cow), confusion of vowels [ e] and [i] in strong and weak position, [p"is"n"a] (song), [khapad"is] (jellied meat), confusion of vowels [o] and [u] under the stress [mikarafun] (microphone), the presence of an inserted vowel when consonants coincide in one syllable [fakt] (fact), [t "ekst] (text), etc. In the field of consonantism, interference manifests itself in the form of replacement of the consonant sound [h] with the sound [sh"], due to the absence of the sound [h] in the Turkic languages ​​[sh"ashka] (cup), replacing the affricate [ts] with a whistling consonant [s] due to the absence of this sound in the vocalism system of the Tatar and Bashkir languages ​​[syfra] (digit), replacing the combination [st] with the sound [s], for example, turi [s], football [s], replacement of initial [p], [v] with sound [b] [bion] (peony), replacement of sound (v) with vowels [o] or [u] right [u]lno (correct), beggar [y ]o (nothing), non-distinction between hard and soft consonants, arising due to the fact that in Turkic languages ​​the sound composition of a word can include either only soft or only hard consonants [b"il"iz"n"a] (whiteness), [malshik] (boy), etc. In the Russian speech of speakers of Turkic languages, deviations from accentological norms are observed, for example, torch, ring, blade, root, lining, period, etc.

Lexical-semantic interference manifests itself in the form of a deviation from the norms of word use as a result of the transfer of the meanings of words in the first language and the features of their lexical compatibility into the second language, for example, Put some compote for you7 (instead of pouring it). We need to wash your trousers (instead of washing them), On the nine-story building, there was a fire on the roof (instead of there was a fire), etc.

At the grammatical level, the most typical interference phenomena are the following: non-distinction of gender, numeral and case endings in nouns, adjectives, numerals, pronouns You will want potatoes and meat, I wanted to say hello, violations in the formation of verb forms associated with the influence of analogy: pyasayet (instead of dancing), knitting (instead knitting), failure to distinguish between the categories of verbal aspect and voice: I will hand in the essay tomorrow, He will do it for a long time; Please do not refuse my request, violations in the use of prepositions associated with the lack of prepositions in Turkic languages ​​I am a third-year student, Kuris (chicken) must be eaten with a fork and knife, violation of the agreement of adjectives, ordinal numbers, participles, possessive and demonstrative pronouns, verbs with nouns, personal pronouns in gender, number and case I bathed a beautiful doll for my daughter. She is happy today. Well, my memory is like this, a violation of word order

in a sentence A big defect was noticed at work, You are killing working time for nothing, just using unnecessary conjunctions in complex sentences I told him that why am I unhappy? We were told at work how to fill out documents, etc.

In speech in Russian and Turkic languages, interlingual wedges, or calques, may appear. If interference is due to any differences between languages, then intercalation “consists in the use by a bilingual of L2 elements that have equivalents in his native language”7 Due to the fact that in speech in which -or from languages ​​individual words, words, phrases and even whole phrases can be included, A E Karlinsky proposes to distinguish between inventory and phrasal Let us consider the phenomenon of intercalation on the material of the language of the inhabitants of Ufa, using this classification Inventory intercalation is divided into 1) nomenclatural (into speech in one language includes such lexical elements of another language that do not have dictionary correspondence in one of the two languages), for example, “War and Peace” ukydytsmy (bashk) / ukydytsmy (tat) (in the speech of the Bashkirs and Tatars I read “War and Peace”9, ), According to the history of Bashkir literature, you need to read the epic “Ural Batyr” (in the speech of Russians), 2) redundant (wedging into speech in one language such elements of another language that are redundant in the first language), which is divided into a) nominative (wedging of individual foreign language nouns, usually expressing specific concepts), for example Ber cup vatyldy (in the speech of the Tatars One cup broke), Look how good kartay looks like here (from the speech of Russians, Turkic kartay - “grandfather”), b) referential (no longer associated with the name of a phenomenon, but with the expression of an attitude towards something) Be^ge/bezge, probably, ul kerek/kirek (in the speech of the Bashkirs and Tatars We probably need this), Ugh, Alla "Tired like a dog (in the speech of Russians there is a Turkic interjection exclamation) Phrase intercalation (the wedging of a whole-formed segment of one language into speech in another language) has several subtypes 1) binary insertions Bvgvn/bugsn, my good ones, Ie^"sez ber kashala/ kaidada barmayygyz "barmyysyz (from the speech of the Bashkirs and Tatars Today, my dears, you are not going anywhere), Good afternoon, ke$erle/kaderle dusgar/duslar (in the speech of Russians, Bashk, Tatar dear friends, comrades), 2) speech tracing papers , subdivided into a) asymmetric tracing paper (the phrase is partially filled lexical material of another language) Ul rural mektepte ukydy (tat He studied in a rural school), 6) symmetrical tracing papers (the phrase is completely filled with lexical material of another language) Without/without matburat/matbugat Yortvna/Yortyna barabyUbarabyz (bashk, tat We will go to the printing house), 3) foreign language epenthesis (an inserted sentence formed according to the rules of another language), for example, I went to work, ti/di (from the speech of the Bashkirs and Tatars I went to work, says), He says that Marat does not know, kaida/kai?a st. (in the speech of Russians, bashk, tat

7 Karlinsky A E Fundamentals of the theory of interaction of languages ​​- Alma-Ata Gylym, 1990 - C

kaida/klyua ul - “where is he”), 4) quotes: TegeneIe/tegese eitte “I don’t want to go to the village again, I’m bored there” (bashk, tat Tot said) Ramici, sing to us “Eh tala, tala, tala" (the name of a Tatar song, from the speech of Russians) Pure intercalation is a foreign language wedging of any type that fully retains its phonetic, grammatical, semantic, graphic features in speech in another language, for example Iin gech-gsna

¡1 in the speech of a Russian woman, tat bik kup solasyn, - “you put a lot”) Modified intercalation - a foreign language wedging, which was subjected to the interfering influence of another language and, as a result, changed some of its characteristics (phonetic-graphic, word-formation, grammatical and/or semantic), for example, Albert, you eshlepe will wear7 (instead of Albert, you will put on a hat7), Nino/nige Iin/sin gel- gene to be lazy iteyets/itesets (bashk, tat Why are you always lazy with the auxiliary word iteIen/itesey), Birthdayga baralar (tat They are going to the birthday party), etc.

One of the most important results of the interaction between Russian and Turkic languages ​​in Ufa is the emergence and functioning of Turkic words in oral Russian speech. Bilinguals play an important role in the transfer of Turkic vocabulary into Russian speech

Turkisms used in the oral speech of residents of Ufa have a different nature. These include Turkisms that are included in the lexical composition of the literary Russian language and are no longer perceived as borrowings, as well as exoticisms that represent non-equivalent vocabulary (kuray, kumis, belyash, sesen, shezhere, kumgan and many others)

Another group consists of Turkisms that occupy an intermediate position between borrowings and wedges in Turkic languages ​​into speech in Russian, or calques. These Turkisms, from our point of view, cannot be classified as full-fledged borrowings; in all likelihood, most of them will never be included in the lexical composition Russian literary language due to the fact that they have equivalents in the Russian language. However, these Turkisms, like borrowings, have a certain stability and regular reproducibility in the speech of some Ufa residents, and in oral speech they are often used in meanings different from their meanings in the original language Therefore, they can be called borrowings at the level of speech. These Turkisms are partially or completely assimilated. When mastered, as a rule, the pronunciation and grammatical form of the word changes, it acquires all the grammatical features of the Russian lexeme. Nouns and verbs receive the corresponding inflections. There are not so many unmastered elements, for example, rahmat (Turkic “thank you”), khazyr (Turkic “now”), tuchaem (tat “wholesale, all at once”) Some Turkic words of this kind enter oral speech, changing its part-speech affiliation and, accordingly, semantics, for example aptragan - “bewilderment, confusion, puzzlement” (lit. in f 3 l ed “he was confused, embarrassed), kildym - “big

a crowd of people somewhere, a noisy company, chaos, disorder" (lit. "I have come"), etc.

Among the borrowings at the speech level there are lexemes from different lexical-thematic (LTG) and lexical-semantic (LSG) groups, for example, from LTG the lexemes ana (Turkic “elder sister, aunt”), istai, malayka (Turkic “boy” , boy"), etc., from LSG nominations containing an evaluative characteristic of a person according to various parameters (gender, age, character, social status) - batyr (bashk “hero, strong person”), bai (Turkic “rich man”), etc. , from the LTG names of objects and phenomena of everyday life - baksa, bakcha (Turkic “plot, garden”), shirpak (bashk, tat shyrpy - “matches”), sagat (Turkic “watch”), kitap (pork “book”) and etc., from LTG names of geographical objects - mav (Turkic “mountain”), urman (Turkic “forest”), etc.

Thus, when considered lexically! Regarding the composition of Russian colloquial speech in Ufa, we have identified the functioning of a greater number of Turkisms in it than in the vocabulary of the Russian literary language. The presence of such a number of words of Turkic origin in the language of Ufa distinguishes it from the language of other cities, gives the oral Russian speech of the townspeople a specific Ufa flavor

In conclusion, the main results of the study are summed up and conclusions are drawn. The language of the city continues to remain an insufficiently studied problem of domestic linguistics. In this work, an attempt was made to comprehensively describe the language of such a large multinational city as Ufa. In the language of the residents of Ufa, various subsystems function (literary and everyday colloquial speech, semi-dialect , vernacular, jargon), which are in constant interaction. The Russian population in Ufa, exerting a huge influence on the language of the indigenous population, and itself is to a certain extent influenced by the Turkic environment. The influence of the Bashkir and Tatar languages into colloquial Russian speech is one of the little-studied aspects of language contact in the conditions of Ufa. The prospect of further research of the language of Ufa is associated with the continuation of work on collecting, systematizing, analyzing materials on the language of Ufa, as well as their comparison, comparison with data on the language of other Russian cities, which should ultimately lead to the compilation of a dictionary of the language of a given city, which would contain vocabulary that functions in the speech of residents of Ufa. One of the promising directions in the study of the linguistic situation of a given city also seems to us to be further research into urban bi- and trilingualism

The appendix includes a map of Ufa, tables containing information about the quantitative, national composition, age and social stratification of residents of different periods, as well as materials for a dictionary of the language of the city of Ufa

The main provisions of the dissertation research are reflected in the following publications of the author

1 Ismagilova NV Language of the city of Ufa general characteristics//Ural-Altai through centuries into the future Materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference - Ufa RIO RUNC MO RB, 2005 -P 456-458

2 Ismagilova N. V. Phonetic features of the vernacular of Ufa // Current problems of philology Proceedings of the Republican Conference of Young Scientists - Ufa RIO Bash State University, 2005 - P 67-71

3 Ismagilova NV Grammatical features of the vernacular of Ufa // Communicative-functional description of language Collection scientific articles Part II - Ufa RIO BashSU, 2005 - P 70-84

4 Ismagilova N. V. The influence of Turkic languages ​​on the Russian colloquial speech of residents of the city of Ufa // Language policy and language construction in the Republic of Bashkortostan Materials of the interregional scientific and practical conference - Ufa RIO RUNC MO RB, 2005 - P 149-151

5 Ismagilova NV Specifics of Ufa jargon // Literature, language and artistic culture in modern processes of sociocultural communication Proceedings of the interregional scientific and theoretical conference - Ufa RIO BashSU, 2005 - P 141-148

6 Ismagilova N. V. Functioning of urbanonyms in the speech of residents of Ufa // Communicative-functional description of language Collection of scientific articles Part 1 - Ufa RIO BashSU, 2006 - P 101-109

7 Ismagilova N.V. Language of the city - problems of studying // Sentence and word Interuniversity collection of scientific works / Ed. O. V. Myakisheva - Saratov Publishing house of Saratov University, 2006 - P 455-458

8 Ismagilova N. V. Turkisms in the oral speech of residents of Ufa // Scientific journal “Bulletin of Bash State University” - Ufa RICBash State University, 2007 - No. 1 - P 88-90

Ismagilova Nuria Binerovna

LANGUAGE OF THE CITY OF UFA - FUNCTIONING OF VARIOUS LANGUAGE SUBSYSTEMS AND BILINGUISM

License for publishing activities of the Republic of Latvia No. 021319 dated 01/05/99

Signed for publication on 04/09/2007 Offset paper Format 60x84/16 Times typeface Printed on a risograph Uel print l 1.26 Educational l 1.69 Circulation 100 copies Order 163

Editorial and Publishing Center of the Bashkir State University 450074, Republic of Belarus, Ufa, Frunze St., 32

Printed at the duplicating site of the Bashkir State University 450074, Republic of Belarus, Ufa, Frunze St., 32

Chapter I. City language as a linguistic problem 8

1. From the history of studying the language of the city8

2. The concept of the language of the city15

3. The concept of colloquial speech18

4. The concept of vernacular23

5. Correlation of the concepts “jargon”, “argot”, “slang”30

Chapter P. Language lazshaft of the city of Ufa43

Brief historical background43

1. Urbanonyms of Ufa46

1.1. Horonyms of Ufa50

1.2. Godonyms of Ufa60

1.3. Oikodomonyms of Ufa69

2. Names of public transport means in Ufa75

Chapter III. Functioning of various language subsystems in Ufa84

1. Features of colloquial speech in Ufa85

1.1. Phonetic features of colloquial speech in Ufa85

1.2. Colloquial vocabulary in Ufa87

2. Vernacular language of Ufa90

2.1 Phonetic features of the vernacular of Ufa90

2.2. Word formation and morphological features of the vernacular of Ufa94

2.3. Syntactic features of the vernacular of Ufa107

2.4. Colloquial vocabulary of Ufa110

3. Ufa jargon119

3.1. Specifics of Ufa jargon119

3.2. Age, social and professional differentiation of Ufa jargon

Chapter IV. Interaction of the Russian language with the Turkic (Bashkir and Tatar) languages ​​in Ufa142

1. National-Russian bilingualism in Ufa142

2. Consequences of language interaction in Ufa145

2.1. Interference145

2.2. Intercalation153

2.3. Turkisms in the oral speech of residents of Ufa;159

Introduction of the dissertation 2007, abstract on philology, Ismagilova, Nuria Vinerovna

In connection with the ongoing process of urbanization, the city continues to be the most important object of study for a number of humanities: philosophy, sociology, ethnography, history, linguistics, etc. Therefore, an integrated approach to the study of the linguistic situation of the city is necessary. The linguistic study of the city is only one aspect of this problem.

The language of the city is one of the insufficiently developed issues in Russian linguistics. The study of this problem in our country began relatively recently. For a long time it was mainly studied literary variety Russian national language, as stated by Yu.N. Karaulov: “Russian studies, and, perhaps, linguistics in general, have never really dealt with the current language of society. Moreover, turning to it as a subject of study may seem not a completely scientific matter: after all, we have always studied the best examples of speech, we are accustomed to being guided by the meters of language, by authorities, and tried to avoid “negative” linguistic material.” [Karaulov 2001. - P.26]. However, as B.A. Larin noted, “preferential attention to literary languages ​​delayed the study of the city’s language” [Larin 19776. - P. 177].

In the second half of the 20th century, there was a new surge of interest in the study of the language of the city. Currently, the study of individual forms of oral urban speech is carried out in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Ryazan, Voronezh, Saratov, Elista, Nizhny Novgorod, Izhevsk, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Yekaterinburg, Ufa, Kazan, Arkhangelsk, Omsk, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk and other Russian cities.

The object of this study is the functioning of the language of a multinational city, and the subject of the study is the various subsystems of the language of the city of Ufa: colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon, as well as the process and results of interaction between the languages ​​of the peoples living in this city.

The relevance of the dissertation research is related to the importance of studying the language of a large multi-ethnic city, which makes it possible to analyze the dynamics of the development of the modern Russian language, its territorial and social variation in conditions of bi- and multilingualism, as well as the need for a comprehensive study of the linguistic features of the language of at least all large Russian cities.

The purpose of this work is to identify the specifics of the language of the city of Ufa, a comprehensive description and analysis of the language subsystems functioning in the city, and to study the consequences of language contacts within one large administrative-territorial unit.

To achieve the research goal, it was necessary to solve the following problems:

Identify the main historical, social and linguistic factors that influenced the formation of the language of Ufa;

Study the composition of the names of urban objects and their functioning in the city;

Consider the structure of the language of the city of Ufa from linguistic and sociolinguistic positions;

Identify and describe the main language subsystems operating in the city;

Explore the results of interaction between Russian and Turkic languages ​​in the city.

All identified problems and assigned tasks are posed and solved taking into account the results and achievements in the field of the theory of general linguistics, Russian studies, domestic and foreign sociolinguistics.

In accordance with the purpose and objectives, the following research methods were used: descriptive analysis using classification and comparison techniques, contextological analysis, interpretive analysis, observation.

The theoretical basis of the dissertation is the works of famous Russian scientists B.A. Larin, L.P. Yakubinsky, V.M. Zhirmunsky, L.I. Barannikova, V.A. Avrorin, Yu.D. Desheriev, A.D. Schweitzer, F. Filina, V. V. Kolesova, L. Krysina, N. A. Baskakova, L. A. Kapanadze, E. V. Krasilnikova, E. A. Zemskaya, O. A. Lapteva, L. I. Skvortsova, O.B.Sirotinina, O.P.Ermakova, T.I.Erofeeva, L.A.Shkatova, Z.S.Sandzhi-Garyaeva, B.I.Osipov, N.A.Prokurovskaya, M.M.Mikhailov, A.E. Karlinsky, L.L. Ayupova, E.A. Yakovleva, K.Z. Zakiryanov and others, as well as foreign researchers B. Baychev, M. Videnov, J. Gampertz, U. Weinreich, Ch. Ferposson, E Haugen, R. Bell, J. Fishman, W. Labov, R. I. McDavid and others.

The material for our research was primarily records of oral speech of Ufa residents contained in the card index of the Department of General and Comparative Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University, our own observations of the speech of Ufa residents, materials from various linguistic dictionaries, local history sources containing information on the history of various places in the city. Ufa, statistical data and results of sociological research, maps of Ufa, city guides. In total, about 3,000 lexical units and 5,000 contexts were examined (mostly statements that contained lexemes necessary for analysis). When analyzing the speech material, the nationality, gender, age, and education of the informants were taken into account.

The scientific novelty of the study is as follows:

For the first time, a comprehensive study and description of the current state of the language of Ufa, a large multinational city, is being carried out;

The system of official and unofficial names of urban objects of a given city is analyzed;

The features of various language subsystems of the city of Ufa and the specifics of their functioning are studied;

The results of interaction between the three most common languages ​​in the city (interference, intercalation, borrowing) are considered.

The theoretical significance of this work is determined by the fact that the observations and conclusions made during the study allow us to better understand the nature of the functioning of various language subsystems in a large multi-ethnic city and can be useful in similar studies using linguistic material from other cities. The study of the functioning of various subsystems of the language of urban residents, the results of the interaction of different languages ​​in a given city, should contribute to the study of the language of other Russian cities.

The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the results of our research can be used in training courses and special courses in general linguistics, the course “Sociolinguistics. Psycholinguistics”, when creating textbooks for the special course “Language of the City”, compiling a dictionary of the language of the city (based on the language of the city of Ufa).

The following provisions are submitted for defense:

1. Various subsystems of the language of Ufa: colloquial speech, vernacular, semi-dialect, jargon - are characterized by territorial variation, especially pronounced at the level of vocabulary, due to the remoteness of the city from the capital, the influence of a multinational urban environment and characterized by the presence of various specific lexemes, a large number of borrowings at the level of language and speech, in particular from the Turkic languages.

2. Of all the subsystems of the city’s language, the most common means of communication among people born in Ufa is Russian everyday colloquial speech interspersed with colloquial and slang elements.

3. The everyday (everyday) colloquial speech of the residents of Ufa is not strongly influenced by dialects, such as, for example, colloquial speech in various cities of the Ural region (Perm, Chelyabinsk, etc.). It is generally focused on the metropolitan language pattern at the phonetic, lexical, and grammatical levels, although its variation in a multilingual environment is inevitable.

4. In the city of Ufa there is a massive national contact heterogeneous bilingualism.

Testing of results and practical implementation of the work. The main provisions of the dissertation and the results of the research were presented in reports and communications at various conferences, namely: at the international scientific conference “Sentence and Word” (Saratov, September 2005), All-Russian scientific conferences “Ural-Altai: through centuries into the future” (Ufa , June 2005) and “Science and Education-2005” (Neftekamsk, October 2005), interregional scientific and theoretical conference “Literature, language and artistic culture in modern processes of sociocultural communication” (Ufa, October 2005), interregional scientific and practical conference “ Language policy and language construction in the Republic of Bashkortostan (Ufa, November 2005), the republican conference of young scientists “Current problems of philology” (Ufa, April 2005) - as well as at 3 meetings of the interuniversity postgraduate seminar on topical problems of modern linguistics in philology Faculty of Bashkir State University in 2005, 2006. The main content of the dissertation is reflected in eight publications.

Some materials and theoretical aspects of our work were used during seminars and practical classes in the course “Sociolinguistics. Psycholinguistics" at the Faculty of Philology of Bashkir State University (2004-2005 academic year).

The dissertation was discussed at a meeting of the Department of General and Comparative Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University.

Structure and scope of the dissertation. The dissertation consists of an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion. A bibliography and appendix are included at the end of the dissertation. The first chapter contains a review of scientific literature on the issue under study, gives an idea of ​​the language of the city and its main components: colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon. The second chapter is devoted to the analysis of urbanonymic

Conclusion of scientific work dissertation on the topic "The language of the city of Ufa: the functioning of various language subsystems and bilingualism"

The Russian population in Ufa, having a huge influence on the language of the indigenous population, is itself, to a certain extent, influenced by the Turkic environment. The influence of the Bashkir and Tatar languages ​​on spoken Russian speech is one of the little-studied aspects of language contact in the conditions of the Republic of Bashkortostan.

The results of the interaction of the Russian, Bashkir, Tatar languages ​​are reflected in Russian colloquial speech, Russian dialects, works of local writers, poets, and in the Russian language media. The most striking and significant consequences of the interaction of Russian and Turkic languages ​​include bilingualism, interference, interlingual wedging, various types of borrowings, regionalisms (local words and expressions existing in a certain territory).

Bilinguals play a major role in the penetration of Turkisms into Russian speech. The speech of bilinguals may be characterized by interference at different levels of the linguistic structure and interlingual inclusions. A number of interference phenomena and interlingual wedges that appear in bilinguals’ speech in Russian due to difficulties in choosing the means of a non-native language may indicate a low level of proficiency of bilinguals in the Russian language. With fluent command of languages, interlingual inclusions may indicate the choice of a more convenient option in a given language situation.

The most significant consequence of language contact in the city is borrowing at the level of language and at the level of speech. Many borrowings at the speech level are not mastered by the Russian literary language. G

There are more Turkisms in Ufa Russian colloquial speech than in the Russian literary language. The presence of so many words of Turkic origin in the language of Ufa distinguishes it from the language of other cities and gives the oral Russian speech of the townspeople a specific Ufa flavor.

Conclusion

The language of the city continues to remain an insufficiently studied problem in Russian linguistics. In this work, an attempt was made to comprehensively describe the language of such a large multinational city as Ufa. An integral part of the city’s language are the official and unofficial names of urban objects that make up the linguistic landscape of the city. Therefore, the work examined the composition of official and unofficial names of various urban objects and the features of their functioning. Some of the city's official and unofficial nominations, principles, and methods of naming objects are identical to the names, principles and methods of nomination existing in other cities, and the other part constitutes a group of formations specific to Ufa. Unofficial (colloquial, colloquial and slang) names can arise as a means of linguistic economy, as well as to distinguish objects that have the same official names or location, or only for the purpose of language play, in order to create an expressive nomination. Official and unofficial names that are unique to the language of the city of Ufa constitute the specificity of the language of this city.

This study also attempted to provide a comprehensive description and analysis of primarily uncodified language subsystems operating in Ufa. In this work, in addition to the analysis of some phonetic, word-formation, grammatical phenomena in different subsystems of the language of the city of Ufa, attention was paid to the consideration of lexemes that function in the speech of residents of this city. Among these nominations are words and phrases that have different part-verbal affiliations, connotative and stylistic coloring and belonging to different thematic groups.

In the speech of residents of Ufa, lexemes from different subsystems of the language are used: literary language, everyday colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon, semi-dialect, which allows us to say that these subsystems are represented in the language of this city in constant interaction. The choice of certain phonetic, lexical, grammatical means from different language subsystems by a city dweller is influenced by various factors: his age, education, profession, place of work, social status, communication situation. City dwellers may be characterized by proficiency in different subsystems of the Russian language (literary and everyday colloquial speech, ordinary colloquial speech and jargon, etc.), i.e. the phenomenon of diglossia, in which code switching may occur.

In general, it can be argued that there are not so many people who speak the literary norm of the Russian language in Ufa: they constitute a linguistic minority, since they are predominantly persons with higher philological or other humanitarian, less often non-humanitarian, education. Therefore, the most common means of communication in the city is everyday colloquial speech interspersed with colloquial and slang elements. The everyday (everyday) speech of the indigenous population of the city of Ufa is not strongly influenced by dialects, as, for example, colloquial speech in various cities of the Ural region (Perm, Chelyabinsk, Izhevsk). Everyday colloquial speech in Ufa is focused on Moscow and partly St. Petersburg language norm at the phonetic, lexical, grammatical levels, which can be considered one of the features of the language of the city of Ufa, distinguishing it from the language of other Ural cities.

In the language of Ufa, there is also a vernacular language that influences Russian colloquial speech, since colloquial elements are found in it. In this work, a description was given of the phonetic, word-formation, lexical and grammatical levels of the Ufa vernacular, which showed that the Ufa vernacular has no significant differences from the all-Russian vernacular. Some differences appear at the lexical level, since the lexicon of Ufa vernacular includes dialect vocabulary of different origins (from Russian dialects of Bashkortostan and dialects of other regions of Russia), borrowings from Turkic languages, and more, although a significant part of the colloquial lexicon consists of all-Russian vernacular nominations. Thus, the thesis about the supra-dialectal nature of Russian vernacular is also confirmed by the material of Ufa vernacular.

Jargon, in contrast to vernacular, has a wider range of distribution, since jargon vocabulary from general jargon (interjargon) is found in everyday speech of people of different ages(from children, teenagers, young adults to representatives of the older generation). Therefore, we can raise the question of jargonization of everyday colloquial speech. Ufa jargon is heterogeneous and breaks down into a number of micro-jargons: children's, teenage, youth, school, student, professional (computer, military, sports, jargon of musicians, tourists, etc.), criminal, etc.

In jargon, the desire of speakers to create words, to express their thoughts and feelings in a bright, unusual, and witty manner is very clearly demonstrated.

The vocabulary of Ufa interjargon has much in common with the vocabulary of all-Russian jargon, although not to the full extent: in Ufa interjargon there are differences in structure lexical meanings jargons, original jargons, slang lexemes of Turkic origin function. This allows us to talk about territorial variation of all-Russian jargon.

Replenishment of colloquial, colloquial, slang vocabulary occurs in different ways. Many expressive slang nominations are formed in a semantic way. The most common word-formation methods for creating uncodified vocabulary are those used both in literary speech (prefixation, suffixation, compounding, etc.) and in colloquial and slang speech (various types of semantic contraction, truncation, suffixation of a truncated stem, etc.). The most common in the language of the city are complete one-word and incomplete nominations.

When studying the language of the city of Ufa, it is also necessary to take into account the multi-ethnicity of the population living in the city. Therefore, when studying the language of such a large multinational city as Ufa, the problem of interaction of the Russian language with the languages ​​of other nationalities was raised. We also believe that one of the promising directions in studying the linguistic situation of a given city is the study of urban bi- and trilingualism.

The most significant consequences of the interaction of Russian and Turkic languages ​​in the city are bilingualism, interference, interlingual wedging, various types of borrowings, regionalisms (local words and expressions existing in a certain territory). The functioning of a large number of borrowings from Turkic languages ​​in the Russian speech of Ufa residents distinguishes the language of the city of Ufa from the language of other Russian cities and gives the oral Russian speech of the townspeople a specific Ufa flavor.

The prospect of further research of the language of Ufa is associated with the continuation of work on collecting, systematizing, analyzing materials on the language of Ufa, as well as their comparison, comparison with data on the language of other Russian cities, which should ultimately lead to the compilation of a dictionary of the language of this city, which would contain vocabulary that functions in the speech of Ufa residents.

List of scientific literature Ismagilova, Nuria Vinerovna, dissertation on the topic "Theory of Language"

1. Avrorin V.A. Bilingualism and school // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-P.49-62,

2. Avrorin V.A. Problems of studying the functional side of language. L.: Nauka, 1975.- 275 p.

3. Almukhsshedova E.M. Vocalism of vocal dialects with reduction in comparison with literary pronunciation in some of its territorial variants/Questions of grammar and lexicology of the Russian language. Kazan, 1964.

4. Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969. - 508 p.

5. Akhmanova O.S. The dichotomy “language dialect” in the light of the problems of modern bilingualism//Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.- P. 98-102.

6. Akhunzyanov E.M. Bilingualism and lexical-semantic interference.-Kazan: Kazan, state. Univ.-T., 1978. 190 p.

7. Ayupova JI.JI. Russian-Bashkir language interaction//RR. 1976. - No. 1.-S. 89-92.

8. Ayupova L.L. Questions of sociolinguistics: types of bilingualism in Bashkiria. -Sverdlovsk: Uralsk, state. Univ.-T., 1988. 70 p.

9. Ayupova JI.JI. Vocabulary of the peoples of Bashkortostan in Russian speech (Glossary): Tutorial. Ufa: BSU Publishing House, 1994. - 146 p.

10. Ayupova JI.JI. The language of the city as a sociolinguistic problem // Ayupova L.L. Sociolinguistics: actual problems. Ufa: Eastern University, 1999. - pp. 56-64.

11. Ayupova JI.JI. Language situation: sociolinguistic aspect. Ufa: Eastern University, 2000. - 156 p.

12. Bankova T.B. Vocabulary of urban vernacular (typology of description): Dissertation for the academic degree. Candidate of Philological Sciences, Tomsk, 1987. - 18 p.

13. Bankova T.B. Expressive-emotional vocabulary of Tomsk urban vernacular (Features of semantics)//Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference/Ed. B.I. Osipova. -Omsk, 1995. -4.1.-P.75-77.

14. Barannikova L.I. On the problem of social and structural variability of the dialect // Issues of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - P. 314 - 343.

15. Barannikova L.I. The essence of interference and the specifics of its manifestation // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M.: Nauka, 1972. - P. 88-98.

16. Barannikova JI.K Vernacular as a special social component of language//Language and Society. Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 1974. - Issue. III. -WITH. 3-22.

17. Barannikova JIM Vernacular and literary colloquial speech // Language and society. Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 1977. - Issue. IV. - P. 59-77.

18. Barannikova L.I. On the problem of the relationship between the Russian literary language and the national Koine//Types of supra-dialectal forms of language. M.: Nauka, 1981. -S. 97-119.

19. Beglova EZh, Dudareva Z.M. Jargonisms in Russian. Sterlitamak: SSPU, 1994-49 p.

20. Belikov V.I. Comparison of St. Petersburg with Moscow and other considerations on social lexicography // Russian language today. Vol. 3 - Moscow: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004.-P. 23-37.

21. Bell R. Sociolinguistics. Goals, methods and problems. M.: International. rel., 1980. - 320 p.

22. Belchikov Yu.A. Literary vernacular and norm//Literary norm in vocabulary and phraseology. M.: Nauka, 1983. - pp. 37-46.

23. Beregovskaya E.M. Youth slang: formation and functioning//VYa. 1996. - No. 3

24. Bertagaev T.A. Bilingualism and its varieties in the system of use// Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism, - M.: Nauka, 1972.- P. 82-88.

25. Bobrova G.A., Nikitina E.A. Colloquial urbanonyms of Omsk: structure and functioning//Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the interuniversity scientific conference/Ed. B.I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995. 4.1 - P. 31-34.

26. Baudouin de Courtenay I.A., “Thief Music” // Baudouin de Courtenay I.A. Selected works on general linguistics. T.2 - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1963. -P.161-162.

27. Bondaletov DB. Borrowings from Germanic languages ​​in the vocabulary of Russian conventionally professional argot // Language and Society. Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 1967a. - pp. 226-234.

28. Bondaletov DB. Gypsyisms as part of conventional languages//Language and Society. Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 19676. - P. 235 - 242.

29. Bondaletov DB. Socio-economic prerequisites for the extinction of conventionally professional languages ​​and the main patterns of this process // Issues of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - P. 398 - 415 p.

30. Bondaletov V.D. Conventional languages ​​of Russian artisans and traders. -Ryazan: RGPU, 1974 110 p.

31. Bondaletov V.D. Social linguistics.-M.: Education, 1987. -160 p.

32. Borisova E.G. About some features of modern youth jargon//Rus. language at school. -1981. No. 3. - P.83-87.

33. Borisova E.G. Modern youth jargon//Rus. speech. 1980. -№5. -WITH. 51-54.

34. Borisova Lukaishnets E.G. About the vocabulary of modern youth slang (English borrowings in slang of the 60-70s) // Literary norm in vocabulary and phraseology. - M.: Nauka, 1983. -S. 104-120.

35. Bykov V. Russian Fenya. Smolensk: Trest-Imacom, 1994. - 222 p.

36. Bykov V.B. On the translation of the Russian substandard into German // Semantics linguistic units: Reports of the VI International. conf. T.1. - M.: SportAcademPress, 1998.-P. 103-107.

37. Weinreich U. Language contacts. State and problems of research.-Kyiv: Vitsa School, 1970.- 264 p.

38. Weinreich U. Monolingualism and multilingualism // New in linguistics. Language contacts. - M.: Progress, 1972. - Issue. 6. P. 25-60.

39. Vasiliev L. M. General problems of linguistics: Textbook. manual - Ufa, 1998.149 p.

40. Vakhitov S.B. About Russian slang. Characteristics of the material // Vakhitov S.B. Dictionary of Ufa slang. Ufa: Publishing house BGGGU, 2001. - P. 5 - 22.

41. Vakhitov S.B. Dictionary of Ufa slang. Ufa: Vagant, 2004. - 236 p.

42. Vepreva I.T. Conversational norm: in search of new criteria//Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. Ekaterinburg: “Argo”, 1996.-S. 136-153.

43. Verbitskaya L.A. Pronunciation norm today // Language: history and modernity of St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Publishing House, 1996. - pp. 52 - 60.

44. Vereshchagin E.M. Psychological and methodological characteristics of bilingualism (bilingualism). M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1969. - 160 p.

45. Vinokur TT. On elliptical word usage in modern colloquial speech // Development of vocabulary of the modern Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1965.

46. ​​Vinokur T.G. Stylistic development of modern Russian colloquial speech//Development of functional styles of modern Russian literary language/Ed. T.G. Vinokur and D.N. Shmelev. M: Nauka, 1968. -P.12-101.

47. Volkova N.A. Modern youth jargon as a linguo-ecological problemU/Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference/Ed. B.I. Osipova. Omsk, 1995. - 4.1. - pp. 42-44.

48. Voloshchenko O.V. Features of vernacular semantics (using the example of verbs of motion)//Problems of studying the living Russian word at the turn of the millennium: Materials of the All-Russian scientific-practical. conf. Voronezh: Publishing House of the Voronezh State Pedagogical University, 2001. -S. 172-177.

49. Issues of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - 418 p.

50. Vysotsky S.S. About the Moscow vernacular // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 22-37.

51. Gabinskaya O.A. New formations in colloquial speech and linguistic certification // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988.

52. Gavranek B.O. On the functional stratification of the literary language/Trazhsky Linguistic Circle. M: Progress, 1967. - P. 432-443.

53. Gavranek B. On the issue of mixing languages ​​// New in linguistics. Language contacts. - M.: Progress, 1972. - Issue. 6. pp. 94-111.

54. Gak V.G. Comparative lexicology. (Based on the material of French and Russian languages) M.: “International Relations”, 1977. - 264 p.

55. Galimyanova V.R. The linguistic situation of the Krasnokamsk region of the Republic of Bashkortostan: Sociolinguistic aspect: Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. -Ufa, 2003.-21 p.

56. Gak V.G. About French vernacular // FN 1993. - No. 5-6. - P. 116 - 121.

57. Galin P.A. Population of the city of Ufa: past, present, future. Ufa: RIO BAGSU, 2001. - 96 p.

58. Gallyamov P.P. Multinational city: ethnosociological essays. -Ufa: Gilem, 1996.-2000 p.

59. Galperin I.R. About the term “slang” // Questions of linguistics, 1956. No. 6. -P. 107-114.

60. Gumperz J. On the ethnographic aspect of linguistic changes // New in linguistics. Vol. VII - M.: Progress, 1975. - P. 299 - 319.

61. Garipov T.M. Regarding the determinism of nomination (to the history of one urbonym)//Problems of communication and nomination in the concept of general humanities knowledge. Chelyabinsk: ChSU Publishing House, 1999. - P. 20 - 26.

62. Garipov T.M. Regarding the language model of Bashkortostan // Materials of the interregional scientific and practical conference “Interethnic relations in a multi-ethnic region: problems and ways of optimization.” Ufa, 2005. -S. 123-125.

63. Gelgardt R.R. On the literary language in geographical projection/Issues of linguistics. 1959. - No. 3. - P. 95-101.

64. Gerd A.S. Russian literary language and Russian colloquial speech in the cities of the Arctic // Literary language and folk speech. Perm, 1986. - P.3-11.65. 74. Gin Ya.I. The inevitable tyranny of material // RR. 1992. - N6.

66. Golovin B.N. Issues of social differentiation of language // Issues of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - pp. 343-355.

67. Gorbacheva E.F. Vernacular as a socio-stylistic linguistic category//Language and Society. Sociolinguistic problems of lexicology. -Vol. 6. Saratov, 1982.

68. Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. -183 p.

69. Urban vernacular. Problems of study/Ed. E.A. Zemskaya and D.N. Shmeleva. M: Nauka, 1984. -189 p.

70. Graudina J1.K. Colloquial and colloquial forms in grammar // Literary norm and colloquialism. M.: Nauka, 1977. - P. 77-111.

71. Grachev M.A. “I’ll get you into prison if you use a hairdryer”//Rus. speech. - 1993. -№4.-S. 51-56.

72. Grachev M.A. Where do the words tusovka and hang out come from?//Rus. language At school. -1995a. -No. 3. -P.84-86.

73. Grachev M.A. Blatnaya music//Russian speech. 19956. - No. 5. - P. 113-117.

74. Grachev M.A. On the conspiratorial function of argot // Speech of the city. Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipova. Omsk, 1995c. - 4.2. - P. 33 - 36.

75. Grachev M.A. Argotisms in youth slang//Rus. language At school. -1996a.-No.1.-P.78-85.

76. Grachev M.A. How argotisms appear in our speech // Russian speech. -19966.-No.4.-S. 67-71

77. Grachev M.A. The mechanism of transition of argotisms into the national language // Rus. language At school. -1996c.-No.5 .-P.87-90.

78. Grachev M.A. Russian argot. N.-Novgorod, 1997. - 245 p.

79. Grachev M.A., Kozhevnikov A.Yu. On the issue of social dialectology of the Russian language//FN. 1996. - No. 5. - P. 111 - 116.

80. Grishina O.A. Prosodic parameters of local speech (based on material from Krasnoyarsk): Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Omsk, 2003 - 20 p.

81. Gruzberg JI.A. What is the real speech of a modern city dweller? // The linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1990. - P. 8 - 15.

82. Gruzberg JI.A., Pigina PL. On the differentiation of the city’s speech (based on comparison) // Living Word in Russian Speech of the Kama Region. Perm: PSU, 1982. - pp. 40-47.

83. Grumadene L.A. The problem of social conditionality of speech variation (based on the material of the Lithuanian language): Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1982 - 16 p.

84. Guseva L.G., Manion Ya.G. Local social and age jargon/Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1988. - pp. 96-103.

85. Guts E.H. The place of slang words in the linguistic model of the world//Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference/Edited by B.I. Osipova. Omsk, 1995. - 4.1. - P.73-75.

86. Dal V.I. The conventional language of St. Petersburg swindlers, known under the name of music, or the bike language // Questions of linguistics. 1990. -№1. -WITH. 134137.

87. Devkin V.D. About the types of unliterary speech // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 12-21.

88. Dedova O.V. Phonetic features of modern Moscow vernacular: Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Moscow, 1988. - 18 p.

89. Desheriev Yu.D. Patterns of development of literary languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR in the Soviet era. M., 1976.

90. Desheriev Yu.D. Social linguistics: To the basics general theory. -M, Nauka, 1977. 382 p.

91. Desheriev Yu.D., Protchenko I.F. Main aspects of the study of bilingualism and multilingualism//Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.- M.: Nauka, 1972.-P. 26-42.

92. Desherieva Yu.Yu. The problem of linguistic interference in modern linguistics/Georetical problems of social linguistics. - M.: Nauka, 1981.-P. 240-255.

93. Dobrodomov KG. On the historiography of the study of Turkisms in the Russian language // Soviet Turkology. 1974. - No. 5. - P. 72 - 76.

94. Dubrovina KN. Student jargon//Philological Sciences 1980. -№1. - P.78-81.

95. Dyakova V.I. Observations on the vocabulary of Voronezh urban vernacular // Folklore and literature: problems of study. Voronezh: VSU Publishing House, 2001.-P.174-178

96. Elistratov A.A. Lexical means of displaying the corporate culture of athletes: Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Chelyabinsk: ChTU Publishing House, 2005.-22 p.

97. Elistratov V.S. Observations on modern urban argot // Vestn. Moscow. un-ta. Ser. 9. Philology. 1993. - No. 1

98. Elistratov V.S. Dictionary of Moscow argot. M: Russian dictionaries, 2000-S. 574 - 692.

99. Elistratov V.S. Argo and culture // Elistratov V.S. Dictionary of Moscow argot. -M.: Russian dictionaries, 2000 pp. 574 - 692.

100. Eremin A.N. Pronouns in common speech (semantics and formal features). Kaluga: Publishing house KSPU, 1997a. - 28 s.

101. Eremin A.N. Phraseologically related meanings in literary language and vernacular // Russian. language At school. 19976. - No. 5. - P. 71 - 76.

102. Eremin A.N. Figurative meanings in common parlance. Kaluga: Publishing house KSPU, 1998. - 104 p.

103. Eremin A.N. Word formation systems of vernacular and literary language // Russian. language at school -1999. No. 1. - P. 74 - 77.

104. Eremin A.N. Vernacular Normative and explanatory dictionary - Speech of a native speaker of a literary language // Semantics. Functioning. Text. - Kirov, 2001.-S. 11-19.

105. Ermakova O.I. Ethics in computer jargon//Logical analysis of language. Languages ​​of ethics. Moscow, 2000. - pp. 246-253.

106. Ermakova O.E. Nominations in vernacular // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M., Nauka, 1984. -S. 130-140.

107. Erofeeva E.V. Experimental study phonetics of the regional variant of the literary language. Perm: Perm Publishing House. University, 1997. - 140 p.

108. Erofeeva E.V. Dependence of speech behavior on some sociolinguistic factors // Problems of communication and nomination in the concept of general humanities knowledge. Chelyabinsk: ChTU Publishing House, 1999. - P. 99 -105.

109. Erofeeva E.B. The dual nature of the city’s language and methods of studying it // Literature and modernity. Part 2. - Perm: Perm Publishing House. Univ., 2000. - 154-163 p.

110. Erofeeva T.I. On the social differentiation of the speech of townspeople (on the issue of the interaction of colloquial literary and dialect speech) // Literary language and folk speech. Perm: PSU, 1984a. - P. 10-17.

111. Erofeeva T.I. On the everyday meaning of the literary word in lively colloquial speech // Literary language and folk speech: Interuniversity collection of scientific works. Perm, 1986. - pp. 11-27.

112. Erofeeva T.I. “Speech portrait” of the speaker // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1990.

113. Erofeeva T.I. Social stratification of the speech of a city dweller // Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works Perm: PSU Publishing House, 1993. -S. 83 - 92.

114. Erofeeva T.I. Stratification conditionality of mastery of professionalisms//Anthropocentric approach to the Perm language: PSU Publishing House, 1998.-P. 149-160.

115. Erofeeva T.I. Sociolect in stratification // Russian language today. Vol. 1.: Sat. articles/Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. -S. 85 -91.

116. Erofeeva T.I., Gruzberg J.I.A. Once again about vernacular // Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm: PSU, 1989. - P. 2-10.

117. Erofeeva T.N., Skitova F.L. Local elements in the literary speech of townspeople // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Ural State University Publishing House, 1990. -P. 15-22.

118. Erofeeva T.N., Skitova F.L. Localisms in the literary speech of townspeople. -Perm: Perm Publishing House. Univ., 1992. 92 p.

119. Erofeeva T.N. Local coloration of literary colloquial speech: A textbook for a special course. Perm, 1979. - 92 p.

120. Zhdanova O.P. Evaluative vocabulary in urban colloquial speech // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - pp. 71-79.

121. Live speech of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr-v. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1988.- 136 p.

122. The living word in Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works -Perm: PSU Publishing House, 1992. 142 p.

123. The living word in Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works -Perm: PSU Publishing House, 1993. 213 p.

124. Zhirmunsky V.M. Professional vocabulary, jargons, argot//National language and social dialects. D., 1936. - P. 105-167.

125. Zhirmunsky V.M. The problem of social differentiation of languages//Language and Society. M.: Nauka, 1968. - P.22-39.

126. Zhluktenko Yu.A. Linguistic aspects bilingualism. - Kyiv: Vitsa school, 1974. 176 p.

127. Zhuravlev A.F. Foreign language borrowings in Russian vernacular (Phonetics, morphology, vocabulary, semantics) // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 102-124.

128. Zaikovskaya T.V. Can you cerebellum? Sabo herself!//Rus. speech. 1993. -№6. - P. 40-43.

129. Zakiryanov K.Z. Bilingualism and interference: Textbook. allowance Ufa: Bash. state univ.-t., 1984.- 80 p.

130. Zakiryanov K.Z. Bilingualism: linguistic and cultural aspect // Vestnik VEGU. 2000. - No. 11. - P. 44-50.

131. Zemskaya E.A. Russian colloquial speech // Issues of linguistics. 1971.5.

132. Zemskaya E.A. On the concept of “colloquial speech” // Russian colloquial speech: Collection of scientific works: Saratov University Publishing House, 1970. -S. 3-10.

133. Zemskaya E.A. Russian colloquial speech: linguistic analysis and learning problems. M.: Russian language, 1987.

134. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaigorodskaya M.V., Shiryaev E.H. Russian colloquial speech: General questions. Syntax. Word formation. M.: Nauka, 1981. - 275 p.

135. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaygorodskaya M.V., Shiryaev E.H. Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. M.: Nauka, 1983.

136. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaigorodskaya M.V. Observations on vernacular morphology // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 66-102.

137. Zemskaya E.A. Urban oral speech and the tasks of its study // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - P. 5 - 44.

138. Ilminskaya N.I. Nominations of modes of transport//Colloquial speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Vocabulary. Saratov, 1983. - P. 245-252.

139. Nifontova G.G. On the issue of elite speech culture/LPrinciples and research methods in philology: the end of the 20th century. Vol. 6. - St. Petersburg - Stavropol: Stavropol Publishing House. gosun-ta, 2001. - P.389 - 391.

140. History of Ufa. Brief essay. Ufa, 1981.

141. Iskhakova Z.A. Bilingualism in the cities of Tatarstan (80-90s). Kazan: Fiker, 2001. - 192 p.

142. Itskovich V.A., Schwarzkopf B.S. Passive bilingualism and speech culture // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M.: Nauka, 1972. P. 127-129.

144. Kapanadze JI.A. Vocabulary of everyday use (names of electrical household appliances and machines)//Methods of nomination in modern Russian. M.: Nauka, 1982. P.271-281.

145. Kapanadze JI.A. Lexico-semantic features of colloquial speech//Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture/Rep.ed. E.A. Zemskaya. M.: Nauka, 1983. - pp. 142-172.

146. Kapanadze JI.A. Modern urban vernacular and literary language.//Urban vernacular: Problems of study. - M.: Nauka, 1984a. pp. 5-12.

147. Kapanadze JI.A. Modern vernacular vocabulary (Moscow vernacular)//Urban vernacular: Problems of study. -M: Nauka, 19846. -S. 125-129.

148. Kapanadze JI.A. Ways of expressing evaluation in oral speech // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - pp. 151-156.

149. Kapanadze JI.A., Krasilnikova E.V. Vocabulary of the city (towards the formulation of the problem)//Methods of nomination in the modern Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1982.-S. 282-294.

150. Karaulov Yu.N. On the state of the modern Russian language//RR. 2001. -№3. -P.25-30.

151. Karlinsky A.E. Fundamentals of the theory of language interaction. Alma-Ata: Gylym, 1990.-181 p.

152. Karmyzova O.A. Computer vocabulary: structure and development: Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Voronezh: VSU, 2003. - 24 p.

153. Katagoschina H.A. The problem of bilingualism and multilingualism abroad // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M.: Nauka, 1972. pp. 62-74.

154. Katasheva A.Ya. Turkisms in the language of the city: (based on the speech of the Russian population of the mining zone of the Chelyabinsk region) // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - P. 104 - 110.

155. Kitaigorodskaya T.S., Rozanova N.N. The speech of Muscovites. Communicative and cultural aspect. M., 1999. - 253 p.

156. Kogotkova T.S. On some features of mastering literary vocabulary in conditions of dialectal bilingualism//Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-P. 250-257.

157. Kogotkova T.S. The role of vernacular in the processes of mastering the vocabulary of the literary language by dialects // Literary norm and vernacular. M.: Nauka, 1977. - P.58-71.

158. Kogotkova T.S. Russian dialect lexicology: State of the art and prospects. M.: Nauka, 1979. - 335 p.

159. Kolesnikova U.E. Features of modern urbanonyms (on the example of the cities of the Volga region and France) // Onomastics of the Volga region. Moscow: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. - pp. 50-54.

160. Kolesov V.V. Language of the city. M.: Higher School, 1991. - 192 p.

161. Koltunova M.V. What does jargon bring with it?//RR. 2003. - No. 1. - P. 48 - 50.

162. Konovalova D.A. Status of names of modern commercial enterprises in the proper name system: features of functioning and typology // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.-P. 96-110.

163. Kopylenko M.M. On the semantic nature of youth slang // Socio-linguistic studies / Ed. L.P. Krysin and D.N. Shmeleva. M.: Nauka, 1976. - P.79-86.

164. Krasilnikova E.V. Inventory of morphemes//Methods of nomination in modern Russian language. M., Nauka, 1982a. - pp. 133-158.

165. Krasilnikova E.V. On the relationship between language levels in the system of Russian colloquial speech // Problems of structural linguistics. M., 19826. - pp. 37 - 49.

166. Krasilnikova E.V. The language of the city as a linguistic problem // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - P. 5-18.

167. Krasilnikova E.V. About various phenomena in the language of residents of different cities//Functioning of the literary language in the Ural city. -Sverdlovsk: Ural State University Publishing House, 1990. pp. 4-12.

168. Krasilnikova E.V. Language and culture: (towards the study of the language of the city) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1990 - P. 4-8.

169. Kocherenkova S.D. Unofficial names of spatial objects of Sverdlovsk: (methods of nomination) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. - Sverdlovsk: UrSU, 1990 P. 79 - 89.

170. Krivozubova G. A. Urbanonyms of the city of Omsk: (composition and functioning): Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Barnaul, 1993 - 19 p.

171. Krivozubova G. A. On the inventory of urbonymic units // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - P. 125 - 30.

172. Krysin L.P. Proficiency in different subsystems of language as a phenomenon of diglossia // Socio-linguistic studies. M., 1976. - 232 p.

173. Krysin L.P. The relationship between modern literary language and vernacular // Rus. language At school. 1988. - No. 2. - pp. 81-88.

174. Krysin L.P. Foreign language term in Russian vernacular // Philological collection. M.: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1995a. - P. 262 - 268.

175. Krysin L.P. Foreign language term in Russian vernacular//Philological collection (to the 100th anniversary of the birth of academician V.V. Vinogradov)/Responsible editor. doc. Philol. n. M.V.Lyapon. M.: Institute of Russian Language named after. V.V. Vinogradov RAS, 19956. - P. 262-268.

176. Krysin L.P. Foreign word in the context of modern public life//Russian language of the late 20th century (1985-1995). M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 1996.- pp. 142-159.

177. Krysin L.P. Russian literary language at the turn of the century//RR. 2000c. -No. 1. - P. 28-40.

178. Krysin L.P. Social markedness of linguistic units // VYa 2000 - No. 4. P. 26-41.

179. Krysin L.P. Modern literary norm and its codification//RYASH. -2002.-No.1.-S. 82-87.

180. Kupchik E.V. Pronunciation features of the speech of townspeople, due to dialectal influence (based on the material of recording the speech of residents of Sverdlovsk and Nizhny Tagil) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Coll. scientific tr. - Sverdlovsk: Ural State University Publishing House, 1990. P. 22 - 30.

181. Labov U. Study of language in its social context//New in linguistics.-Vol. VII-M.: Progress, 1975.-P. 96-181.

182. Lapteva O.A. On the uncodified spheres of the modern Russian literary language // Questions of linguistics. 1966. - No. 2.- P.40 - 56.

183. Lapteva O.A. The study of Russian colloquial speech in Russian linguistics in recent years: a review // Questions of linguistics. 1967. - No. 1.- P. 129-139.

184. Lapteva O.A. Russian colloquial syntax. M.: Nauka, 1976.

185. Larin B.A. On the linguistic characteristics of the city (several prerequisites) // History of the Russian language and general linguistics. M.: Education, 1977a.-P.189-199.

186. Larin B.A. On the linguistic study of the city/History of the Russian language and general linguistics. M.: Education, 19776. - pp. 175-189.

187. Levashov E.A. Toponymy of Moscow and Leningrad yesterday and today // RR. -1990.-No.3.-S. 122-128.

188. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary/Ch. edited by V.N. Yartseva.- 2nd ed. M: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998.- 686 p.

189. Literary language and folk speech. Perm: PSU, 1977-1986.

190. Likhachev D.S. Argotic words of professional speech//Development of grammar and vocabulary of the modern Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1964. - P.311-359.

191. Likhachev D.S. Features of primitive primitivism of thieves' speech//Dictionary of prison-camp-thieves' jargon. M.: Regions of Moscow, 1992. - P. 354-398.

192. Likhachev D.S. Psychology of argo // Russia-East-West. M.: Heritage, 1998.-p. 60 - 84.

193. Likholitov P.V. That's what the border guards say//Russian speech. 1997. - No. -WITH. 63-70.

194. Mayorov A.P. Social aspects interaction of languages ​​in a bilingual communicative space. - Ufa, 1997. 138 p.

196. McDavid P.M. Dialectal and social differences in urban society//New in linguistics. Vol. VII - M.: Progress, 1975. - P. 363 - 381.

197. Makovsky M.M. On the way to creating a dictionary of Russian substandard // FN. -1997.-No.4.-S. 103-109.

198. Maksimova L.I. About the Ishim vernacular // Socio-cultural problems of the development of small towns Western Siberia: Abstracts of reports and messages of a scientific conference. Ishim: Publishing house IGPI, 2000. - P. 95 - 97.

199. Malysheva V.A. Vernacular speech in urban microtoponymy//Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm, 1989. - P.54-58.

200. Marsheva L.I. Justified variability in the names of persons at the place of residence//RYASh. 2004. - No. 4. - P. 78 - 81.

201. Milekhina T.A. On some features of the spoken speech of the city's youth // Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995. Part 1. - P. 44-46.

202. Mintslov S.R. Ufa. From the book “The Wilds of Life.” Ufa: Bashk. book publishing house, 1992. -176 p.

203. Miralaeva O.D. Modern Russian youth jargon (sociolinguistic research): Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. -Moscow, 1994. -19 p.

204. Mironov S.A. Semi-dialect and everyday spoken language as varieties of supra-dialectal forms of speech//Types of supra-dialectal forms of language. M.: Nauka, 1981.

205. Mikhailov M.M. Bilingualism (principles and problems). - Cheboksary: ​​Chuvashek, state. Univ.-T., 1969. 136 p.

206. Mikhailova O. A. The life of someone else’s word in the colloquial speech of townspeople // Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. -Ekaterinburg: Argo, 1996. pp. 153 - 167.

207. Mikhalap K.P., Shmeleva T.V. The word of the urban environment // Philological sciences. 1987.-N4.-S. 81-84.

208. Mikhalchenko V.Yu. Problems of functioning and interaction of the Lithuanian and Russian languages. - Vilnius: Makslas, 1984. - 224 p.

209. Mokienko V.M., Nikitina T.G. Big dictionary Russian jargon. -SPb: “Norint”. 2001. - 720 p.

210. Morozova M.N. Names of cultural and social institutions//RR. 1973. -№6.-S. 54-59.

211. Morozova O.E. Oral speech and linguistic personality speaking//Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PSU Publishing House, 1998. - P. 56 - 64.

212. Morozova T.S. Some features of the construction of statements in vernacular // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 141-162.

213. Moskvin V.P. Conversational style as a system//Rus. speech. 2005. - No. 4. - pp. 37-48.

214. Nikitina T.G. Dictionary youth slang: Words that adults do not understand. OK. 2000. M.: “Astrel”, “ACT”, 2003. - 736 p.

215. Nikitina T.G. This is what young people say: Slang Dictionary. Based on materials from the 7090s. St. Petersburg: Folio-Press, 1998. - 592 p.

216. Nozhkina E. M. Adverbs/T Conversational speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian language. Saratov, 1983. - P.94-124.

217. Norm and social differentiation of language. M.: Nauka, 1969.- 173 p.

218. Ozhegov S.I. About vernacular (on the issue of the language of the city)//VYa. 2000. - No. 5.-S. 93-110.

219. Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. - M.: Azbukovnik, 1999.-944 p.

220. Orlov G.A. On the problem of the boundaries of everyday and modern literary colloquial speech // Issues of linguistics. No. 5.-1981.-S. 119-128.

221. Osipov B.I. About the term “city colloquial speech” // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - P. 5 - 11.

222. Osipov B.I., Bobrova G.A., Imedadze N.A., Krivozubova G.A., Odintsova M.L., Yunakovskaya A.A. Lexicographic description of colloquial speech of a modern city: theoretical aspects. Omsk, 1994.-144 p.

223. Osipov B.I., Sukhotskaya E.B. Notes on urban dialecticisms of modern St. Petersburg and Omsk // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - P. 92 - 96.

224. Panov V.M. Russian phonetics. M., 1967.

225. Parikova N.V. About the South Russian version of literary speech//Development of phonetics of the modern Russian literary language. M., 1996.

226. Pekshieva T.A. Phonetic originality of colloquial speech of residents of Arkhangelsk//Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PSU Publishing House, 1998.-P. 68-81.

227. Pervukhina E.V. Youth slang of the 90s (touches to the speech portrait) // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PSU Publishing House, 1998.-P. 88-93.

228. Pestereva N.Sh., Ruth M.E. Nominativity and expressiveness in the semantics of a figurative word (Naming people in the speech of schoolchildren) // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988.

229. Petrishcheva E.F. Extraliterary vocabulary as a stylistic category//VYa. -1981. N3. - P. 63 - 69.

230. Petrova NA. Notes on teenage slang // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PSU Publishing House, 1998. - P. 81 - 87.

231. Pleshkova T.N. Dialectal features of the colloquial speech of townspeople // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PSU Publishing House, 1998. - P. 64 -68.

232. Podolskaya N.V. Dictionary of Russian onomastic terminology. M.: Nauka, 1988.

233. Podolskaya N.V. Urbanonymy of the central regions of the RSFSR//Vopr. geography. 1974, - No. 94.

234. Podyukov I.A. On the origin of phraseological units of urban oral speech: (based on observations of the living speech of Perm) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Coll. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1990. - P. 163 - 176.

235. Polishchuk G.G. Nominations of colloquial speech//Colloquial speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Lexicon/Ed. O. B. Sirotinina. Saratov, 1983. - P. 195-212.

236. Pomykalova T.E., Shishkina T.Ya., Shkatova L.A. Observations on the speech of residents of Chelyabinsk (On the problem of “city language”) // Urban vernacular: Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 162-167.

237. Popova A.V. System of unofficial toponyms of the city of Moscow // Rusisgika on modern stage. M.: Publishing house MSLU, 1999. - P. 85 - 88.

238. Pospelova G.M. Innovations in the territorial and administrative dictionary of the city//RR. 1997. - No. 4. - P. 64 - 72.

239. Pravednikov S.P. A few words about modern vernacular // Linguodidactic foundations of working on text. Kursk: Publishing house KSPU, 1997. -P.23 - 25

240. Principles and methods of sociolinguistic research. M.: Nauka, 1989.

241. Priyatkina A.F. Vernacular new formations: their basis and fate (towards the determination of the internal properties of vernacular) // Russian language today. Vol. Sat. articles/Ed. LL.Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - P. 231 - 239.

242. Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-P. 98-102.

243. Prokurovskaya N.A. Colloquial speech of Izhevsk in comparison with colloquial speech of the cities of the Ural region // Current problems of regional linguistics and history of Siberia. Kemerovo: KSU, 1992. - P. 69 - 71.

244. Prokurovskaya N.A. The city in the mirror of its language: On the linguistic material of Izhevsk. Izhevsk: Publishing house Udm. University, 1996. - 228 p.

245. Prokurovskaya N.A. The system of vernacular predication and the mentality of a modern city dweller reflected in it. Basic communication styles // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.

246. Varieties of urban oral speech / Ed. D.N. Shmeleva and E.A. Zemskoy. M.: Nauka, 1988.

247. Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference./Ed. B. I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995.

248. Rozanova N.H. Modern Moscow vernacular and literary language (based on phonetics) // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 37-66.

249. Rosenthal D.E., Teleshova M.A. Dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms. -M.: Education, 1976.

250. Rosenzweig V.B. Language contacts. - L.: Nauka, 1972. - 80 p.

251. Rozina R.I. From incidents to actions (semantic derivation as a way of replenishing general jargon) // Russian language today: Sat. articles/Ed. L.P. Krysina. M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - P. 418 - 432.

252. Russian colloquial speech / Collection of scientific works. - Saratov, 1970. - 251 p.

253. Russian colloquial speech/Responsible editor. E.A. Zemskaya. M.: Nauka, 1973. -485 p.

254. Russian colloquial speech: Texts/Responsible editor. E.A. Zemskaya, L.A. Kapanadze. -M: Nauka, 1978. P. 3-27.

255. Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture. -M.: Nauka, 1983.- 238 p.

256. Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. -Ekaterinburg: Argo, 1996. 193 p.

257. Ryzhksha O.A., Resnyanskaya JI.H. Psycho- and sociolinguistic analysis of the linguistic portrait of a city dweller (Expressives of women and men) // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1988. - P. 39 - 47.

258. Salnikova T.A. New phenomena in the emporonymy of Krasnoyarsk // Philology Journalism. - Krasnoyarsk: KSU Publishing House - pp. 63 - 65

259. Salyaev V.A. About social dialects of the Russian language//Rus. language at school. -1996a.-No.1.-S. 78 84.

260. Salyaev V.A. On the main stages of the evolution of the argotic word // Rus. language at school. 1996b.-No.5.-S. 90-93.

261. Salyaev V.A. On the normative-stylistic evolution of colloquial vocabulary of argotic and slang origin and its reflection in explanatory dictionaries // Science at the turn of the century: Sat. articles. St. Petersburg: Nestor, 1999. - pp. 41 - 45.

262. Sanji Garyaeva Z.S. Vernacular elements in the oral speech of residents of Elista // Urban vernacular: problems of study. - M.: Science, 1984.-P.167-173.

263. Sanji Garyaeva Z.S. Some features of oral speech in Elista // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - P. 235 - 257.

264. Serebrennikov B.A. Social differentiation of language / General linguistics. Forms of existence, functions, history of language / Responsible editor. B.A. Serebrennikov. M.: Nauka, 1970. - P.478 - 498.

265. Sinenko S.G. City above the White River. Short story Ufa in essays and sketches. 1574 2000. - Ufa: “Bashkortostan”, 2002. - 184 p.

266. Sirotpinina O.B. Colloquial speech (definition, concept, main problems) // Issues of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - 373 - 391 p.

267. Sirotinina O.B. Modern colloquial speech and its features. -M.: Education, 1974.-144 p.

268. Sirotinina O.B. general characteristics vocabulary of colloquial speech//Colloquial speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Lexicon/Ed. ABOUT. Sirotinina. Saratov, 1983a. - P. 610.

269. Sirotinina O.B. Russian colloquial speech. Teacher's manual. -M.: Education, 19836.-80 p.

270. Sirotinina O.B. Linguistic appearance of the city of Saratov // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - P.247-253.

271. Sirotinina O.B. Speech of a modern city//Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference./Ed. B. I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995. Part 1. - P. 8 - I.

272. Skvortsov L.I. Professional languages, jargons and speech culture//Rus. speech. 1972. - No. 1. - P.48-59.

273. Skvortsov LI. Literary language, vernacular and jargons in their interaction // Literary norm and vernacular. M.: Nauka, 1977.

274. Skvortsov L.I. What threatens the literary language? (Reflections on the state of modern speech)//RYASH. 1994. - No. 5. - P. 99 -105.

275. Skitova F.L. Interchange of lexical synonyms between literary and folk languages ​​// Literary language and folk speech. Perm: PSU Publishing House, 1984. - pp. 25 - 31 p.

276. Skrebnev Yu.M. Study of Russian colloquial speech (Review of the works of the Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences) // Questions of linguistics. 1987. - No. 1. - pp. 144-155.

277. Skrebneva A.A. On the issue of general and distinctive phenomena in oral speech (based on grammar) // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. -M.: Nauka, 1984. P. 173-179.

278. Skrebneva A.A. Some processes of functioning of colloquial vocabulary // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1988. - P. 2839.

279. Skrebneva A.A. On the status of modern urban vernacular // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Ural State University Publishing House, 1990.-P. 30-38.

280. Dictionary of Russian dialects of Bashkiria / Ed. ZL.Zdobnova. Vol. 1-2. -Ufa: “Gilem”, 1997.

281. Dictionary of the modern Russian city: Ok. 11,000 words, approx. 1000 idiomatic expressions/Ed. B.I. Osipova. M.: “Russian dictionaries”; "Astrel"; "AST"; "Transitbook", 2003. - 564 p.

282. Dictionary of prison-camp-thieves' jargon (speech and graphic portrait of a Soviet prison) // Compiled by D.S. Baldaev, V.K. Belko, I.M. Isupov.-M.: Regions of Moscow, 1992.- 526 p. .

283. Sobinnikova V.I. Dialects and vernacular as part of the national language (according to historical linguistics) Voronezh: VSU Publishing House, 1992. - 112 p.

284. Socio-economic situation of districts and cities of the Republic of Bashkortostan: Statistical collection. Ufa: Bashkortostanstat, 2005. - 256 p.

285. Methods of nomination in modern Russian / Responsible editor. D.N. Shmelev. M.: Science. 1982.-296 p.

286. Sreznevsky II. Notes on materials for the “geography” of the Russian language // Vestnik imp. geographer. Society. St. Petersburg, 1885. Part 1, book. 1. pp. 1-24

287. Sreznevsky I. Athenian language in Russia//Domestic notes. 1839.- T. 5, Aug., Dept. VIII.

288. Starodubtseva V.V. Nomination of intra-city enterprises and institutions in the modern Russian language (based on the material of oikodomonyms of Ulyanovsk): Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Moscow: Publishing house MGOU, 2003 -21p.

289. Persistent Art. Social dialects/Issues of linguistics. 1957. - No. 1. - P. 78 84.

290. Stolyarova E.A. Types of lexical-semantic fields in Russian colloquial speech // Russian language today. Vol. 1: Sat. articles/Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - P. 433 - 443.

291. Sudzilovsky G.A. Slang: what is it?. M., 1973. - P.40

292. Types of supra-dialectical forms of language. M.: Nauka, 1981. - 309 p.

293. Toshovich B. Semantic structure of slang verbs // Russian language today. Vol. 1: Sat. articles/Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - P. 444-455.

294. Trosheva T.B. Non-literary vocabulary in the oral speech of students // Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm, 1992. -P 111-116.

295. Turbin G.A. On the concepts of “semi-dialect” and “vernacular” in modern dialectology // Word in systemic relations. Sverdlovsk, 1982. - P.42 - 59.

296. Ustinenko I.A. The phenomenon of condensation in language and speech//Theory of linguistics and Russian studies: the legacy of B.N. Golovin. N.Novgorod: NSU Publishing House, 2001.-P. 317-319.

297. Favorin V.K. On the issue of modern pronunciation norms. Izv. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953. -T.12, issue 1. - p.87..

298. Fedyanina O.N. Uncodified vocabulary of the language of the city of Kirov (Based on vernacular and jargon): Diss. .cand. Phil. n. Kaluga: KSU, 1997. -285 p.

299. Filin F.P. On the problem of social conditioning of language//Language and Society. M.: Nauka, 1968.- P. 5-21.

300. Filin F.P. Modern social development and the problem of bilingualism // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M.: Nauka, 1972.-P. 13-25.

301. Filin F.P. On the structure of the modern Russian literary language//Russian language in modern world. M.: Nauka, 1974. - pp. 107-122.

302. Filin F.P. On the properties and boundaries of literary language // Questions of linguistics. 1975.- No. 6. - P. 3-13.

303. Filin F.P. About vernacular and colloquial in the Russian literary language // Philological Sciences. Scientific reports high school. 1979. -№2. - pp. 20-25.

304. Frolov N.K. On the history of the formation of urbanonymy in Tyumen // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - P. 118 -125.

305. The functioning of the literary language in the Ural city. - Sverdlovsk, 1995.

306. Haugen E. Language contact // New in linguistics. Language contacts.-M.: Progress, 1972,- Issue. 6. pp. 61-80.

307. Kharlamova M.A. The origins of urban speech in Omsk // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - pp. 11 - 19.

308. Chemist V.V. Poetics of the low, or Vernacular as a cultural phenomenon. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Publishing House, 2000. - 272 p.

309. Khorosheva N.V. Interjargon in the functional paradigm of the Russian national language // Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works Perm: PSU Publishing House, 1993. - P. 122 -128.

310. Tsvetkova ML. Main directions of research in Polish colloquial speech//VYa 1990. - No. 5. - P. 116 - 123.

311. Churkina K.I. Evolution pronunciation standards in the speech of the intelligentsia of Krasnoyarsk: Author's abstract. dis. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Novosibirsk, 1969

312. Shvedova N.Yu. Essays on the syntax of Russian colloquial speech. -M.: Publishing house Academician. Sciences of the USSR, 1960. 377 p.

313. Shvedova N.Yu. About some active processes in the modern Russian language // VYa. 1964. - No. 2.

314. Schweitzer A.D. Modern sociolinguistics: theory, problems, methods. -M.: Nauka, 1976. 175 p.

315. Schweitzer A.D. Interaction of the literary language with substandard vocabulary in modern English // Oral forms of the literary language: History and modernity. M.: Editorial URSS, 1999. - P. 29 - 45.

316. Sheigal E.I. Computer jargon as a linguocultural phenomenon // Linguistic personality, cultural concepts. Volgograd-Arkhangelsk: Peremena, 1996. - pp. 204-211.

317. Shkatova JI.A. How the word will respond. Chelyabinsk: ChTU Publishing House, 1986. - 60 p.

318. Shkatova JI.A. Specifics of urban communication//Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - pp. 19-28.

319. Shkatova JI.A. “Language code” of the Ural city // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1990. - P. 72 - 79.

320. Shkatova N.A. Methods of studying the language of the city // Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipova. Omsk, 1995.4.1.- pp. 15 - 16.

321. Shmelev D.N. Russian language in its functional varieties (Towards the formulation of the problem). M: Nauka, 1977.-168 p.

322. Shmeleva T.V. Notes on the speech of Novgorodians (in connection with the problem of linguistic portraiture of the modern city) // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.

323. Shcherba JI.B. On the concept of mixing languages ​​// Selected works on linguistics and phonetics. JL: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1958. -vol.1. -182 s.

324. Yuganov I., Yuganova F. Russian jargon of the 60-90s. Dictionary experience/Ed. A. N. Baranova. M., 1994.

325. Yunakovskaya A.A. Omsk urban vernacular (research results) // Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference. /Ed. B.I. Osipova. Omsk, 1995. - Part 1. - pp. 66 - 69.

326. Yunakovskaya A.A. Expressive-stylistic differentiation of colloquial vocabulary (based on the material of Omsk) // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - P. 80 - 87.

327. Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1990. - 184 p.

328. Yakovleva E.A. Rhetorical function of Turkisms in Russian speech in a multi-ethnic environment (for example, Ufa) // Russia and the East: Problems of interaction. Part IV. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk University. 1995. - pp. 182-187.

329. Yakovleva E.A. Urbanymics of Ufa: linguistic-cultural-semiotic aspect//Vestnik VEGU. -1996. No. 3: Pedagogy. - pp. 16-20.

330. Yakovleva E.A. Rhetoric as a theory of mental and speech activity (as applied to the analysis of literary texts, urban texts and topical nominations): Scientific report on published works. Doctor of Philology. Sci. -Ufa. 1998.-98 p.

331. Yakovleva E.A. Features of Russian speech behavior of a city dweller in a multiethnic environment// Problems of communication and nomination in the concept of general humanities knowledge. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk State Publishing House. University, 1999. -S. 188-196.

332. Yakubinsky L.P. About dialogical speech//Yakubinsky L.P. Selected works: Language and its functioning. M.: Nauka, 1986.- P. 17-58.

333. Baychev B., Videnov M. Veliko-Tarnovskiyat ezik: Sociolinguistic studies on Veliko-Tarnovskata gradska rech. Veliko Tarnovo: Abagar, 1999. -388 p.

334. Videnov M., Bancheva M., Sotirov P., Angelov A. Sociolinguistics and student speech. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski, 1996. - 190 p.

335. Krupska-Perek A. Szkic socjolingwistycznego opisu mowy mieszkancow maiego miasta: (Na przykiadzie Praszki w woj. cz?stochowskim) // Rozprawy Komis. j?z./ Lodzkie t-wo nauk. Lodz, 1995. - T.40. - S. 169-185.

336. Andersson L., Trudgill P. Bad Language Cambridge- Massachusetts: "Basil Blackwell Cambridge Center", 1990.

337. American speech: A Guarterly of Linguistic Usage. Columbia Press, 1975. Vol. 50.

338. Drake J. A. The Effect of Urbanization on Regional Vocabulary//American speech. -1961. V. 36. - P. 17 - 33.

339. Ferguson Ch. A. Language structure and language use: essays by Ch.A. Ferguson Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971. - 328 p.

340. Ferguson Ch. A. Diglossia/ZLanguage structure and language use: essays by Ch.A. Ferguson Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971. - P. 1-26.

341. Gumperz J.J. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

342. Kloss H. Types of Multilingual Communities: A Discussion of Ten Variables//International Journal of American Linguistics. 1967. - V. 33. - No. 4. - P. 7 -17.

343. Labov W. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.

344. Language and social identity / Ed. by J. J. Gumperz Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

345. Language in culture and society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology/ Ed. by D.Hymes New York, 1964.

346. Language in the British Isles/Ed. by P. Trudgill Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

347. Macaulay R.K.S. Social class and language in Glasgow//Language in Society. -1976,-v. 5.-№2.-P. 173-188.

348. Social dialects and language learning: Proceedings of the Bloomington, Indiana, conference, 1964.

349. The interdisciplinary study of urban bilingualism in Brussels/Ed. by Witte E., Beardsmore H.B. Glevedon; Philadelphia: Multilingual matters, 1987. - 241 p.

350. Thompson R.M. Mexican-American English: Social Correlates of Regional Pronunciation // American speech. 1975. - V. 50. - No. 1-2. - P. 18 - 24.

351. Trudgill P. The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. - 212 p.

352. Variation in the Form and Use of Language. A Sociolinguistics Reader/Ed. By R.W. Fasold. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1983.

Transcript

1 B.V. KRASILNIKOVA Institute of Russian Language, USSR Academy of Sciences The language of the city as a linguistic problem In Russian linguistics, two directions in the study of the language of the city have been identified, which could be called sociological and linguogeographical. The theorist of the first direction was B. A. Larin, who drew the attention of linguists to the fact that between the two areas that constantly attracted researchers, written literary language and oral dialects, there remains a gap in which little-studied areas of urban speech are located: “urban folklore, non-canonized types written language, colloquial speech of different groups of the urban population"1. The tasks of a comprehensive study of the city language set by B. A. Larin were grouped around two main aspects: 1) to what extent the social division of the city collective, the nature of social interactions within it are reflected in the linguistic division of the city language and the linguistic competence of different groups of citizens (““. Is it possible to think that there are as many dialects in the city as there are professions or socio-economic categories? "2); 2) what are the relationships of the literary language with the non-literary formations that make up its immediate environment; what are the relationships of different sublanguages ​​(between sublanguages, for example, argot and the literary language , there may be no relations of complete translatability; sublanguages ​​are subject to a hierarchy of prestige; a tendency to integrate different sublanguages ​​of the city that requires study was noted; the role of the city as the basis for the formation of a literary language was emphasized). At the same time, among social factors, not only the complex social, and sometimes the heterogeneous national composition of the urban population, but also the variety of social functions characteristic of city dwellers, and the fact that each city dweller belongs to several social associations, etc. therefore, speaks more than one sublanguage. A general conclusion was made: “the linguistic diversity of the city is twofold: 1) it is not only in the meeting of multilingual groups (we will call this the multilingualism of the city), but also 2) in the diversity of linguistic skills of each group... i.e. in bi-dialectality and multi-dialectality , in the rudimentary and perfect polyglotism of the townspeople”3. IN last years, as is known, significant volumes of recordings of urban colloquial speech have been accumulated, new ideas have been developed about the relationship between book-written language and oral

2 colloquial speech of the city4, but the linguistic formations coexisting in the city have not yet been fully studied, the question of their interaction has only just been raised. The sociological direction received further development in modern research in sociolinguistics, as well as in studies of “functional paradigms” of national languages. The highlighted concept is used, in particular, in the book “Types of supra-dialectal forms of language” (Moscow, 1981), in which, using the material of different languages, the task is set to study the relationship of the literary language in its written and oral form with dialects, semi-dialects, urban vernacular, interdialectal koine . The linguistic-geographical direction puts the spatial aspect of the existence of language in the first place. Are there urban (or areal) variants of the literary language? What is the variation at different levels? Two theoretical possibilities are discussed: 1) the literary language is one, literary and non-literary phenomena are opposed, territorial differences belong to the dialect area and its spheres of influence; 2) the literary language exists in territorial variants, in a certain interaction with supra-dialect and dialect forms. In this aspect, the problem of interaction of the literary language with the non-literary and foreign language environment receives new content. IN general view These problems were formulated in an article by R. R. Gelgardt5, in the collective monograph “Russian Language and Soviet Society”6. This topic is also developed in a number of works devoted to the description of phenomena at individual language levels, to the greatest extent and pronunciation7. There are works on the peculiarities of the speech of St. Petersburg-Leningraders 8. The question of identities and differences in urban nomination is posed in the book “Methods of nomination in the modern Russian language” 9. Comprehensive studies of the city’s language have begun in a number of cities, in particular in Perm 10. City can be presented as a space with a center and outskirts, consisting of old and new areas with a special history, with their characteristic territorial, dialect connections. The city itself has a “linguistic landscape”, this idea is extremely interestingly developed in the article by S. S. Vysotsky11. There are studies that combine sociological and territorial aspects (for example, “Russian language and Soviet society”). In Tübingen (FRG), many years of work have been carried out to record speech samples through a continuous survey of small cities located in the same territory. In various communication conditions, a mobile laboratory makes a record from a certain number of informants of different ages, gender, social class. Based on linguistic differences, the differential significance of extra-linguistic characteristics has been established. The materials obtained by the researchers forced them to give the most pain

3 great weight to two factors: territorial and gender (analysis of the speech of women and men showed the following pattern: if a certain trend is observed in the speech of men, then in the speech of women a tendency is found that is opposite or indefinite12). At the present stage of scientific research, both of these areas remain very relevant. But the development of communication theory, functional linguistics, and the theory of speech acts leads to a new look at the language of the city as a complex structured communicative whole. The task of understanding the specifics of the city as an integral object of linguistic study becomes urgent. “The city is a complex unity, including natural factors, material objects, man-made, and the people themselves"13. This definition identifies all the material objects that make up the city, so it is the starting point for many specific definitions of the city created in the context of special sciences. They necessarily show signs associated with the forms social existence man and his activities. A city is a national economic object, a socio-economic complex, an architectural formation. For a sociologist, a city is a special structure of social groups and social relations, a special way of life: “a closed cycle of connections “work, life, leisure,” a special structure of mass and individual communication. For a linguist, the special structure of linguistic communication comes to the fore. At the same time, the study of the language of the city is in the general context of the approach, which is determined by the requirement “to always take language not as an isolated phenomenon, but as a phenomenon operating in society with a complete extra-linguistic context”14, an approach to language as an activity. As part of the study of “linguistic existence”15, Japanese scientists conducted a comprehensive survey of speaking and listening, reading and writing of many people and further clarified the dependence of the volume and nature of speech practice on profession, social status and other characteristics. A description of the functioning of language in the city, obviously, should include this kind of information about different age and social groups of citizens, but cannot be limited to this if its ultimate goal is not fragmentary, but system description, if the leading one is the attitude towards the city as a “single organism” (the image of K. Marks). The main components of the communication process are: participants in communication (sender, addressee), content of communication, means of communication. When analyzing different components, we must take into account that the analysis is aimed, firstly, at identifying the specifics of the city as the opposite of the village, and secondly, at identifying the uniqueness of a given city. In connection with the last task, a typology of cities becomes necessary: ​​large, small; new old (first few

4 burden and, according to the inhabitants, are younger and usually have a creamy composition, the latter have a history, hereditary residents of the bearers of the city’s traditions); with economic specialization (single-profile) without it (cf.: cities, science centers (academic towns), metallurgical, textile, resort, etc.10). Cities may have a different lifestyle with rich street life (e.g. resort towns, southern cities, cities with embankments, with large parks) or poor; with different time rhythms of life (evening, day); with different paces of life. A linguistic typology of cities, obviously, should be built taking into account all the achievements of modern urban sociology, but at the same time be focused on linguistic differences in which, for example, the linguistic life of large and small cities differs. Even brief reflections on this topic allow us to say that the number of inhabitants and the spatial extent of the city limit the possibilities of contacts. Many modern large cities are characterized by “pendulum migration” from the suburbs and nearby small towns. Finally, the social and economic ties of large cities with other cities and their transformation into transport hubs at the same time create a constant influx of nonresidents. All this opens up the city’s collective, makes the composition of people participating in communication change, thereby destroying the speakers’ attitudes associated with a stable community. The same reasons lead to the maximum standardization of forms of mass communication; all cities should be, in a certain sense, “like one city.” A visitor must be able to accurately navigate any city (therefore, for example, the inscriptions in the city must be standard). The consequence of this is sharper contrasts between the forms of personal and social communication. A big city not only has a complex system of forms of communication, but also extremely specializes the means used in different communication areas. At the same time, it is in big city own means of mass communication appear: radio stations, television studios, newspapers. A visitor can also feel that he is not included in the city’s collective, reading, for example, slogans with appeals: Leningraders!; Sverdlovsk residents! etc. Let's consider the main forms of communication in the city, which reflect the different ratios of different components of communication. The starting point is the division: mass personal communication. In the field of mass communication, the differential sign of indirectness/immediacy of contact is significant. Newspapers, radio, television (local and central or only central), inscriptions on city streets we would classify as a form

5 indirect communication (no contact), distinguishing this type of communication from rallies, meetings, special holidays (for example, parades, demonstrations, annual poetry festivals). It may be advisable to join those sociologists who classify only forms of mediated communication as mass communication, while other forms are called public communication. In public communication, more regulated and freer forms are possible. Mass (citywide, etc.) official meetings usually take place on installed program and prepared texts. But in narrow groups at public and industrial meetings, sessions, planning meetings, at scientific conferences and symposiums, various kinds of meetings (with a writer, scientist, hero of the day), at book discussions, oral journals, during special events (related, for example, to the beginning or end of studies at school, university, with a significant labor victory) the degree of preparedness/spontaneity, official/unofficial varies, apparently, very widely. We mean, first of all, the speech behavior of the “chairman” and the “speakers”. The reactions of the audience can also be non-standard and unregulated, singling out speakers from their lineup and showing other “activity from the seats” (for example, shouting). In this case, the boundary between an organized meeting with a moderator monitoring its progress and a disorganized polylogue can be crossed (recall the characteristic reaction: Stop the market!), after which the moderator has to return the course of the meeting to a strict course. Sociologists note such an important difference between television and radio audiences and audiences in public communication as contact/non-contact. The disconnect between radio listeners and the closeness of television viewers sitting in the same room determines profound differences in their behavior. In the first case, forms of communication complications of contamination are possible different forms: while listening to the radio, you can exchange a word with your family, others on a topic related to radio information, and on completely unrelated current everyday topics. Conversations at the TV, loud remarks about what is visible and audible (impossible in a cinema hall) also represent a form of crossing of different communicative spheres. Contact between those in the same audience also has special external, including linguistic, forms of expression. The speaker influences the atmosphere of perception in a certain way; the audience can be electrified, merged into a single whole, but it can also be split and not unanimous. There are specific mass reactions, for example, a roar in the audience. Where does it come from? From microcontacts with neighbors, from the erupting reactions of people, “particles” of the audience. Thus, here too the interaction of different forms of communication is observed. An extremely unique place of public com

6 communications are sports competitions, primarily football and hockey. Speech behavior in the stands is full of emotion, often imperative in nature. We only know the work of Yu. M. Kostinsky, which contains observations on the characteristic types of shouts from fans. Mass and personal communications can be carried out in written and oral form. The choice of linguistic means of expression in each form is influenced by the entire set of other characteristics of communication. For example, a word on a sign is a form of written mass communication. This is the most concise and economical form of information transfer, which collapses a situation (or a set of situations) into a nomination. Let us consider, for example, the names of consumer service institutions. These are places where service providers and customers interact. Typical service situations are as follows: the subject of the action performs an action on an object, usually owned by the client (Shoe repair; Glasses repair; Dry cleaning; Inserting snakes into bags inscription in Odessa); the subject of the action performs actions on the client (the client is the object of the action in a hairdressing salon, clinic, atelier). The initiator (causer) of these situations is the client who is looking for and choosing a place of service. How are the relevant institutions identified? There are a number of specialized names such as “deli”, “clinic”, “hairdresser”, “atelier”, “laundry”; in other cases, the name includes either only the name of the item-object or the name of the action-f-name of the item. The following pattern is observed. Naming by object is characteristic primarily of trading enterprises (Bread; Juices; Shoes; Books); This type of folding distinguishes commercial enterprises in the modern city from others belonging to the service sector, in which the action itself is usually called (see examples above: repair, washing, cleaning, etc.). The words “sale” and “trade” appear on signs for seasonal and specialized forms of trade (sale at reduced prices). Perhaps these cases reflect a new trend in the nomination of trade enterprises - a tendency towards “unlabeled” names. In parallel to modern names you can put, for example, an inscription saved for memory on the wall (there is no store) along Novoslobodskaya Street in Moscow: “Fish and meat trade.” In the post-revolutionary period, dramatic changes occurred in this area of ​​nomination. Before the revolution, the signs of private enterprises often bore the name of the subject of the action (the owner of the enterprise): “Shoemaker Ivanov.” Modern service (understood broadly here) is usually anonymous. The client's surname is reported in a number of cases not in order to create familiarity, but to identify things (cf. the role of a receipt) or distinguish clients (for example, when calling at a doctor's appointment). And the name of the performer, the service person (for example, the receptionist in

7 atelier, hairdresser) is also often unknown, although recently signs with the name of the seller, savings bank manager, cashier are becoming more and more widespread; the first, patronymic and last name of the taxi driver is always reported (note that in the summer signs appear in stores like: “You are served by a student UPI construction team"). But this information is rarely activated. The names of doctors and cutters, on the contrary, are important in communication, although only a few have personal acquaintance with them (interesting are the differences in the “style” of relationships established among regular clients with hairdressers, doctors, as well as between parents and kindergarten teachers, teachers, associated with the formality scale). An important grammatical aspect of studying the structure of written communication is the relationship between nomination and predication, nomination and texts (business genres). The anonymous-impersonal style of communication is manifested in a preference for nomination: the participants in silent communication are not named, they are reduced; in predication a certain degree of their detection is possible. Compare: “Shoes” and “We invite you to visit a new shoe store.” To what extent is such actualization possible outside of advertising? Recently, there is a tendency to strengthen the “human presence”. Wed: “No smoking!” and “We don’t smoke here”; "Please do not smoke." Observations are needed about how common such Forms are and in what social spheres they are preferred; Do they appear on the facades of houses in advertisements and on signs or are they preserved only in interior spaces? Signs and reception rooms of relevant institutions usually contain other information that defines the relationship between the enterprise and the client: about working hours, lunch breaks, and individual operations. These inscriptions turn into lengthy texts regarding the rules and working conditions, which are usually posted inside the enterprise. So, we touched upon the issue of the possible actualization in the written word of the sender of speech of the subject of action (usually generalized). Note that in oral mass communication, for example in radio announcements, there are usually no direct messages to an unknown person. Wed. initial accusative: “We ask those who have lost their documents in our store to come…” The second aspect of actualization relates to the description of the situation of the enterprise’s activities and the relationship between the enterprise and the client. The sign indicates the permanent specialization of the institution and the rhythm of its work. A specific immediate situation can be indicated on signs in special formulas: Closed for lunch: Accounting; Repair; Closed for technical reasons; There is no performance today: Tickets are sold out today; Sanitary day. Non-standard situations are usually described in a more detailed proposal, often with a direct appeal to clients.

8 When non-standard situations The oral communication channel is activated more often, interested parties more often seek contact with the administrator. Thus, one can observe various transitions from one form of communication to another. In written and oral forms of communication, a complex interaction of verbal (linguistic) means of communication and non-verbal (visual images; gestures; auditory sound signals in the house and on the street) can occur. As you know, in the modern city there has been a sharp reduction in sound signals: factory and car horns have been canceled, the number of clocks with ringing has decreased, but in Moscow the Kremlin chimes have been preserved, in Leningrad the midday shot of a cannon Peter and Paul Fortress; The only innovations in Moscow that can be noted are the sounding traffic lights: when the light is green, bird trills can be heard. Let us give just one simple example of the interaction of different communication channels. The verbal “Transition” sign is combined with the street layout, traffic lights, a policeman may stand at the intersection, regulating traffic with gestures or a baton; The intersection is also a place for more active gesticulation of drivers. Sound signals in the city, for example those made by ambulances and fire trucks, are distinctive in nature. In general, the semiotics of urban communication undoubtedly differs from rural ones in its complexity. In the modern city, such a special problem as the interaction between man and machine arises. In large cities today there are many different types of machines: newspaper machines, soda machines, railway cash registers, slot machines, etc. The machines are usually equipped with instructional texts explaining how to communicate with them. It is interesting to study these texts from the point of view of how the situation of impersonal communication is collapsed in them. Since the machines are produced industrially and supplied to different cities, standards have already emerged in writing instructions for them. In the field of personal communication, we can distinguish, following sociologists, permanent and variable roles of the speaker. Permanent roles are associated with social status, profession, age, gender, family status. At the same time, a city dweller is a person with many regularly recurring variable roles: he is a passenger, a buyer, a client of a workshop, a dry cleaner, a savings bank, etc. One person must go through many roles; their choice is stable for the urban collective, since there is a stable set of corresponding situations. Variable roles and frequency situations are served primarily by urban stereotypes18. A very interesting and complex question is about the distribution of roles and situations, about their assessment by speakers from different social groups from the point of view of the sign of formality/informality. Perhaps a more general sign of the social/personal nature of communication should be introduced. At home and in

With a circle of friends, a city dweller enters into personal contacts; these are the main areas of use of everyday colloquial speech, areas of linguistic self-disclosure of a person, free for verbal expression. The modern city sets strict restrictions on “personal” speech behavior. It closes itself in the apartment and goes out of town. The street, once famous for its free “language,” becomes silent in a modern developed city. Emotions are consciously restrained as much as possible; “scandal on the street” is rare; The change in the service structure led to the disappearance of all the incoming suppliers and specialists: peddlers, grinders, rat catchers, who had their own signals and cries, with whom one could also talk loudly. In large cities, the role of the courtyard has changed, and it has also become more empty and silent. Even the children's yard life has been shortened. Where is spoken language heard in the city? On a walk together or in a group (often youth), or meeting on the go. In a queue, a long transport journey. What does the modern word “chatter” apply to? We know that everyday conversations often take place during working hours. Since people are usually associated with one place of work for many years, it becomes a second home and a place of deep human contacts. Experts in conversational speech have already noted that the same provisions are assessed differently by different speakers. Communication develops differently (officially and unofficially) in the library, at the doctor’s, at the lawyer’s. Different cities may differ in what situations the official/informal attitudes of speakers apply to. A special issue is the preponderance of impersonal automatism or personal inclusion in different communication situations. Here is what the sociologist writes: “The emergence of functional-role rules of communication in the city stems from three reasons. Firstly, the abundance of contacts between strangers makes it necessary to protect a person’s identity by reducing the depth of contacts. Secondly, cultural differences between people make mutual understanding and communication difficult, while the establishment of universal rules is designed to facilitate communication, eliminating differences. Thirdly, the division and cooperation of labor require an accurate determination of the share of participation of each person in joint activities, regardless of his abilities and mood. The functioning of an organization is possible only with clear regulation of the behavior of its members. The personality of a city dweller is, as it were, “stratified” into a role shell and a deep foundation, into a person acting in a specific situation and cultural basis personality. The content of the role is formalized, while the cultural basis is revealed in personal communication and in the way of “playing” roles”9. The author further notes that the need for psychological, um about

10 national contact is satisfied with the city dweller in the family, in the circle of friends. So, on the one hand, anonymity, impersonality, superficiality. automaticity of contacts, splitting of the speaker into roles, on the other hand, individuality, depth (often stability) of contacts, allowing a person to fully and openly express himself in his speech. This character traits speech existence of a modern city dweller. Automatic communication in the city, however, is not a universal feature. You can hear the “dear girl” address in the mouth of the old intellectual slowing down the movement of the line for just a second. Someone is cheating, someone is expressing sympathy for the seller. The city dweller gets tired of the impersonality and automaticity of contacts; in cases where the pace of communication does not suffer, he looks for<Ъормы личностного контакта. Это и создает человеческою атмосферу города, ощущение вежливости, доброжелательности, сердечности или противоположных качеств. Что такое личностная окраска в стереотипном поведении? Возможно, это особое использование средств интонации, темпа речи, тембра голоса. определенные формы пластического поведения, характер использования жестов и мимики, соответствующий ситуации выбор реакции словом или молчанием. В структуре реплик существенную роль играют включение слов контакта, обращений или отсутствие их при установке на самую сухѵю и экономную информативность (в вопросе и о т в е т е)к р а т к о с т ь / полнота высказывания степень эллиптизации. И так, социологи указали на диалектическую сложность психологии говорящего в городе. Среди перспективных задач лингвистов можно назвать и задачу воссоздания «языковой личности* горожанина. Сегодня мы еще мало знаем об объеме речевой деятельности горожан и ее составе, о соотношении активных (говорение и писание) и пассивных (слушание, чтение), устных и письменных форм. Очевидно лить, что во внутригородском общении телефон потеснил обмен письмами, телевизор у части горожан вступает в конкуренцию с книгой и газетой. Интересно понаблюдать, в к а ких ситуациях происходит обмен записками: в зале на многолюдном собрании, на рабочих местах (при временном отсутствии одного из работников), дома (в случае, если члены семьи не могут увидеться друг с другом). Горожанин как типовое лицо полифункционален, он входит в состав нескольких коллективов, по-разному воздействующих на него: он житель города, работник в составе трудового коллектива, член семьи, член какого-то дружеского круга, компании, объединения по интересам (хобби, спорт, туризм, друзья детства). Социологи отмечают возрастание р о л и малой группы в коммуникации. уменьшение роли еоседских контактов в пользу родственных, служебных, дружеских20 (в своем доме обычно знают немногих, усилению домовых контактов способствуют особые причины, н а пример, взрослых часто объединяют во дворе дети или любовь к 14

11 dogs). A city dweller has large contacts outside the city: work contacts, including on business trips, during vacations (many rest in rest homes, sanatoriums and other places); In different cities, contacts with villagers among city residents, apparently, are heterogeneous. A city dweller must master several linguistic subsystems; an educated city dweller usually speaks several styles of speech or at least clearly differentiates them. Those groups of townspeople who do not actively master the forms of the literary language, but constantly focus on it in their speech, evaluate it as a prestigious form, and assimilate individual elements. The level of proficiency in different styles, the amount of stylistic competence of citizens of different social groups, however, has not yet been studied at all. High rates of communication and its stereotyping also have a negative impact on the culture of speech of a modern citizen. Forms of business speech often come down to filling out forms, copying samples (autobiography, characteristics, personnel records sheets, numerous certificates). Oral speech in a public form is also not a mandatory requirement only for administrators and public workers (everyone knows the status of recorded speakers), although, of course, the genre of speaking at a meeting is accessible to many. Is the component “content of communications” significant for describing the language of a city? This question is new to linguists. Let's start with the simplest answers. When compiling a questionnaire for studying vocabulary and nominations in the city, we must select thematic areas that are relevant specifically for the city. These questionnaires will undoubtedly differ greatly from those addressed to rural residents. It is obvious that there are specifically urban objects of the nomination, there are areas of content that have a special structure and deeper internal differentiation in the city. For example, the division of space in a city is more complex than in a village (streets, alleys, highways, dead ends, squares, blocks, districts, microdistricts, etc.), the relationship of the “urban environment” with the natural environment, landscape ( often also largely man-made). The complexity of the socio-economic life of the city, which also assumes functions over the city (state, republican, regional significance), is reflected in the development of this area of ​​content. The linguistic forms that are chosen as means of expressing relevant topics are to a large extent predetermined by the forms of communication. Thus, there is no doubt that mass communication stimulates the development of proper noun systems (cf. system of urban toponymy, names on signs). And my own economically combines the ability to individualize an object and its systemic classification and, most importantly, has an imperative obligation for the entire circle of people who need

12 identify the object. This creates successful communication in a circle of people of indefinite number and varying composition. The choice of linguistic forms in the city is greatly influenced by social significance, frequency, and standardization of situations requiring designation. In the conditions of mass communication, such situations acquire stereotypical means of expression. So, the content area can include questions: what are they talking about, what are they calling, how often are they talking and, finally, what is the communicative orientation of speech (message, question, motivation), what function of language (for example, according to R. O. Yakobson) does it serve? language: reflection of reality (reference), appeal to the addressee (contact), expression of the speaker’s self-expression (evaluation), aesthetic purpose. Let's take an example of city inscriptions. Their main function is referential (informative), aesthetic may accompany it. Street advertising, posters, warning signs, many handwritten announcements serve the purpose of influence and often have an imperative form: Do not walk on lawns!; Carefully!; All for the elections!; Fly with Aeroflot planes!; “I’ll rent a room...” An expressive function is performed by slogans with the word “glory” and shouts of “Bravo!” in the theatre. The content of a city dweller’s life, lifestyle, and the complex world of his communications form a certain psychology, view of the world, and value system. The cited article by A.V. Baranov contains interesting observations on the peculiarities of the perception of time and space in a city dweller, which distinguishes him from a peasant. “The world began to seem smaller, the distances were smaller due to the fact that the path became easier and shorter in time”21. The city dweller talks about the distance not “3 kilometers”, but “10 minutes by bus”. The language of the city reflects this special view of the world. Let's summarize some results. The study of the language of the city as a whole belongs to the field of sociolinguistics, since the original concept of “city” is social in nature. The linguistic study of the city must therefore be based on the entire set of sociological characteristics of the city as a whole and the characteristics of the components of its complex structure. Strictly speaking, a description of the language of a city should be preceded by its sociological description with elements of its history. The composition and structure of the population, the lifestyle and occupations of people, and the structure of communication must be taken into account. An important area of ​​research is a complete study of all forms of language functioning in the city: mass and personal communication; its oral and written means in interaction with non-verbal means and, in connection with this, the division of the city’s language as a socio-communicative system (the relationship of the components of the city’s language to the main components of the national language).

13 The linguogeographical approach expands the tasks of analysis by introducing a new feature of comparison (with more attention paid to the importance of cities in the territorial division of the Russian language, i.e., the relationship of the city’s language to its environment, to its region). The study of territorial differences will expand knowledge about the territorial diversity of linguistic forms (in particular, one of the goals of collective work should be the collection of vocabulary of the Russian language). What should the fund of materials about the language of the city consist of? Obviously, one of its main parts should be a music library with speech samples from city residents of different age and social groups, in which different genres and situations of speech will be presented. First of all, you need to strive to record the speech of hereditary residents of the city, make an effort to find people who are brightly gifted in speech among the speakers, and preserve examples of local eloquence (public, for example, judicial, and everyday). Another part of the fund is a card index reflecting stereotypes, city nomination, dictionary, materials for grammatical and phonetic description. The structure of the vocabulary card index and the form of recording examples still needs to be worked out. It must take into account various social, territorial, and stylistic characteristics. Obviously, all local words that are not recorded in the 17-volume academic dictionary of the Russian literary language should be highlighted and given labels related to the area of ​​their functioning (commonly used, professional, slang, obsolete-rare, reduced, etc.) 22 It is necessary to trace the influence of the temporary factor: the use of words in different age groups, the emergence of new words, the forgetting of old ones (let us recall the words “cowboy”, “batnik”, which were on everyone’s lips and are falling out of use and from memory; at one time in Moscow they called barred gardens for watermelons with the word “menagerie”, now this word is not heard). It is worth observing what “words of the season” are, what area they belong to: subject-matter, evaluative or other, what are the current jokes and ways of joking, “witty words”. What is common and unique in different cities in this regard? It turns out that there is even a fashion for word-formation models. Linguistic works have reflected the abundance of formations according to the “suggestible” type model in the colloquial speech of intellectuals; According to our observations, their number has now sharply decreased. Temporal boundaries need to be especially carefully considered when studying rapidly changing forms of speech, such as student jargon. We have already drawn attention to the importance of studying the preservation of historicisms and archaisms in the speech of the older generation, in special areas, for example, in toponymy.

14 The fund of materials, obviously, should include various written sources related to mass and personal communication, works of writers and poets native to the city. NOTES 1 Larin B. A. On the linguistic study of the language of the city // Russian speech. A., Vol. 3. P. 62. (New series). 2 Ibid. With Larin B.A. On the linguistic characteristics of the city: (several prerequisites) And Izv. Leningr. state ped. Institute named after A. I. Herzen. L., Vol. 1. C See the well-known series of works “Russian colloquial speech”, as well as: Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M., 1984; Barannikova L.I. On the problem of the relationship between the Russian literary language and the national Koine // Types of supra-dialectal forms of language. M., See: Gelgardt R.R. Literary language in geographical projection // Issue. linguistics See: Russian language and Soviet society: Phonetics of modern Russian literary language. M., See: Almukhamedova 3. M. Vocalism of Russian dialects Prompts according to some experimental data: Author's abstract. dis.... cand. Philol. Sci. Kazan, 1963; Tulina T. A. Features of the pronunciation of Russian consonants among persons who speak Russian and Ukrainian languages ​​// Development of phonetics of the modern Russian language. M., 1966; Parikova N.B. About the South Russian version of literary speech // Ibid.; Churkina K.I. Evolution of pronunciation norms in the speech of the intelligentsia: Author's abstract .... Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Novosibirsk, See, for example: Chernyshev V.I. As they say in St. Petersburg/ / Voice and speech JVffi 1, 2. 9 See: Methods of nomination in modern Russian. M., See, for example: Erofeeva T. I. Local coloring of literary colloquial speech. Perm, See: Vysoktsy S.S. About the Moscow folk dialect // Urban vernacular See: R u o ff A. Grundlagen und Methoden der Untersuchung gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Max Nimeier Verlag, Gutnov A. E. The city as an object of systemic research // System research, M., S. Neverov S. V. On the origins of the theory of linguistic existence/ / Historical and philological studies. M., S. About this, see: Neverov S.V. “Linguistic existence” and methods of its study/ / Peoples of Asia and Africa JST“6; Conrad N.I. On linguistic existence II Japanese linguistic collection. M., On the typology of new cities, see: Smolyar I.M. New cities. M., See: Kostinsky Yu. M. Jericho of football stands/ / Rus. speech On urban stereotypes, see: Russian colloquial speech: Texts. M., Baranov A.V. Man in the city/ / Spiritual formation of man. L., S. See: Socio-cultural functions of the city and spatial environment. M., S * Baranov A.V. Man in the city. From Wed. experience of analyzing Perm vocabulary in the above-mentioned book by T. I. Erofeeva.

Abstract of the program of the discipline “Russian language and culture of speech” Direction of training 03/38/02 “MANAGEMENT” Direction (profile) of the program Project management Goals and objectives of mastering the discipline (module)

Russian literary language its main features abstract Basic morphological norms of the Russian language. Noun Functional styles of the Russian literary language. Main features Abstract. Abstract.

Functional styles of speech Among the variety of varieties of language use, two main ones stand out: spoken language and literary language (book). Conversational language (colloquial style of speech) is used

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE AS A RESULT OF UPDATED CONTENT OF EDUCATION DOCTOR OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES, PROFESSOR A.R. BASEMBAYEV COMMUNICATION PROCESS COMMUNICATION PROCESS 1. Participants (who participates

Russian language and literature The goal of studying the subject area “Russian language and literature” at the final stage is the formation of philological competence: the culture of reader perception and understanding

B3.V.15 Sociolinguistics Fund of assessment tools for conducting intermediate certification of students in the discipline (module): General information 1. Department of Social Sciences 2. Direction of training 040100.62

Annotation to the work program “Russian language” The work program on the Russian language for grades 5-11 in St. Petersburg State Budgetary Institution of Educational Institutions VTSDOiT “Ogonyok” was compiled using materials from the Federal State Educational Institution

MUNICIPAL BUDGETARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION Panfilov Secondary School WORK PROGRAM FOR THE SUBJECT RUSSIAN LANGUAGE 1ST GRADE TEACHER ZAKOLYUKINA T.I. 2016-2017 TRAINING

State budgetary educational institution of the city of Moscow “School with in-depth study of the English language 1354” of the Department of Education of the city of Moscow Work program Russian language for students

Abstract to the work programs of the discipline “Russian Language” I. EXPLANATORY NOTE The place of the discipline in the structure of the educational program. Work programs for the Russian language for grades 10-11 were developed in

Ministry of General and Professional Education of the Sverdlovsk Region Department of Education of the Yekaterinburg City Administration MUNICIPAL AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION GYMNASIUM 99 620017,

IN AND. Shestopalova, T.I. Petrova, M.A. Bolgov REGIONAL VARIANT OF LIVING RUSSIAN SPEECH AS AN OBJECT OF CORPS LINGUISTICS 1 Introduction Among the features essential for any of the computer corpora is

Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation State University Higher School of Economics Nizhny Novgorod Branch Department of Social Sciences and Humanities Discipline program RUSSIAN

Work program for the academic subject “Russian language” at the level of secondary general education (grades 10–11) 1. Planned results of studying the subject “Russian language” at the secondary education level. As a result of studying

PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION "ACADEMY OF SOCIAL EDUCATION" Fund of assessment tools "Rhetoric" Level of higher education Bachelor's degree Direction of training 03/40/01 Jurisprudence

Work program for the subject “Native language (Russian)” Personal, meta-subject and subject results of studying the subject “Native language (Russian)” Goals and educational results are presented on several

Rhetoric School 2100 1. Explanatory note The work program on rhetoric was developed in accordance with the requirements of the Standard, the Resolution of the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the Russian Federation

Non-state educational institution of higher professional education "Russian New University" APPROVED by Rector V.A. Zernov 2012 ENTRANCE TEST PROGRAM IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

PLANNED RESULTS OF MASTERING THE SUBJECT The graduate will learn at an advanced level The graduate at the advanced level will have the opportunity to learn Language. General information about the language. Main branches of science

Municipal budgetary educational institution "Perovskaya school-gymnasium" "Considered" "Agreed" "Approved" at a meeting of the methodological Deputy Director Director of the MBOU teachers' association

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Slavic-on-Kuban State Pedagogical Institute" Faculty of Philology "APPROVED" acting Rector of SGPI Yatsenko A.I. 011 r. Working

Private educational institution of higher education "Rostov Institute for Entrepreneur Protection" (RIIP) REVIEWED AND AGREED at the meeting of the department "Accounting and Economics" 5/1 from 12/10/2015

N. A. Podobedova LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN THE CONTEXT OF A NEW INTERCULTURAL PARADIGM At the present stage of development of society, higher professional school is undergoing significant transformations. Special significance

Integration of educational areas Cognitive development is numerous questions and answers, explanations, problem posing, clarification, reading. Physical development - rules, commands and explanations. Artistic and aesthetic

The contact-establishing function of language and the sphere of its manifestation S. L. Nistratova (Italy), 2001 In recent years, in modern linguistics, characterized by anthropocentrism, attention has not been focused so much

Sheet 1 WORK PROGRAM OF DISCIPLINE (SPO) OP.06 PSYCHOLOGY OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION of the main educational program of secondary vocational education, training program for mid-level specialists

SUBJECT CYCLE “LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE” 1. Linguistic and literary competence A graduate of a primary school: 1) realizes the importance of the Russian language as a carrier of national culture and a means of communication in all spheres

NOU HPE "Institute of Management" Ivanovo branch APPROVED Director of the Ivanovo branch of NOU HPE "Institute of Management" 20 WORK PROGRAM OF THE DISCIPLINE "Russian language and culture of speech" for specialty 03050

Ancient languages ​​and cultures The goals of mastering the discipline “Ancient languages ​​and cultures” are to form students’ ideas about: - ancient civilizations; - stages of their historical and cultural development;

STANDARD OF SECONDARY (FULL) GENERAL EDUCATION IN THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE Basic level Studying the Russian language at the basic level of secondary (complete) general education is aimed at achieving the following goals:

Municipal autonomous educational institution "Secondary school 40" city of Kamensk-Uralsky Work program on the subject "Russian language" grades 10-11 STANDARD SECONDARY (FULL)

Explanatory note The relevance of the program is to introduce students to the complex and fascinating world of Russian speech, to show the word as if from the inside, to reveal the possibilities hidden in it, to promote

MUNICIPAL BUDGETARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF MURMANSK "SECONDARY SCHOOL 57" Approved Agreed Reviewed Director MBOU Secondary School 57 Deputy. director for water management at the meeting of the Ministry of Defense minutes

Explanatory note. This program is intended for students with severe mental retardation. When compiling it, the following documents were taken as a basis: 1) Adapted educational

Leontyeva T.V. Russian State Vocational Pedagogical University", Ekaterinburg USING DIAGRAMS AS A WAY OF PRESENTING INFORMATION T.V. Leontyeva Today with particular acuteness

1Russian language 1. Explanatory note Document status The educational program in the Russian language for grades X-XI was created on the basis of the federal component of the state standard of secondary general

Pristupa N.N. ON THE QUESTION OF THE STATUS OF A TERM IN MODERN LINGUISTICS Linguistics is an initially social science. The essential functions of language, as is known, are manifested in applied linguistic and speech functions,

Municipal state preschool educational institution “Kindergarten 11 “Firefly” Report on the topic: “Relevance of the problem of speech development of preschool children” Prepared by: senior teacher

Adapted work program for students with disabilities and mental retardation in English, grade 6 Developer: Prokopenko Yu.V., English teacher, 2017 1. Explanatory note This work program

Consultation for educators Topic: “The teacher’s speech is an example for the child” Prepared by: teacher of the senior group Bespalova T.V. Consultation for educators “The teacher’s speech is an example for a child” Children

Work program for the subject “Native language and literature” in grade 9 EXPLANATORY NOTE The work program for the subject “Native language and literature” in grade 9 is compiled on the basis of the Russian Program

Consultation for parents “Theatrical activities in the lives of children” Compiled by: Elena Gennadievna Muravyeva Teacher, MBDOU kindergarten 58, Apatity, Murmansk region Consultation goals:

PRESCHOOL PEDAGOGY Privalova Svetlana Evgenievna Ph.D. ped. Sciences, Associate Professor FSBEI HPE "Ural State Pedagogical University" Ekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region SPEECH ACTIVITY OF CHILDREN

MUNICIPAL AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL SCHOOL 84 “NEW SCHOOL” ADOPTED by the Pedagogical Council protocol dated 29).O8.20.8 Secretary / y ^ J ^ C.B. Scrobot WORKING

Abstract The discipline “Russian language and culture of speech” is included in the basic part of block 1 (“Disciplines (modules)”) of the training program in the direction 48.03.01 “Theology” (bachelor’s level). The purpose of development

MBOU Secondary School 3 groups of preschool education in Tatarsk CONSULTATION FOR PARENTS DEVELOPMENT OF COGNITIVE INTERESTS OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN, TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT OF THE FSES DO. Senior teacher: Svetlana Viktorovna Permeneva

Work program of the Russian language module “Reading. We think. We are writing" 7th grade Compiled by teacher of Russian language and literature Bystrova L. M. teacher of Russian language and literature Bormotova S. I. 2017-2018 academic year

Explanatory note The work program for extracurricular activities was developed on the basis of the main educational program of the MBOU "Secondary School 30" and consists of the following sections: planned results of development

G.M. Pikalova, BSPU THE ROLE OF BEHAVIORAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES One of the main applied tasks in management psychology is to increase the efficiency of management activities. Exist

Criterion Regulatory and methodological materials Goals and objectives of studying the subject Implementation deadlines and number of hours Planned result Component Federal Law of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 2012 273-FZ

PLANNED RESULTS OF MASTERING THE SUBJECT Personal results: - a sense of pride in one’s Motherland, the Russian people and the history of Russia, awareness of one’s ethnic and national identity in

Abstract The discipline “Russian language and culture of speech” is included in the basic part of block 1 (“Disciplines (modules)”) of the training program in the direction 48.03.01 “Theology” (bachelor’s level), profile “Theory”

Abstract to the work program in the native (Russian) language and literature for grades 5-9 of FC GOS This work program in the native (Russian) language and literature is developed for teaching in grades 5-9 based on:

Section I. Planned results of mastering the academic subject “Russian Language” As a result of studying the academic subject “Russian Language” at the level of secondary general education: Graduate at an advanced level

The main educational program of the MADO "Kindergarten 97 "Bee" was developed in accordance with the main regulatory documents on preschool education: - Federal Law of December 29. 2012 273

Municipal preschool educational institution “Kindergarten 149”, Yaroslavl Brief presentation of the Main educational program Main educational program of the preschool educational institution “Kindergarten 149” Program

Introduction

Chapter L City language as a linguistic problem.

From the history of studying the language of the city

Concept of the language of the city

The concept of colloquial speech _

The concept of vernacular

5. Correlation of the concepts “jargon”, “argot”, “slang”_
conclusions

Chapter II. Linguistic landscape of the city of Ufa_

Brief historical background

1. Urbanonyms of Ufa

Horonyms of Ufa

Godonyms of Ufa

1.3. Oikodomonyms of Ufa

2. Names of public transport means in Ufa.
conclusions

8-15 .15-18 J8-23 _23-30 _30-41 42

43-81 _43-46 _46-75 JS0-60 _60-69 _69-75 75-81

Chapter III. Functioning of various language subsystems

in Ufa

1. Features of colloquial speech in Ufa

Phonetic features of colloquial speech in Ufa_

Colloquial vocabulary in Ufa

2. Vernacular of Ufa

2.1 Phonetic features of the vernacular of Ufa

2.2. Word formation and morphological features of vernacular

J07-110 .110-119 _119-140 .119-122

122-140 140-141

Ufa 94-107

Syntactic features of the vernacular of Ufa

Colloquial vocabulary of Ufa

3. Ufa jargon

Specifics of Ufa jargon

Age, social and professional differentiation of Ufa jargon

Head of State Administration. Interaction of the Russian language with the Turkic (Bashkir and Tatar) languages ​​in

Ufa 142-170

145-170 .145-153 J 53-159 _159-170

1. National-Russian bilingualism in Ufa 142-145

2. Consequences of language interaction in Ufa _

Interference

Intercalation

2.3. Turkisms in the oral speech of residents of Ufa,
conclusions

Conclusion

List of used literature
Application

Introduction to the work

In connection with the ongoing process of urbanization, the city continues to be the most important object of study for a number of humanities: philosophy, sociology, ethnography, history, linguistics, etc. Therefore, an integrated approach to the study of the linguistic situation of the city is necessary. The linguistic study of the city is only one aspect of this problem.

The language of the city is one of the insufficiently developed issues in Russian linguistics. The study of this problem in our country began relatively recently. For a long time, predominantly the literary variety of the Russian national language was studied, as Yu.N. Karaulov states: “Russian studies, and, perhaps, linguistics in general, have never really dealt with the current language of society. Moreover, turning to it as a subject of study may seem not a completely scientific matter: after all, we have always studied the best examples of speech, we are accustomed to focusing on the meters of language, on authorities, and tried to avoid “negative” linguistic material...” [Karaulov 2001. - P.26]. However, as B.A. Larin noted, “preferential attention to literary languages ​​delayed the study of the city’s language” [Larin 19776. - P. 177].

In the second half of the 20th century, there was a new surge of interest in the study of the language of the city. Currently, the study of individual forms of oral urban speech is carried out in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Ryazan, Voronezh, Saratov, Elista, Nizhny Novgorod, Izhevsk, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Yekaterinburg, Ufa, Kazan, Arkhangelsk, Omsk, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk and other Russian cities.

The object of this study is the functioning of the language of a multinational city, and subject research - various subsystems of the language of the city of Ufa: colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon - as well as the process and results of interaction between the languages ​​of the peoples living in this city.

Relevance dissertation research is related to the importance of studying the language of a large multi-ethnic city, which makes it possible to analyze the dynamics of the development of the modern Russian language, its territorial and social variation in conditions of bi- and multilingualism, as well as the need for a comprehensive study of the linguistic features of the language of at least all large Russian cities.

Target of this work - identifying the specifics of the language of the city of Ufa, a comprehensive description and analysis of the language subsystems functioning in the city, studying

consequences of language contacts within one large administrative-territorial unit.

To achieve the research goal, it was necessary to solve the following tasks:

identify the main historical, social and linguistic factors that influenced the formation of the language of Ufa;

study the composition of the names of urban objects and their functioning in the city;

Consider the structure of the language of the city of Ufa from linguistic and
sociolinguistic positions;

identify and describe the main language subsystems functioning in the city;

explore the results of interaction between Russian and Turkic languages ​​in the city.

All identified problems and assigned tasks are posed and solved taking into account the results and achievements in the field of the theory of general linguistics, Russian studies, domestic and foreign sociolinguistics.

In accordance with the purpose and objectives, the following methods were used research: descriptive analysis using classification and comparison techniques, contextological analysis, interpretive analysis, observation.

Theoretical basis dissertations are the works of famous Russian scientists B.A. Larin, L.P. Yakubinsky, V.M. Zhirmunsky, L.I. Barannikova, V.A. Avrorin, Yu.D. Desheriev, A.D. Schweitzer, F.L. Filina, V.B. Kolesova, L.P. Krysina, N.A. Baskakova, L.A. Kapanadze, E.V. Krasilnikova, E.A. Zemskaya, O.A. Lapteva, L.I. Skvortsova, O. B.Sirotinina, OLErmakova, T.I.Erofeeva, L.A.Shkatova, Z.S.Sandzhi-Garyaeva, B.I.Osipov, N.Prokurovskaya, M.M.Mikhailov, A.E.Karlinsky, L. L. Ayupova, E. A. Yakovleva, K. Z. Zakiryanov and others, as well as foreign researchers B. Baychev, M. Videnov, J. Gumpertz, W. Weinreich, C. Fergusson, E. Haugen, R. Bell, J. .Fishman, U. Labov, R.I. McDavid and others.

Material Our research was primarily based on records of oral speech of Ufa residents contained in the card index of the Department of General and Comparative Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University, our own observations of the speech of Ufa residents, materials from various linguistic dictionaries, local history sources containing information on the history of various places in the city of Ufa ,

statistical data and results of sociological research, maps of Ufa, city guides. In total, about 3,000 lexical units and 5,000 contexts were examined (mostly statements that contained lexemes necessary for analysis). When analyzing the speech material, the nationality, gender, age, and education of the informants were taken into account. Scientific novelty research is as follows:

For the first time, a comprehensive study and description of the current state of the language of Ufa, a large multinational city, is being carried out;

the system of official and unofficial names of urban objects of a given city is analyzed;

the features of various language subsystems of the city of Ufa and the specifics of their functioning are studied;

The results of interaction between the three most
common languages ​​in the city (interference, intercalation, borrowing).

Theoretical significance This work is determined by the fact that the observations and conclusions made during the study allow a deeper understanding of the nature of the functioning of various language subsystems in a large multi-ethnic city and can be useful in similar studies using linguistic material from other cities. The study of the functioning of various subsystems of the language of urban residents, the results of the interaction of different languages ​​in a given city, should contribute to the study of the language of other Russian cities.

Practical value The work is that the results of our research can be used in training courses and special courses in general linguistics, the course “Sociolinguistics. Psycholinguistics”, when creating textbooks for the special course “Language of the City”, compiling a dictionary of the language of the city (based on the language of the city of Ufa).

The following provisions are submitted for defense:

1. Various subsystems of the language of Ufa: colloquial speech, vernacular, semi-dialect, jargon - are characterized by territorial variation, especially pronounced at the level of vocabulary, due to the remoteness of the city from the capital, the influence of a multinational urban environment and characterized by the presence of various specific lexemes, a large number of borrowings at the level of language and speech, in particular from the Turkic languages.

Of all the subsystems of the city’s language, the most common means of communication among people born in Ufa is Russian everyday colloquial speech interspersed with colloquial and slang elements.

The everyday (everyday) colloquial speech of the residents of Ufa is not strongly influenced by dialects, such as, for example, colloquial speech in various cities of the Ural region (Perm, Chelyabinsk And etc.). It is generally focused on the metropolitan language pattern at the phonetic, lexical, and grammatical levels, although its variation in a multilingual environment is inevitable.

In the city of Ufa there is a massive national contact heterogeneous bilingualism.

Testing of results and practical implementation of the work. Main provisions of the dissertation And the results of the study were presented in reports and communications at various conferences, namely: at the international scientific conference “Sentence and Word” (Saratov, September 2005), All-Russian scientific conferences “Ural-Altai: through centuries into the future” (Ufa, June 2005) and “Science and Education-2005” (Neftekamsk, October 2005), interregional scientific and theoretical conference “Literature, language And artistic culture in modern processes of sociocultural communication" (Ufa, October 2005), interregional scientific and practical conference "Language policy and language construction in the Republic of Bashkortostan (Ufa, November 2005), republican conference of young scientists "Current problems of philology" (Ufa, April 2005) - as well as at 3 meetings of the interuniversity postgraduate seminar on current problems of modern linguistics at the Faculty of Philology of Bashkir State University in 2005, 2006. The main content of the dissertation is reflected in eight publications.

Chapter I. City language as a linguistic problem 8

1. From the history of studying the language of the city8

2. The concept of the language of the city15

3. The concept of colloquial speech18

4. The concept of vernacular23

5. Correlation of the concepts “jargon”, “argot”, “slang”30

Chapter P. Language lazshaft of the city of Ufa43

Brief historical background43

1. Urbanonyms of Ufa46

1.1. Horonyms of Ufa50

1.2. Godonyms of Ufa60

1.3. Oikodomonyms of Ufa69

2. Names of public transport means in Ufa75

Chapter III. Functioning of various language subsystems in Ufa84

1. Features of colloquial speech in Ufa85

1.1. Phonetic features of colloquial speech in Ufa85

1.2. Colloquial vocabulary in Ufa87

2. Vernacular language of Ufa90

2.1 Phonetic features of the vernacular of Ufa90

2.2. Word formation and morphological features of the vernacular of Ufa94

2.3. Syntactic features of the vernacular of Ufa107

2.4. Colloquial vocabulary of Ufa110

3. Ufa jargon119

3.1. Specifics of Ufa jargon119

3.2. Age, social and professional differentiation of Ufa jargon

Chapter IV. Interaction of the Russian language with the Turkic (Bashkir and Tatar) languages ​​in Ufa142

1. National-Russian bilingualism in Ufa142

2. Consequences of language interaction in Ufa145

2.1. Interference145

2.2. Intercalation153

2.3. Turkisms in the oral speech of residents of Ufa;159

Recommended list of dissertations

• Uncodified vocabulary of the language of the city of Kirov: Based on vernacular and jargon materials 1997, Candidate of Philological Sciences Fedyanina, Olga Nikolaevna

• Omsk urban vernacular: Lexico-phrases. compound. functioning 1994, Candidate of Philological Sciences Yunakovskaya, A. A.

• Colloquial vocabulary in the system of modern Russian language 2009, candidate of philological sciences Kholodkova, Marina Vladimirovna

• Regional version of the Russian literary language functioning in the territory of Udmurtia: Sociolinguistic aspect 2005, Candidate of Philological Sciences Torokhova, Elena Anatolyevna

• Functional-semantic specificity of non-normative forms of language: vernacular and youth jargon 2009, Candidate of Philological Sciences Kapranova, Natalya Anatolyevna

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “The language of the city of Ufa: the functioning of various language subsystems and bilingualism”

In connection with the ongoing process of urbanization, the city continues to be the most important object of study for a number of humanities: philosophy, sociology, ethnography, history, linguistics, etc. Therefore, an integrated approach to the study of the linguistic situation of the city is necessary. The linguistic study of the city is only one aspect of this problem.

The language of the city is one of the insufficiently developed issues in Russian linguistics. The study of this problem in our country began relatively recently. For a long time, predominantly the literary variety of the Russian national language was studied, as Yu.N. Karaulov states: “Russian studies, and, perhaps, linguistics in general, have never really dealt with the current language of society. Moreover, turning to it as a subject of study may seem not a completely scientific matter: after all, we have always studied the best examples of speech, we are accustomed to being guided by the meters of language, by authorities, and tried to avoid “negative” linguistic material.” [Karaulov 2001. - P.26]. However, as B.A. Larin noted, “preferential attention to literary languages ​​delayed the study of the city’s language” [Larin 19776. - P. 177].

In the second half of the 20th century, there was a new surge of interest in the study of the language of the city. Currently, the study of individual forms of oral urban speech is carried out in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Ryazan, Voronezh, Saratov, Elista, Nizhny Novgorod, Izhevsk, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Yekaterinburg, Ufa, Kazan, Arkhangelsk, Omsk, Tomsk, Krasnoyarsk and other Russian cities.

The object of this study is the functioning of the language of a multinational city, and the subject of the study is the various subsystems of the language of the city of Ufa: colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon, as well as the process and results of interaction between the languages ​​of the peoples living in this city.

The relevance of the dissertation research is related to the importance of studying the language of a large multi-ethnic city, which makes it possible to analyze the dynamics of the development of the modern Russian language, its territorial and social variation in conditions of bi- and multilingualism, as well as the need for a comprehensive study of the linguistic features of the language of at least all large Russian cities.

The purpose of this work is to identify the specifics of the language of the city of Ufa, a comprehensive description and analysis of the language subsystems functioning in the city, and to study the consequences of language contacts within one large administrative-territorial unit.

To achieve the research goal, it was necessary to solve the following problems:

Identify the main historical, social and linguistic factors that influenced the formation of the language of Ufa;

Study the composition of the names of urban objects and their functioning in the city;

Consider the structure of the language of the city of Ufa from linguistic and sociolinguistic positions;

Identify and describe the main language subsystems operating in the city;

Explore the results of interaction between Russian and Turkic languages ​​in the city.

All identified problems and assigned tasks are posed and solved taking into account the results and achievements in the field of the theory of general linguistics, Russian studies, domestic and foreign sociolinguistics.

In accordance with the purpose and objectives, the following research methods were used: descriptive analysis using classification and comparison techniques, contextological analysis, interpretive analysis, observation.

The theoretical basis of the dissertation is the works of famous Russian scientists B.A. Larin, L.P. Yakubinsky, V.M. Zhirmunsky, L.I. Barannikova, V.A. Avrorin, Yu.D. Desheriev, A.D. Schweitzer, F. Filina, V. V. Kolesova, L. Krysina, N. A. Baskakova, L. A. Kapanadze, E. V. Krasilnikova, E. A. Zemskaya, O. A. Lapteva, L. I. Skvortsova, O.B.Sirotinina, O.P.Ermakova, T.I.Erofeeva, L.A.Shkatova, Z.S.Sandzhi-Garyaeva, B.I.Osipov, N.A.Prokurovskaya, M.M.Mikhailov, A.E. Karlinsky, L.L. Ayupova, E.A. Yakovleva, K.Z. Zakiryanov and others, as well as foreign researchers B. Baychev, M. Videnov, J. Gampertz, U. Weinreich, Ch. Ferposson, E Haugen, R. Bell, J. Fishman, W. Labov, R. I. McDavid and others.

The material for our research was primarily records of oral speech of Ufa residents contained in the card index of the Department of General and Comparative Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University, our own observations of the speech of Ufa residents, materials from various linguistic dictionaries, local history sources containing information on the history of various places in the city. Ufa, statistical data and results of sociological research, maps of Ufa, city guides. In total, about 3,000 lexical units and 5,000 contexts were examined (mostly statements that contained lexemes necessary for analysis). When analyzing the speech material, the nationality, gender, age, and education of the informants were taken into account.

The scientific novelty of the study is as follows:

For the first time, a comprehensive study and description of the current state of the language of Ufa, a large multinational city, is being carried out;

The system of official and unofficial names of urban objects of a given city is analyzed;

The features of various language subsystems of the city of Ufa and the specifics of their functioning are studied;

The results of interaction between the three most common languages ​​in the city (interference, intercalation, borrowing) are considered.

The theoretical significance of this work is determined by the fact that the observations and conclusions made during the study allow us to better understand the nature of the functioning of various language subsystems in a large multi-ethnic city and can be useful in similar studies using linguistic material from other cities. The study of the functioning of various subsystems of the language of urban residents, the results of the interaction of different languages ​​in a given city, should contribute to the study of the language of other Russian cities.

The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the results of our research can be used in training courses and special courses in general linguistics, the course “Sociolinguistics. Psycholinguistics”, when creating textbooks for the special course “Language of the City”, compiling a dictionary of the language of the city (based on the language of the city of Ufa).

The following provisions are submitted for defense:

1. Various subsystems of the language of Ufa: colloquial speech, vernacular, semi-dialect, jargon - are characterized by territorial variation, especially pronounced at the level of vocabulary, due to the remoteness of the city from the capital, the influence of a multinational urban environment and characterized by the presence of various specific lexemes, a large number of borrowings at the level of language and speech, in particular from the Turkic languages.

2. Of all the subsystems of the city’s language, the most common means of communication among people born in Ufa is Russian everyday colloquial speech interspersed with colloquial and slang elements.

3. The everyday (everyday) colloquial speech of the residents of Ufa is not strongly influenced by dialects, such as, for example, colloquial speech in various cities of the Ural region (Perm, Chelyabinsk, etc.). It is generally focused on the metropolitan language pattern at the phonetic, lexical, and grammatical levels, although its variation in a multilingual environment is inevitable.

4. In the city of Ufa there is a massive national contact heterogeneous bilingualism.

Testing of results and practical implementation of the work. The main provisions of the dissertation and the results of the research were presented in reports and communications at various conferences, namely: at the international scientific conference “Sentence and Word” (Saratov, September 2005), All-Russian scientific conferences “Ural-Altai: through centuries into the future” (Ufa , June 2005) and “Science and Education-2005” (Neftekamsk, October 2005), interregional scientific and theoretical conference “Literature, language and artistic culture in modern processes of sociocultural communication” (Ufa, October 2005), interregional scientific and practical conference “ Language policy and language construction in the Republic of Bashkortostan (Ufa, November 2005), the republican conference of young scientists “Current problems of philology” (Ufa, April 2005) - as well as at 3 meetings of the interuniversity postgraduate seminar on topical problems of modern linguistics in philology Faculty of Bashkir State University in 2005, 2006. The main content of the dissertation is reflected in eight publications.

Some materials and theoretical aspects of our work were used during seminars and practical classes in the course “Sociolinguistics. Psycholinguistics" at the Faculty of Philology of Bashkir State University (2004-2005 academic year).

The dissertation was discussed at a meeting of the Department of General and Comparative Historical Linguistics of Bashkir State University.

Structure and scope of the dissertation. The dissertation consists of an introduction, four chapters, and a conclusion. A bibliography and appendix are included at the end of the dissertation. The first chapter contains a review of scientific literature on the issue under study, gives an idea of ​​the language of the city and its main components: colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon. The second chapter is devoted to the analysis of urbanonymic

Similar dissertations in the specialty "Language Theory", 02/10/19 code VAK

• Dialectisms as an integral part of the colloquial speech of a modern city: Based on the material of the speech of residents of Omsk 2003, Candidate of Philological Sciences Gaydamak, Natalia Alekseevna

• The vernacular of the Amur region: lexicological and lexicographic aspects 2007, Candidate of Philological Sciences Pirko, Vera Veniaminovna

• Social and linguistic properties of modern Russian youth slang 2005, Candidate of Philological Sciences Nikitina, Yulia Nikolaevna

• Problems of substandard lexicography of English and Russian languages: theoretical and applied aspects 2009, Doctor of Philological Sciences Ryabichkina, Galina Vladimirovna

• Lexicological and lexicographical problems in the study of the Russian substandard 2001, Doctor of Philology, Vladimir Borisovich Bykov

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Theory of Language”, Ismagilova, Nuria Vinerovna

The Russian population in Ufa, having a huge influence on the language of the indigenous population, is itself, to a certain extent, influenced by the Turkic environment. The influence of the Bashkir and Tatar languages ​​on spoken Russian speech is one of the little-studied aspects of language contact in the conditions of the Republic of Bashkortostan.

The results of the interaction of the Russian, Bashkir, Tatar languages ​​are reflected in Russian colloquial speech, Russian dialects, works of local writers, poets, and in the Russian language media. The most striking and significant consequences of the interaction of Russian and Turkic languages ​​include bilingualism, interference, interlingual wedging, various types of borrowings, regionalisms (local words and expressions existing in a certain territory).

Bilinguals play a major role in the penetration of Turkisms into Russian speech. The speech of bilinguals may be characterized by interference at different levels of the linguistic structure and interlingual inclusions. A number of interference phenomena and interlingual wedges that appear in bilinguals’ speech in Russian due to difficulties in choosing the means of a non-native language may indicate a low level of proficiency of bilinguals in the Russian language. With fluent command of languages, interlingual inclusions may indicate the choice of a more convenient option in a given language situation.

The most significant consequence of language contact in the city is borrowing at the level of language and at the level of speech. Many borrowings at the speech level are not mastered by the Russian literary language. G

There are more Turkisms in Ufa Russian colloquial speech than in the Russian literary language. The presence of so many words of Turkic origin in the language of Ufa distinguishes it from the language of other cities and gives the oral Russian speech of the townspeople a specific Ufa flavor.

Conclusion

The language of the city continues to remain an insufficiently studied problem in Russian linguistics. In this work, an attempt was made to comprehensively describe the language of such a large multinational city as Ufa. An integral part of the city’s language are the official and unofficial names of urban objects that make up the linguistic landscape of the city. Therefore, the work examined the composition of official and unofficial names of various urban objects and the features of their functioning. Some of the city's official and unofficial nominations, principles, and methods of naming objects are identical to the names, principles and methods of nomination existing in other cities, and the other part constitutes a group of formations specific to Ufa. Unofficial (colloquial, colloquial and slang) names can arise as a means of linguistic economy, as well as to distinguish objects that have the same official names or location, or only for the purpose of language play, in order to create an expressive nomination. Official and unofficial names that are unique to the language of the city of Ufa constitute the specificity of the language of this city.

This study also attempted to provide a comprehensive description and analysis of primarily uncodified language subsystems operating in Ufa. In this work, in addition to the analysis of some phonetic, word-formation, grammatical phenomena in different subsystems of the language of the city of Ufa, attention was paid to the consideration of lexemes that function in the speech of residents of this city. Among these nominations are words and phrases that have different part-verbal affiliations, connotative and stylistic connotations and belong to different thematic groups.

In the speech of residents of Ufa, lexemes from different subsystems of the language are used: literary language, everyday colloquial speech, vernacular, jargon, semi-dialect, which allows us to say that these subsystems are represented in the language of this city in constant interaction. The choice of certain phonetic, lexical, grammatical means from different language subsystems by a city dweller is influenced by various factors: his age, education, profession, place of work, social status, communication situation. City dwellers may be characterized by proficiency in different subsystems of the Russian language (literary and everyday colloquial speech, ordinary colloquial speech and jargon, etc.), i.e. the phenomenon of diglossia, in which code switching may occur.

In general, it can be argued that there are not so many people who speak the literary norm of the Russian language in Ufa: they constitute a linguistic minority, since they are predominantly persons with higher philological or other humanitarian, less often non-humanitarian, education. Therefore, the most common means of communication in the city is everyday colloquial speech interspersed with colloquial and slang elements. The everyday (everyday) speech of the indigenous population of the city of Ufa is not strongly influenced by dialects, as, for example, colloquial speech in various cities of the Ural region (Perm, Chelyabinsk, Izhevsk). Everyday colloquial speech in Ufa is focused on the Moscow and partly St. Petersburg language norm at the phonetic, lexical, grammatical levels, which can be considered one of the features of the language of the city of Ufa, distinguishing it from the language of other Ural cities.

In the language of Ufa, there is also a vernacular language that influences Russian colloquial speech, since colloquial elements are found in it. In this work, a description was given of the phonetic, word-formation, lexical and grammatical levels of the Ufa vernacular, which showed that the Ufa vernacular has no significant differences from the all-Russian vernacular. Some differences appear at the lexical level, since the lexicon of Ufa vernacular includes dialect vocabulary of different origins (from Russian dialects of Bashkortostan and dialects of other regions of Russia), borrowings from Turkic languages, and more, although a significant part of the colloquial lexicon consists of all-Russian vernacular nominations. Thus, the thesis about the supra-dialectal nature of Russian vernacular is also confirmed by the material of Ufa vernacular.

Jargon, in contrast to vernacular, has a wider scope, since jargon vocabulary from general jargon (interjargon) is found in everyday colloquial speech of people of different ages (from children, teenagers, young people to representatives of the older generation). Therefore, we can raise the question of jargonization of everyday colloquial speech. Ufa jargon is heterogeneous and breaks down into a number of micro-jargons: children's, teenage, youth, school, student, professional (computer, military, sports, jargon of musicians, tourists, etc.), criminal, etc.

In jargon, the desire of speakers to create words, to express their thoughts and feelings in a bright, unusual, and witty manner is very clearly demonstrated.

The vocabulary of the Ufa interjargon has much in common with the vocabulary of the all-Russian jargon, although not to the full extent: in the Ufa interjargon there are differences in the structure of the lexical meanings of jargons, original jargons and slang lexemes of Turkic origin function. This allows us to talk about territorial variation of all-Russian jargon.

Replenishment of colloquial, colloquial, slang vocabulary occurs in different ways. Many expressive slang nominations are formed in a semantic way. The most common word-formation methods for creating uncodified vocabulary are those used both in literary speech (prefixation, suffixation, compounding, etc.) and in colloquial and slang speech (various types of semantic contraction, truncation, suffixation of a truncated stem, etc.). The most common in the language of the city are complete one-word and incomplete nominations.

When studying the language of the city of Ufa, it is also necessary to take into account the multi-ethnicity of the population living in the city. Therefore, when studying the language of such a large multinational city as Ufa, the problem of interaction of the Russian language with the languages ​​of other nationalities was raised. We also believe that one of the promising directions in studying the linguistic situation of a given city is the study of urban bi- and trilingualism.

The most significant consequences of the interaction of Russian and Turkic languages ​​in the city are bilingualism, interference, interlingual wedging, various types of borrowings, regionalisms (local words and expressions existing in a certain territory). The functioning of a large number of borrowings from Turkic languages ​​in the Russian speech of Ufa residents distinguishes the language of the city of Ufa from the language of other Russian cities and gives the oral Russian speech of the townspeople a specific Ufa flavor.

The prospect of further research of the language of Ufa is associated with the continuation of work on collecting, systematizing, analyzing materials on the language of Ufa, as well as their comparison, comparison with data on the language of other Russian cities, which should ultimately lead to the compilation of a dictionary of the language of this city, which would contain vocabulary that functions in the speech of Ufa residents.

List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Philological Sciences Ismagilova, Nuria Vinerovna, 2007

1. Avrorin V.A. Bilingualism and school // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-P.49-62,

2. Avrorin V.A. Problems of studying the functional side of language. L.: Nauka, 1975.- 275 p.

3. Almukhsshedova E.M. Vocalism of vocal dialects with reduction in comparison with literary pronunciation in some of its territorial variants/Questions of grammar and lexicology of the Russian language. Kazan, 1964.

4. Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969. - 508 p.

5. Akhmanova O.S. The dichotomy “language dialect” in the light of the problems of modern bilingualism//Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.- P. 98-102.

6. Akhunzyanov E.M. Bilingualism and lexical-semantic interference.-Kazan: Kazan, state. Univ.-T., 1978. 190 p.

7. Ayupova JI.JI. Russian-Bashkir language interaction//RR. 1976. - No. 1.-S. 89-92.

8. Ayupova L.L. Questions of sociolinguistics: types of bilingualism in Bashkiria. -Sverdlovsk: Uralsk, state. Univ.-T., 1988. 70 p.

9. Ayupova JI.JI. Vocabulary of the peoples of Bashkortostan in Russian speech (Glossary): Textbook. Ufa: BSU Publishing House, 1994. - 146 p.

10. Ayupova JI.JI. The language of the city as a sociolinguistic problem // Ayupova L.L. Sociolinguistics: current problems. Ufa: Eastern University, 1999. - pp. 56-64.

11. Ayupova JI.JI. Language situation: sociolinguistic aspect. Ufa: Eastern University, 2000. - 156 p.

12. Bankova T.B. Vocabulary of urban vernacular (typology of description): Dissertation for the academic degree. Candidate of Philological Sciences, Tomsk, 1987. - 18 p.

13. Bankova T.B. Expressive-emotional vocabulary of Tomsk urban vernacular (Features of semantics)//Speech of the city: Abstracts of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference/Ed. B.I. Osipova. -Omsk, 1995. -4.1.-P.75-77.

14. Barannikova L.I. On the problem of social and structural variability of the dialect // Issues of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - P. 314 - 343.

15. Barannikova L.I. The essence of interference and the specifics of its manifestation // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M.: Nauka, 1972. - P. 88-98.

16. Barannikova JI.K Vernacular as a special social component of language//Language and Society. Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 1974. - Issue. III. -WITH. 3-22.

17. Barannikova JIM Vernacular and literary colloquial speech // Language and society. Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 1977. - Issue. IV. - P. 59-77.

18. Barannikova L.I. On the problem of the relationship between the Russian literary language and the national Koine//Types of supra-dialectal forms of language. M.: Nauka, 1981. -S. 97-119.

19. Beglova EZh, Dudareva Z.M. Jargonisms in Russian. Sterlitamak: SSPU, 1994-49 p.

20. Belikov V.I. Comparison of St. Petersburg with Moscow and other considerations on social lexicography // Russian language today. Vol. 3 - Moscow: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004.-P. 23-37.

21. Bell R. Sociolinguistics. Goals, methods and problems. M.: International. rel., 1980. - 320 p.

22. Belchikov Yu.A. Literary vernacular and norm//Literary norm in vocabulary and phraseology. M.: Nauka, 1983. - pp. 37-46.

23. Beregovskaya E.M. Youth slang: formation and functioning//VYa. 1996. - No. 3

24. Bertagaev T.A. Bilingualism and its varieties in the system of use// Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism, - M.: Nauka, 1972.- P. 82-88.

25. Bobrova G.A., Nikitina E.A. Colloquial urbanonyms of Omsk: structure and functioning//Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the interuniversity scientific conference/Ed. B.I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995. 4.1 - P. 31-34.

26. Baudouin de Courtenay I.A., “Thief Music” // Baudouin de Courtenay I.A. Selected works on general linguistics. T.2 - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1963. -P.161-162.

27. Bondaletov DB. Borrowings from Germanic languages ​​in the vocabulary of Russian conventionally professional argot // Language and Society. Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 1967a. - pp. 226-234.

28. Bondaletov DB. Gypsyisms as part of conventional languages//Language and Society. Saratov: Saratov University Publishing House, 19676. - P. 235 - 242.

29. Bondaletov DB. Socio-economic prerequisites for the extinction of conventionally professional languages ​​and the main patterns of this process // Issues of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - P. 398 - 415 p.

30. Bondaletov V.D. Conventional languages ​​of Russian artisans and traders. -Ryazan: RGPU, 1974 110 p.

31. Bondaletov V.D. Social linguistics.-M.: Education, 1987. -160 p.

32. Borisova E.G. About some features of modern youth jargon//Rus. language at school. -1981. No. 3. - P.83-87.

33. Borisova E.G. Modern youth jargon//Rus. speech. 1980. -№5. -WITH. 51-54.

34. Borisova Lukaishnets E.G. About the vocabulary of modern youth slang (English borrowings in slang of the 60-70s) // Literary norm in vocabulary and phraseology. - M.: Nauka, 1983. -S. 104-120.

35. Bykov V. Russian Fenya. Smolensk: Trest-Imacom, 1994. - 222 p.

36. Bykov V.B. On the translation of the Russian substandard into German // Semantics of linguistic units: Reports of the VI International. conf. T.1. - M.: SportAcademPress, 1998.-P. 103-107.

37. Weinreich U. Language contacts. State and problems of research.-Kyiv: Vitsa School, 1970.- 264 p.

38. Weinreich U. Monolingualism and multilingualism // New in linguistics. Language contacts. - M.: Progress, 1972. - Issue. 6. P. 25-60.

39. Vasiliev L. M. General problems of linguistics: Textbook. manual - Ufa, 1998.149 p.

40. Vakhitov S.B. About Russian slang. Characteristics of the material // Vakhitov S.B. Dictionary of Ufa slang. Ufa: Publishing house BGGGU, 2001. - P. 5 - 22.

41. Vakhitov S.B. Dictionary of Ufa slang. Ufa: Vagant, 2004. - 236 p.

42. Vepreva I.T. Conversational norm: in search of new criteria//Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. Ekaterinburg: “Argo”, 1996.-S. 136-153.

43. Verbitskaya L.A. Pronunciation norm today // Language: history and modernity of St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Publishing House, 1996. - pp. 52 - 60.

44. Vereshchagin E.M. Psychological and methodological characteristics of bilingualism (bilingualism). M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1969. - 160 p.

45. Vinokur TT. On elliptical word usage in modern colloquial speech // Development of vocabulary of the modern Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1965.

46. ​​Vinokur T.G. Stylistic development of modern Russian colloquial speech//Development of functional styles of modern Russian literary language/Ed. T.G. Vinokur and D.N. Shmelev. M: Nauka, 1968. -P.12-101.

47. Volkova N.A. Modern youth jargon as a linguo-ecological problemU/Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference/Ed. B.I. Osipova. Omsk, 1995. - 4.1. - pp. 42-44.

48. Voloshchenko O.V. Features of vernacular semantics (using the example of verbs of motion)//Problems of studying the living Russian word at the turn of the millennium: Materials of the All-Russian scientific-practical. conf. Voronezh: Publishing House of the Voronezh State Pedagogical University, 2001. -S. 172-177.

49. Issues of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - 418 p.

50. Vysotsky S.S. About the Moscow vernacular // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 22-37.

51. Gabinskaya O.A. New formations in colloquial speech and linguistic certification // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988.

52. Gavranek B.O. On the functional stratification of the literary language/Trazhsky Linguistic Circle. M: Progress, 1967. - P. 432-443.

53. Gavranek B. On the issue of mixing languages ​​// New in linguistics. Language contacts. - M.: Progress, 1972. - Issue. 6. pp. 94-111.

54. Gak V.G. Comparative lexicology. (Based on the material of French and Russian languages) M.: “International Relations”, 1977. - 264 p.

55. Galimyanova V.R. The linguistic situation of the Krasnokamsk region of the Republic of Bashkortostan: Sociolinguistic aspect: Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. -Ufa, 2003.-21 p.

56. Gak V.G. About French vernacular // FN 1993. - No. 5-6. - P. 116 - 121.

57. Galin P.A. Population of the city of Ufa: past, present, future. Ufa: RIO BAGSU, 2001. - 96 p.

58. Gallyamov P.P. Multinational city: ethnosociological essays. -Ufa: Gilem, 1996.-2000 p.

59. Galperin I.R. About the term “slang” // Questions of linguistics, 1956. No. 6. -P. 107-114.

60. Gumperz J. On the ethnographic aspect of linguistic changes // New in linguistics. Vol. VII - M.: Progress, 1975. - P. 299 - 319.

61. Garipov T.M. Regarding the determinism of nomination (to the history of one urbonym)//Problems of communication and nomination in the concept of general humanities knowledge. Chelyabinsk: ChSU Publishing House, 1999. - P. 20 - 26.

62. Garipov T.M. Regarding the language model of Bashkortostan // Materials of the interregional scientific and practical conference “Interethnic relations in a multi-ethnic region: problems and ways of optimization.” Ufa, 2005. -S. 123-125.

63. Gelgardt R.R. On the literary language in geographical projection/Issues of linguistics. 1959. - No. 3. - P. 95-101.

64. Gerd A.S. Russian literary language and Russian colloquial speech in the cities of the Arctic // Literary language and folk speech. Perm, 1986. - P.3-11.65. 74. Gin Ya.I. The inevitable tyranny of material // RR. 1992. - N6.

66. Golovin B.N. Issues of social differentiation of language // Issues of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - pp. 343-355.

67. Gorbacheva E.F. Vernacular as a socio-stylistic linguistic category//Language and Society. Sociolinguistic problems of lexicology. -Vol. 6. Saratov, 1982.

68. Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. -183 p.

69. Urban vernacular. Problems of study/Ed. E.A. Zemskaya and D.N. Shmeleva. M: Nauka, 1984. -189 p.

70. Graudina J1.K. Colloquial and colloquial forms in grammar // Literary norm and colloquialism. M.: Nauka, 1977. - P. 77-111.

71. Grachev M.A. “I’ll get you into prison if you use a hairdryer”//Rus. speech. - 1993. -№4.-S. 51-56.

72. Grachev M.A. Where do the words tusovka and hang out come from?//Rus. language At school. -1995a. -No. 3. -P.84-86.

73. Grachev M.A. Blatnaya music//Russian speech. 19956. - No. 5. - P. 113-117.

74. Grachev M.A. On the conspiratorial function of argot // Speech of the city. Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipova. Omsk, 1995c. - 4.2. - P. 33 - 36.

75. Grachev M.A. Argotisms in youth slang//Rus. language At school. -1996a.-No.1.-P.78-85.

76. Grachev M.A. How argotisms appear in our speech // Russian speech. -19966.-No.4.-S. 67-71

77. Grachev M.A. The mechanism of transition of argotisms into the national language // Rus. language At school. -1996c.-No.5 .-P.87-90.

78. Grachev M.A. Russian argot. N.-Novgorod, 1997. - 245 p.

79. Grachev M.A., Kozhevnikov A.Yu. On the issue of social dialectology of the Russian language//FN. 1996. - No. 5. - P. 111 - 116.

80. Grishina O.A. Prosodic parameters of local speech (based on material from Krasnoyarsk): Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Omsk, 2003 - 20 p.

81. Gruzberg JI.A. What is the real speech of a modern city dweller? // The linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1990. - P. 8 - 15.

82. Gruzberg JI.A., Pigina PL. On the differentiation of the city’s speech (based on comparison) // Living Word in Russian Speech of the Kama Region. Perm: PSU, 1982. - pp. 40-47.

83. Grumadene L.A. The problem of social conditionality of speech variation (based on the material of the Lithuanian language): Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1982 - 16 p.

84. Guseva L.G., Manion Ya.G. Local social and age jargon/Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1988. - pp. 96-103.

85. Guts E.H. The place of slang words in the linguistic model of the world//Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference/Edited by B.I. Osipova. Omsk, 1995. - 4.1. - P.73-75.

86. Dal V.I. The conventional language of St. Petersburg swindlers, known under the name of music, or the bike language // Questions of linguistics. 1990. -№1. -WITH. 134137.

87. Devkin V.D. About the types of unliterary speech // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 12-21.

88. Dedova O.V. Phonetic features of modern Moscow vernacular: Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Moscow, 1988. - 18 p.

89. Desheriev Yu.D. Patterns of development of literary languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR in the Soviet era. M., 1976.

90. Desheriev Yu.D. Social linguistics: Towards the foundations of a general theory. -M, Nauka, 1977. 382 p.

91. Desheriev Yu.D., Protchenko I.F. Main aspects of the study of bilingualism and multilingualism//Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.- M.: Nauka, 1972.-P. 26-42.

92. Desherieva Yu.Yu. The problem of linguistic interference in modern linguistics/Georetical problems of social linguistics. - M.: Nauka, 1981.-P. 240-255.

93. Dobrodomov KG. On the historiography of the study of Turkisms in the Russian language // Soviet Turkology. 1974. - No. 5. - P. 72 - 76.

94. Dubrovina KN. Student jargon//Philological Sciences 1980. -№1. - P.78-81.

95. Dyakova V.I. Observations on the vocabulary of Voronezh urban vernacular // Folklore and literature: problems of study. Voronezh: VSU Publishing House, 2001.-P.174-178

96. Elistratov A.A. Lexical means of displaying the corporate culture of athletes: Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Chelyabinsk: ChTU Publishing House, 2005.-22 p.

97. Elistratov V.S. Observations on modern urban argot // Vestn. Moscow. un-ta. Ser. 9. Philology. 1993. - No. 1

98. Elistratov V.S. Dictionary of Moscow argot. M: Russian dictionaries, 2000-S. 574 - 692.

99. Elistratov V.S. Argo and culture // Elistratov V.S. Dictionary of Moscow argot. -M.: Russian dictionaries, 2000 pp. 574 - 692.

100. Eremin A.N. Pronouns in common speech (semantics and formal features). Kaluga: Publishing house KSPU, 1997a. - 28 s.

101. Eremin A.N. Phraseologically related meanings in literary language and vernacular // Russian. language At school. 19976. - No. 5. - P. 71 - 76.

102. Eremin A.N. Figurative meanings in common parlance. Kaluga: Publishing house KSPU, 1998. - 104 p.

103. Eremin A.N. Word formation systems of vernacular and literary language // Russian. language at school -1999. No. 1. - P. 74 - 77.

104. Eremin A.N. Vernacular Normative and explanatory dictionary - Speech of a native speaker of a literary language // Semantics. Functioning. Text. - Kirov, 2001.-S. 11-19.

105. Ermakova O.I. Ethics in computer jargon//Logical analysis of language. Languages ​​of ethics. Moscow, 2000. - pp. 246-253.

106. Ermakova O.E. Nominations in vernacular // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M., Nauka, 1984. -S. 130-140.

107. Erofeeva E.V. Experimental study of the phonetics of a regional variant of the literary language. Perm: Perm Publishing House. University, 1997. - 140 p.

108. Erofeeva E.V. Dependence of speech behavior on some sociolinguistic factors // Problems of communication and nomination in the concept of general humanities knowledge. Chelyabinsk: ChTU Publishing House, 1999. - P. 99 -105.

109. Erofeeva E.B. The dual nature of the city’s language and methods of studying it // Literature and modernity. Part 2. - Perm: Perm Publishing House. Univ., 2000. - 154-163 p.

110. Erofeeva T.I. On the social differentiation of the speech of townspeople (on the issue of the interaction of colloquial literary and dialect speech) // Literary language and folk speech. Perm: PSU, 1984a. - P. 10-17.

111. Erofeeva T.I. On the everyday meaning of the literary word in lively colloquial speech // Literary language and folk speech: Interuniversity collection of scientific works. Perm, 1986. - pp. 11-27.

112. Erofeeva T.I. “Speech portrait” of the speaker // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1990.

113. Erofeeva T.I. Social stratification of the speech of a city dweller // Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works Perm: PSU Publishing House, 1993. -S. 83 - 92.

114. Erofeeva T.I. Stratification conditionality of mastery of professionalisms//Anthropocentric approach to the Perm language: PSU Publishing House, 1998.-P. 149-160.

115. Erofeeva T.I. Sociolect in stratification // Russian language today. Vol. 1.: Sat. articles/Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. -S. 85 -91.

116. Erofeeva T.I., Gruzberg J.I.A. Once again about vernacular // Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm: PSU, 1989. - P. 2-10.

117. Erofeeva T.N., Skitova F.L. Local elements in the literary speech of townspeople // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: Ural State University Publishing House, 1990. -P. 15-22.

118. Erofeeva T.N., Skitova F.L. Localisms in the literary speech of townspeople. -Perm: Perm Publishing House. Univ., 1992. 92 p.

119. Erofeeva T.N. Local coloration of literary colloquial speech: A textbook for a special course. Perm, 1979. - 92 p.

120. Zhdanova O.P. Evaluative vocabulary in urban colloquial speech // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - pp. 71-79.

121. Live speech of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr-v. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1988.- 136 p.

122. The living word in Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works -Perm: PSU Publishing House, 1992. 142 p.

123. The living word in Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works -Perm: PSU Publishing House, 1993. 213 p.

124. Zhirmunsky V.M. Professional vocabulary, jargons, argot//National language and social dialects. D., 1936. - P. 105-167.

125. Zhirmunsky V.M. The problem of social differentiation of languages//Language and Society. M.: Nauka, 1968. - P.22-39.

126. Zhluktenko Yu.A. Linguistic aspects of bilingualism. - Kyiv: Vitsa School, 1974. 176 p.

127. Zhuravlev A.F. Foreign language borrowings in Russian vernacular (Phonetics, morphology, vocabulary, semantics) // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 102-124.

128. Zaikovskaya T.V. Can you cerebellum? Sabo herself!//Rus. speech. 1993. -№6. - P. 40-43.

129. Zakiryanov K.Z. Bilingualism and interference: Textbook. allowance Ufa: Bash. state univ.-t., 1984.- 80 p.

130. Zakiryanov K.Z. Bilingualism: linguistic and cultural aspect // Vestnik VEGU. 2000. - No. 11. - P. 44-50.

131. Zemskaya E.A. Russian colloquial speech // Issues of linguistics. 1971.5.

132. Zemskaya E.A. On the concept of “colloquial speech” // Russian colloquial speech: Collection of scientific works: Saratov University Publishing House, 1970. -S. 3-10.

133. Zemskaya E.A. Russian colloquial speech: linguistic analysis and learning problems. M.: Russian language, 1987.

134. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaigorodskaya M.V., Shiryaev E.H. Russian colloquial speech: General questions. Syntax. Word formation. M.: Nauka, 1981. - 275 p.

135. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaygorodskaya M.V., Shiryaev E.H. Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. M.: Nauka, 1983.

136. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaigorodskaya M.V. Observations on vernacular morphology // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 66-102.

137. Zemskaya E.A. Urban oral speech and the tasks of its study // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - P. 5 - 44.

138. Ilminskaya N.I. Nominations of modes of transport//Colloquial speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Vocabulary. Saratov, 1983. - P. 245-252.

139. Nifontova G.G. On the issue of elite speech culture/LPrinciples and research methods in philology: the end of the 20th century. Vol. 6. - St. Petersburg - Stavropol: Stavropol Publishing House. gosun-ta, 2001. - P.389 - 391.

140. History of Ufa. Brief essay. Ufa, 1981.

141. Iskhakova Z.A. Bilingualism in the cities of Tatarstan (80-90s). Kazan: Fiker, 2001. - 192 p.

142. Itskovich V.A., Schwarzkopf B.S. Passive bilingualism and speech culture // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M.: Nauka, 1972. P. 127-129.

144. Kapanadze JI.A. Vocabulary of everyday use (names of electrical household appliances and machines)//Methods of nomination in modern Russian. M.: Nauka, 1982. P.271-281.

145. Kapanadze JI.A. Lexico-semantic features of colloquial speech//Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture/Rep.ed. E.A. Zemskaya. M.: Nauka, 1983. - pp. 142-172.

146. Kapanadze JI.A. Modern urban vernacular and literary language.//Urban vernacular: Problems of study. - M.: Nauka, 1984a. pp. 5-12.

147. Kapanadze JI.A. Modern vernacular vocabulary (Moscow vernacular)//Urban vernacular: Problems of study. -M: Nauka, 19846. -S. 125-129.

148. Kapanadze JI.A. Ways of expressing evaluation in oral speech // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - pp. 151-156.

149. Kapanadze JI.A., Krasilnikova E.V. Vocabulary of the city (towards the formulation of the problem)//Methods of nomination in the modern Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1982.-S. 282-294.

150. Karaulov Yu.N. On the state of the modern Russian language//RR. 2001. -№3. -P.25-30.

151. Karlinsky A.E. Fundamentals of the theory of language interaction. Alma-Ata: Gylym, 1990.-181 p.

152. Karmyzova O.A. Computer vocabulary: structure and development: Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Voronezh: VSU, 2003. - 24 p.

153. Katagoschina H.A. The problem of bilingualism and multilingualism abroad // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M.: Nauka, 1972. pp. 62-74.

154. Katasheva A.Ya. Turkisms in the language of the city: (based on the speech of the Russian population of the mining zone of the Chelyabinsk region) // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - P. 104 - 110.

155. Kitaigorodskaya T.S., Rozanova N.N. The speech of Muscovites. Communicative and cultural aspect. M., 1999. - 253 p.

156. Kogotkova T.S. On some features of mastering literary vocabulary in conditions of dialectal bilingualism//Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-P. 250-257.

157. Kogotkova T.S. The role of vernacular in the processes of mastering the vocabulary of the literary language by dialects // Literary norm and vernacular. M.: Nauka, 1977. - P.58-71.

158. Kogotkova T.S. Russian dialect lexicology: State of the art and prospects. M.: Nauka, 1979. - 335 p.

159. Kolesnikova U.E. Features of modern urbanonyms (on the example of the cities of the Volga region and France) // Onomastics of the Volga region. Moscow: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997. - pp. 50-54.

160. Kolesov V.V. Language of the city. M.: Higher School, 1991. - 192 p.

161. Koltunova M.V. What does jargon bring with it?//RR. 2003. - No. 1. - P. 48 - 50.

162. Konovalova D.A. Status of names of modern commercial enterprises in the proper name system: features of functioning and typology // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.-P. 96-110.

163. Kopylenko M.M. On the semantic nature of youth slang // Socio-linguistic studies / Ed. L.P. Krysin and D.N. Shmeleva. M.: Nauka, 1976. - P.79-86.

164. Krasilnikova E.V. Inventory of morphemes//Methods of nomination in modern Russian language. M., Nauka, 1982a. - pp. 133-158.

165. Krasilnikova E.V. On the relationship between language levels in the system of Russian colloquial speech // Problems of structural linguistics. M., 19826. - pp. 37 - 49.

166. Krasilnikova E.V. The language of the city as a linguistic problem // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - P. 5-18.

167. Krasilnikova E.V. About various phenomena in the language of residents of different cities//Functioning of the literary language in the Ural city. -Sverdlovsk: Ural State University Publishing House, 1990. pp. 4-12.

168. Krasilnikova E.V. Language and culture: (towards the study of the language of the city) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1990 - P. 4-8.

169. Kocherenkova S.D. Unofficial names of spatial objects of Sverdlovsk: (methods of nomination) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. - Sverdlovsk: UrSU, 1990 P. 79 - 89.

170. Krivozubova G. A. Urbanonyms of the city of Omsk: (composition and functioning): Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Barnaul, 1993 - 19 p.

171. Krivozubova G. A. On the inventory of urbonymic units // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - P. 125 - 30.

172. Krysin L.P. Proficiency in different subsystems of language as a phenomenon of diglossia // Socio-linguistic studies. M., 1976. - 232 p.

173. Krysin L.P. The relationship between modern literary language and vernacular // Rus. language At school. 1988. - No. 2. - pp. 81-88.

174. Krysin L.P. Foreign language term in Russian vernacular // Philological collection. M.: Publishing House of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1995a. - P. 262 - 268.

175. Krysin L.P. Foreign language term in Russian vernacular//Philological collection (to the 100th anniversary of the birth of academician V.V. Vinogradov)/Responsible editor. doc. Philol. n. M.V.Lyapon. M.: Institute of Russian Language named after. V.V. Vinogradov RAS, 19956. - P. 262-268.

176. Krysin L.P. Foreign language word in the context of modern social life//Russian language of the late 20th century (1985-1995). M.: Languages ​​of Russian culture, 1996.- pp. 142-159.

177. Krysin L.P. Russian literary language at the turn of the century//RR. 2000c. -No. 1. - P. 28-40.

178. Krysin L.P. Social markedness of linguistic units // VYa 2000 - No. 4. P. 26-41.

179. Krysin L.P. Modern literary norm and its codification//RYASH. -2002.-No.1.-S. 82-87.

180. Kupchik E.V. Pronunciation features of the speech of townspeople, due to dialectal influence (based on the material of recording the speech of residents of Sverdlovsk and Nizhny Tagil) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Coll. scientific tr. - Sverdlovsk: Ural State University Publishing House, 1990. P. 22 - 30.

181. Labov U. Study of language in its social context//New in linguistics.-Vol. VII-M.: Progress, 1975.-P. 96-181.

182. Lapteva O.A. On the uncodified spheres of the modern Russian literary language // Questions of linguistics. 1966. - No. 2.- P.40 - 56.

183. Lapteva O.A. The study of Russian colloquial speech in Russian linguistics in recent years: a review // Questions of linguistics. 1967. - No. 1.- P. 129-139.

184. Lapteva O.A. Russian colloquial syntax. M.: Nauka, 1976.

185. Larin B.A. On the linguistic characteristics of the city (several prerequisites) // History of the Russian language and general linguistics. M.: Education, 1977a.-P.189-199.

186. Larin B.A. On the linguistic study of the city/History of the Russian language and general linguistics. M.: Education, 19776. - pp. 175-189.

187. Levashov E.A. Toponymy of Moscow and Leningrad yesterday and today // RR. -1990.-No.3.-S. 122-128.

188. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary/Ch. edited by V.N. Yartseva.- 2nd ed. M: Great Russian Encyclopedia, 1998.- 686 p.

189. Literary language and folk speech. Perm: PSU, 1977-1986.

190. Likhachev D.S. Argotic words of professional speech//Development of grammar and vocabulary of the modern Russian language. M.: Nauka, 1964. - P.311-359.

191. Likhachev D.S. Features of primitive primitivism of thieves' speech//Dictionary of prison-camp-thieves' jargon. M.: Regions of Moscow, 1992. - P. 354-398.

192. Likhachev D.S. Psychology of argo // Russia-East-West. M.: Heritage, 1998.-p. 60 - 84.

193. Likholitov P.V. That's what the border guards say//Russian speech. 1997. - No. -WITH. 63-70.

194. Mayorov A.P. Social aspects of the interaction of languages ​​in a bilingual communicative space. - Ufa, 1997. 138 p.

196. McDavid P.M. Dialectal and social differences in urban society//New in linguistics. Vol. VII - M.: Progress, 1975. - P. 363 - 381.

197. Makovsky M.M. On the way to creating a dictionary of Russian substandard // FN. -1997.-No.4.-S. 103-109.

198. Maksimova L.I. About the Ishim vernacular // Socio-cultural problems of the development of small towns in Western Siberia: Abstracts of reports and messages of a scientific conference. Ishim: Publishing house IGPI, 2000. - P. 95 - 97.

199. Malysheva V.A. Vernacular speech in urban microtoponymy//Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm, 1989. - P.54-58.

200. Marsheva L.I. Justified variability in the names of persons at the place of residence//RYASh. 2004. - No. 4. - P. 78 - 81.

201. Milekhina T.A. On some features of the spoken speech of the city's youth // Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995. Part 1. - P. 44-46.

202. Mintslov S.R. Ufa. From the book “The Wilds of Life.” Ufa: Bashk. book publishing house, 1992. -176 p.

203. Miralaeva O.D. Modern Russian youth jargon (sociolinguistic research): Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. -Moscow, 1994. -19 p.

204. Mironov S.A. Semi-dialect and everyday spoken language as varieties of supra-dialectal forms of speech//Types of supra-dialectal forms of language. M.: Nauka, 1981.

205. Mikhailov M.M. Bilingualism (principles and problems). - Cheboksary: ​​Chuvashek, state. Univ.-T., 1969. 136 p.

206. Mikhailova O. A. The life of someone else’s word in the colloquial speech of townspeople // Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. -Ekaterinburg: Argo, 1996. pp. 153 - 167.

207. Mikhalap K.P., Shmeleva T.V. The word of the urban environment // Philological sciences. 1987.-N4.-S. 81-84.

208. Mikhalchenko V.Yu. Problems of functioning and interaction of the Lithuanian and Russian languages. - Vilnius: Makslas, 1984. - 224 p.

209. Mokienko V.M., Nikitina T.G. Large dictionary of Russian jargon. -SPb: “Norint”. 2001. - 720 p.

210. Morozova M.N. Names of cultural and social institutions//RR. 1973. -№6.-S. 54-59.

211. Morozova O.E. Oral speech and linguistic personality of the speaker // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PSU Publishing House, 1998. - P. 56 - 64.

212. Morozova T.S. Some features of the construction of statements in vernacular // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 141-162.

213. Moskvin V.P. Conversational style as a system//Rus. speech. 2005. - No. 4. - pp. 37-48.

214. Nikitina T.G. Explanatory dictionary of youth slang: Words incomprehensible to adults. OK. 2000. M.: “Astrel”, “ACT”, 2003. - 736 p.

215. Nikitina T.G. This is what young people say: Slang Dictionary. Based on materials from the 7090s. St. Petersburg: Folio-Press, 1998. - 592 p.

216. Nozhkina E. M. Adverbs/T Conversational speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian language. Saratov, 1983. - P.94-124.

217. Norm and social differentiation of language. M.: Nauka, 1969.- 173 p.

218. Ozhegov S.I. About vernacular (on the issue of the language of the city)//VYa. 2000. - No. 5.-S. 93-110.

219. Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. - M.: Azbukovnik, 1999.-944 p.

220. Orlov G.A. On the problem of the boundaries of everyday and modern literary colloquial speech // Issues of linguistics. No. 5.-1981.-S. 119-128.

221. Osipov B.I. About the term “city colloquial speech” // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - P. 5 - 11.

222. Osipov B.I., Bobrova G.A., Imedadze N.A., Krivozubova G.A., Odintsova M.L., Yunakovskaya A.A. Lexicographic description of colloquial speech of a modern city: theoretical aspects. Omsk, 1994.-144 p.

223. Osipov B.I., Sukhotskaya E.B. Notes on urban dialecticisms of modern St. Petersburg and Omsk // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - P. 92 - 96.

224. Panov V.M. Russian phonetics. M., 1967.

225. Parikova N.V. About the South Russian version of literary speech//Development of phonetics of the modern Russian literary language. M., 1996.

226. Pekshieva T.A. Phonetic originality of colloquial speech of residents of Arkhangelsk//Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PSU Publishing House, 1998.-P. 68-81.

227. Pervukhina E.V. Youth slang of the 90s (touches to the speech portrait) // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PSU Publishing House, 1998.-P. 88-93.

228. Pestereva N.Sh., Ruth M.E. Nominativity and expressiveness in the semantics of a figurative word (Naming people in the speech of schoolchildren) // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988.

229. Petrishcheva E.F. Extraliterary vocabulary as a stylistic category//VYa. -1981. N3. - P. 63 - 69.

230. Petrova NA. Notes on teenage slang // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PSU Publishing House, 1998. - P. 81 - 87.

231. Pleshkova T.N. Dialectal features of the colloquial speech of townspeople // Living Word of the Russian North: Sat. Art. Arkhangelsk: PSU Publishing House, 1998. - P. 64 -68.

232. Podolskaya N.V. Dictionary of Russian onomastic terminology. M.: Nauka, 1988.

233. Podolskaya N.V. Urbanonymy of the central regions of the RSFSR//Vopr. geography. 1974, - No. 94.

234. Podyukov I.A. On the origin of phraseological units of urban oral speech: (based on observations of the living speech of Perm) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Coll. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1990. - P. 163 - 176.

235. Polishchuk G.G. Nominations of colloquial speech//Colloquial speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Lexicon/Ed. O. B. Sirotinina. Saratov, 1983. - P. 195-212.

236. Pomykalova T.E., Shishkina T.Ya., Shkatova L.A. Observations on the speech of residents of Chelyabinsk (On the problem of “city language”) // Urban vernacular: Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 162-167.

237. Popova A.V. The system of unofficial toponyms of the city of Moscow // Rusisgika at the present stage. M.: Publishing house MSLU, 1999. - P. 85 - 88.

238. Pospelova G.M. Innovations in the territorial and administrative dictionary of the city//RR. 1997. - No. 4. - P. 64 - 72.

239. Pravednikov S.P. A few words about modern vernacular // Linguodidactic foundations of working on text. Kursk: Publishing house KSPU, 1997. -P.23 - 25

240. Principles and methods of sociolinguistic research. M.: Nauka, 1989.

241. Priyatkina A.F. Vernacular new formations: their basis and fate (towards the determination of the internal properties of vernacular) // Russian language today. Vol. Sat. articles/Ed. LL.Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - P. 231 - 239.

242. Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism.-M.: Nauka, 1972.-P. 98-102.

243. Prokurovskaya N.A. Colloquial speech of Izhevsk in comparison with colloquial speech of the cities of the Ural region // Current problems of regional linguistics and history of Siberia. Kemerovo: KSU, 1992. - P. 69 - 71.

244. Prokurovskaya N.A. The city in the mirror of its language: On the linguistic material of Izhevsk. Izhevsk: Publishing house Udm. University, 1996. - 228 p.

245. Prokurovskaya N.A. The system of vernacular predication and the mentality of a modern city dweller reflected in it. Basic communication styles // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.

246. Varieties of urban oral speech / Ed. D.N. Shmeleva and E.A. Zemskoy. M.: Nauka, 1988.

247. Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference./Ed. B. I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995.

248. Rozanova N.H. Modern Moscow vernacular and literary language (based on phonetics) // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. M.: Nauka, 1984. - pp. 37-66.

249. Rosenthal D.E., Teleshova M.A. Dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms. -M.: Education, 1976.

250. Rosenzweig V.B. Language contacts. - L.: Nauka, 1972. - 80 p.

251. Rozina R.I. From incidents to actions (semantic derivation as a way of replenishing general jargon) // Russian language today: Sat. articles/Ed. L.P. Krysina. M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - P. 418 - 432.

252. Russian colloquial speech / Collection of scientific works. - Saratov, 1970. - 251 p.

253. Russian colloquial speech/Responsible editor. E.A. Zemskaya. M.: Nauka, 1973. -485 p.

254. Russian colloquial speech: Texts/Responsible editor. E.A. Zemskaya, L.A. Kapanadze. -M: Nauka, 1978. P. 3-27.

255. Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture. -M.: Nauka, 1983.- 238 p.

256. Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. -Ekaterinburg: Argo, 1996. 193 p.

257. Ryzhksha O.A., Resnyanskaya JI.H. Psycho- and sociolinguistic analysis of the linguistic portrait of a city dweller (Expressives of women and men) // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1988. - P. 39 - 47.

258. Salnikova T.A. New phenomena in the emporonymy of Krasnoyarsk // Philology Journalism. - Krasnoyarsk: KSU Publishing House - pp. 63 - 65

259. Salyaev V.A. About social dialects of the Russian language//Rus. language at school. -1996a.-No.1.-S. 78 84.

260. Salyaev V.A. On the main stages of the evolution of the argotic word // Rus. language at school. 1996b.-No.5.-S. 90-93.

261. Salyaev V.A. On the normative-stylistic evolution of colloquial vocabulary of argotic and slang origin and its reflection in explanatory dictionaries // Science at the turn of the century: Sat. articles. St. Petersburg: Nestor, 1999. - pp. 41 - 45.

262. Sanji Garyaeva Z.S. Vernacular elements in the oral speech of residents of Elista // Urban vernacular: problems of study. - M.: Science, 1984.-P.167-173.

263. Sanji Garyaeva Z.S. Some features of oral speech in Elista // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - P. 235 - 257.

264. Serebrennikov B.A. Social differentiation of language / General linguistics. Forms of existence, functions, history of language / Responsible editor. B.A. Serebrennikov. M.: Nauka, 1970. - P.478 - 498.

265. Sinenko S.G. City above the White River. A brief history of Ufa in essays and sketches. 1574 2000. - Ufa: “Bashkortostan”, 2002. - 184 p.

266. Sirotpinina O.B. Colloquial speech (definition, concept, main problems) // Issues of social linguistics. L.: Nauka, 1969. - 373 - 391 p.

267. Sirotinina O.B. Modern colloquial speech and its features. -M.: Education, 1974.-144 p.

268. Sirotinina O.B. General characteristics of the vocabulary of colloquial speech // Conversational speech in the system of functional styles of the modern Russian literary language. Lexicon/Ed. ABOUT. Sirotinina. Saratov, 1983a. - P. 610.

269. Sirotinina O.B. Russian colloquial speech. Teacher's manual. -M.: Education, 19836.-80 p.

270. Sirotinina O.B. Linguistic appearance of the city of Saratov // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.: Nauka, 1988. - P.247-253.

271. Sirotinina O.B. Speech of a modern city//Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference./Ed. B. I. Osipova. - Omsk, 1995. Part 1. - P. 8 - I.

272. Skvortsov L.I. Professional languages, jargons and speech culture//Rus. speech. 1972. - No. 1. - P.48-59.

273. Skvortsov LI. Literary language, vernacular and jargons in their interaction // Literary norm and vernacular. M.: Nauka, 1977.

274. Skvortsov L.I. What threatens the literary language? (Reflections on the state of modern speech)//RYASH. 1994. - No. 5. - P. 99 -105.

275. Skitova F.L. Interchange of lexical synonyms between literary and folk languages ​​// Literary language and folk speech. Perm: PSU Publishing House, 1984. - pp. 25 - 31 p.

276. Skrebnev Yu.M. Study of Russian colloquial speech (Review of the works of the Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences) // Questions of linguistics. 1987. - No. 1. - pp. 144-155.

277. Skrebneva A.A. On the issue of general and distinctive phenomena in oral speech (based on grammar) // Urban vernacular. Problems of studying. -M.: Nauka, 1984. P. 173-179.

278. Skrebneva A.A. Some processes of functioning of colloquial vocabulary // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1988. - P. 2839.

279. Skrebneva A.A. On the status of modern urban vernacular // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: Ural State University Publishing House, 1990.-P. 30-38.

280. Dictionary of Russian dialects of Bashkiria / Ed. ZL.Zdobnova. Vol. 1-2. -Ufa: “Gilem”, 1997.

281. Dictionary of the modern Russian city: Ok. 11,000 words, approx. 1000 idiomatic expressions/Ed. B.I. Osipova. M.: “Russian dictionaries”; "Astrel"; "AST"; "Transitbook", 2003. - 564 p.

282. Dictionary of prison-camp-thieves' jargon (speech and graphic portrait of a Soviet prison) // Compiled by D.S. Baldaev, V.K. Belko, I.M. Isupov.-M.: Regions of Moscow, 1992.- 526 p. .

283. Sobinnikova V.I. Dialects and vernacular as part of the national language (according to historical linguistics) Voronezh: VSU Publishing House, 1992. - 112 p.

284. Socio-economic situation of districts and cities of the Republic of Bashkortostan: Statistical collection. Ufa: Bashkortostanstat, 2005. - 256 p.

285. Methods of nomination in modern Russian / Responsible editor. D.N. Shmelev. M.: Science. 1982.-296 p.

286. Sreznevsky II. Notes on materials for the “geography” of the Russian language // Vestnik imp. geographer. Society. St. Petersburg, 1885. Part 1, book. 1. pp. 1-24

287. Sreznevsky I. Athenian language in Russia//Domestic notes. 1839.- T. 5, Aug., Dept. VIII.

288. Starodubtseva V.V. Nomination of intra-city enterprises and institutions in the modern Russian language (based on the material of oikodomonyms of Ulyanovsk): Author's abstract. dis. .cand. Philol. Sci. Moscow: Publishing house MGOU, 2003 -21p.

289. Persistent Art. Social dialects/Issues of linguistics. 1957. - No. 1. - P. 78 84.

290. Stolyarova E.A. Types of lexical-semantic fields in Russian colloquial speech // Russian language today. Vol. 1: Sat. articles/Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - P. 433 - 443.

291. Sudzilovsky G.A. Slang: what is it?. M., 1973. - P.40

292. Types of supra-dialectical forms of language. M.: Nauka, 1981. - 309 p.

293. Toshovich B. Semantic structure of slang verbs // Russian language today. Vol. 1: Sat. articles/Ed. L.P. Krysina. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2000. - P. 444-455.

294. Trosheva T.B. Non-literary vocabulary in the oral speech of students // Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region. Perm, 1992. -P 111-116.

295. Turbin G.A. On the concepts of “semi-dialect” and “vernacular” in modern dialectology // Word in systemic relations. Sverdlovsk, 1982. - P.42 - 59.

296. Ustinenko I.A. The phenomenon of condensation in language and speech//Theory of linguistics and Russian studies: the legacy of B.N. Golovin. N.Novgorod: NSU Publishing House, 2001.-P. 317-319.

297. Favorin V.K. On the issue of modern pronunciation norms. Izv. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1953. -T.12, issue 1. - p.87..

298. Fedyanina O.N. Uncodified vocabulary of the language of the city of Kirov (Based on vernacular and jargon): Diss. .cand. Phil. n. Kaluga: KSU, 1997. -285 p.

299. Filin F.P. On the problem of social conditioning of language//Language and Society. M.: Nauka, 1968.- P. 5-21.

300. Filin F.P. Modern social development and the problem of bilingualism // Problems of bilingualism and multilingualism. - M.: Nauka, 1972.-P. 13-25.

301. Filin F.P. On the structure of the modern Russian literary language//Russian language in the modern world. M.: Nauka, 1974. - pp. 107-122.

302. Filin F.P. On the properties and boundaries of literary language // Questions of linguistics. 1975.- No. 6. - P. 3-13.

303. Filin F.P. About vernacular and colloquial in the Russian literary language // Philological Sciences. Scientific reports of higher education. 1979. -№2. - pp. 20-25.

304. Frolov N.K. On the history of the formation of urbanonymy in Tyumen // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - P. 118 -125.

305. The functioning of the literary language in the Ural city. - Sverdlovsk, 1995.

306. Haugen E. Language contact // New in linguistics. Language contacts.-M.: Progress, 1972,- Issue. 6. pp. 61-80.

307. Kharlamova M.A. The origins of urban speech in Omsk // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - pp. 11 - 19.

308. Chemist V.V. Poetics of the low, or Vernacular as a cultural phenomenon. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Publishing House, 2000. - 272 p.

309. Khorosheva N.V. Interjargon in the functional paradigm of the Russian national language // Living word in Russian speech of the Kama region: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works Perm: PSU Publishing House, 1993. - P. 122 -128.

310. Tsvetkova ML. Main directions of research in Polish colloquial speech//VYa 1990. - No. 5. - P. 116 - 123.

311. Churkina K.I. Evolution of pronunciation norms in the speech of the intelligentsia of Krasnoyarsk: Author's abstract. dis. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Novosibirsk, 1969

312. Shvedova N.Yu. Essays on the syntax of Russian colloquial speech. -M.: Publishing house Academician. Sciences of the USSR, 1960. 377 p.

313. Shvedova N.Yu. About some active processes in the modern Russian language // VYa. 1964. - No. 2.

314. Schweitzer A.D. Modern sociolinguistics: theory, problems, methods. -M.: Nauka, 1976. 175 p.

315. Schweitzer A.D. Interaction of the literary language with substandard vocabulary in modern English // Oral forms of the literary language: History and modernity. M.: Editorial URSS, 1999. - P. 29 - 45.

316. Sheigal E.I. Computer jargon as a linguocultural phenomenon // Linguistic personality, cultural concepts. Volgograd-Arkhangelsk: Peremena, 1996. - pp. 204-211.

317. Shkatova JI.A. How the word will respond. Chelyabinsk: ChTU Publishing House, 1986. - 60 p.

318. Shkatova JI.A. Specifics of urban communication//Live speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988. - pp. 19-28.

319. Shkatova JI.A. “Language code” of the Ural city // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1990. - P. 72 - 79.

320. Shkatova N.A. Methods of studying the language of the city // Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference / Ed. B.I. Osipova. Omsk, 1995.4.1.- pp. 15 - 16.

321. Shmelev D.N. Russian language in its functional varieties (Towards the formulation of the problem). M: Nauka, 1977.-168 p.

322. Shmeleva T.V. Notes on the speech of Novgorodians (in connection with the problem of linguistic portraiture of the modern city) // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997.

323. Shcherba JI.B. On the concept of mixing languages ​​// Selected works on linguistics and phonetics. JL: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1958. -vol.1. -182 s.

324. Yuganov I., Yuganova F. Russian jargon of the 60-90s. Dictionary experience/Ed. A. N. Baranova. M., 1994.

325. Yunakovskaya A.A. Omsk urban vernacular (research results) // Speech of the city: Abstracts of reports of the All-Russian Interuniversity Scientific Conference. /Ed. B.I. Osipova. Omsk, 1995. - Part 1. - pp. 66 - 69.

326. Yunakovskaya A.A. Expressive-stylistic differentiation of colloquial vocabulary (based on the material of Omsk) // Urban colloquial speech and problems of its study. Omsk: OSU Publishing House, 1997. - P. 80 - 87.

327. Linguistic appearance of the Ural city: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk: UrSU Publishing House, 1990. - 184 p.

328. Yakovleva E.A. Rhetorical function of Turkisms in Russian speech in a multi-ethnic environment (for example, Ufa) // Russia and the East: Problems of interaction. Part IV. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk University. 1995. - pp. 182-187.

329. Yakovleva E.A. Urbanymics of Ufa: linguistic-cultural-semiotic aspect//Vestnik VEGU. -1996. No. 3: Pedagogy. - pp. 16-20.

330. Yakovleva E.A. Rhetoric as a theory of mental and speech activity (as applied to the analysis of literary texts, urban texts and topical nominations): Scientific report on published works. Doctor of Philology. Sci. -Ufa. 1998.-98 p.

331. Yakovleva E.A. Features of Russian speech behavior of a city dweller in a multiethnic environment// Problems of communication and nomination in the concept of general humanities knowledge. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk State Publishing House. University, 1999. -S. 188-196.

332. Yakubinsky L.P. About dialogical speech//Yakubinsky L.P. Selected works: Language and its functioning. M.: Nauka, 1986.- P. 17-58.

333. Baychev B., Videnov M. Veliko-Tarnovskiyat ezik: Sociolinguistic studies on Veliko-Tarnovskata gradska rech. Veliko Tarnovo: Abagar, 1999. -388 p.

334. Videnov M., Bancheva M., Sotirov P., Angelov A. Sociolinguistics and student speech. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski, 1996. - 190 p.

335. Krupska-Perek A. Szkic socjolingwistycznego opisu mowy mieszkancow maiego miasta: (Na przykiadzie Praszki w woj. cz?stochowskim) // Rozprawy Komis. j?z./ Lodzkie t-wo nauk. Lodz, 1995. - T.40. - S. 169-185.

336. Andersson L., Trudgill P. Bad Language Cambridge- Massachusetts: "Basil Blackwell Cambridge Center", 1990.

337. American speech: A Guarterly of Linguistic Usage. Columbia Press, 1975. Vol. 50.

338. Drake J. A. The Effect of Urbanization on Regional Vocabulary//American speech. -1961. V. 36. - P. 17 - 33.

339. Ferguson Ch. A. Language structure and language use: essays by Ch.A. Ferguson Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971. - 328 p.

340. Ferguson Ch. A. Diglossia/ZLanguage structure and language use: essays by Ch.A. Ferguson Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1971. - P. 1-26.

341. Gumperz J.J. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

342. Kloss H. Types of Multilingual Communities: A Discussion of Ten Variables//International Journal of American Linguistics. 1967. - V. 33. - No. 4. - P. 7 -17.

343. Labov W. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.

344. Language and social identity / Ed. by J. J. Gumperz Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

345. Language in culture and society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology/ Ed. by D.Hymes New York, 1964.

346. Language in the British Isles/ Ed. by P. Trudgill Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

347. Macaulay R.K.S. Social class and language in Glasgow//Language in Society. -1976,-v. 5.-№2.-P. 173-188.

348. Social dialects and language learning: Proceedings of the Bloomington, Indiana, conference, 1964.

349. The interdisciplinary study of urban bilingualism in Brussels/Ed. by Witte E., Beardsmore H.B. Glevedon; Philadelphia: Multilingual matters, 1987. - 241 p.

350. Thompson R.M. Mexican-American English: Social Correlates of Regional Pronunciation // American speech. 1975. - V. 50. - No. 1-2. - P. 18 - 24.

351. Trudgill P. The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. - 212 p.

352. Variation in the Form and Use of Language. A Sociolinguistics Reader/Ed. By R.W. Fasold. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1983.

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

The study of the city as a linguistic phenomenon allows for several possible approaches 1 . The sociological direction is traditionally associated with the name of B.A. Larin, who attracted the attention of researchers to little-studied areas and genres of urban speech: colloquial speech of different groups of the urban population, urban folklore, non-canonized types of written speech.

Postulating a comprehensive study of the city’s language, B. A. Larin paid special attention to the need to study the linguistic division of the city’s language in relation to the social stratification of the urban population. Many ideas expressed by B.A. Larin were developed in modern works on sociolinguistics [Krysin 1989]. Works devoted to the varieties of oral urban speech, along with the main attention to systemic-structural phenomena, also took into account the “sociological context”. This was manifested primarily in the corresponding principles of object isolation (CL, RR, vernacular), each of which presupposed a certain composition of carriers.

In a number of linguistic works, when studying the language of a city, the regional (linguogeographical) aspect comes to the fore. Along with the traditional interest in Russian linguistics in the comparative study of the speech of Moscow and St. Petersburg (mainly the features of pronunciation - see, for example, [Shakhmatov 1941; Chernyshev 1970; Panov 1967; Verbitskaya 1976; Kitaygorodskaya, Rozanova 1995], etc.), attention is intensifying to the linguistic life of a number of cities - primarily Saratov, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Yekaterinburg, Krasnoyarsk. Works in this direction explore the regional features of the literary language, and also contain a description of the specifics of the linguistic appearance of a particular city.

The next possible approach to studying the language of the city can be called communicative-pragmatic. Speech varieties when
This approach is studied in the structure of urban communication, taking into account the entire set of its elements - the speaker, the addressee, the content of communication, the means of communication, the parameters of the situation. This direction has been actively developed in recent years.

Studying the language of the city can be carried out within the framework of a cultural approach. The problems associated with the study of the relationship between language and culture are traditional for linguistics. It has been successfully developed by a number of linguistic schools and directions.

The dissemination of the ideas of semiotics turned out to be extremely important and productive for the development of the “language - culture” problem. From a semiotic perspective, any cultural phenomenon, including language, can be interpreted as a sign system, that is, treated as a kind of text, cf.: “...text is understood not as a sequence of written or spoken words, but as a certain sequence of actions , and appeals to objects that have a symbolic meaning, and related speech activity. Considering, for example, a ritual to be such a text expressed by the semiotic language of culture, we distinguish in it three forms, three codes or three sides of language - verbal (verbal - words), real (objective - objects, things) and actional (active - actions)" [Tolstoy 1991, p.

12]. Expanding the concept of text to the boundaries of culture is characteristic of many modern studies [Lotman 1993; Lotman 1993a; Toporov 1983; Toporov 1995; Uspensky 1994]. Language, being an integral component of culture, is nevertheless considered as an independent object.

A comparison of language and culture allows us to see a certain isomorphism of the phenomena under study. In this case, the type of culture may correspond to one or another sublanguage within the national language, that is, cultural stratification can be correlated with linguistic stratification. Wed: “A comparison of culture and language in general and in particular of a specific national culture and a specific language reveals a certain isomorphism of their structures in a functional and intra-hierarchical (system-stratigraphic) plan. Thus, just as we distinguish between a literary language and dialects and at the same time highlight vernacular speech, and in some cases also argot as an incomplete, highly reduced (to a fragment of vocabulary) linguistic subsystem, in each Slavic national culture we can identify four similar types: culture of the educated stratum, “book” or elite culture, folk culture, peasant culture, intermediate culture corresponding to the vernacular, which is usually called “culture for the people”, or “third culture”, and for completeness of the picture and clearer parallelism, also a traditional professional subculture (pastoral , beekeeping, pottery, etc. in the countryside, trade and crafts in the city), fragmented and dependent, like argo” [Tolstoy 1991, p.6]. The system of linguistic and cultural strata identified by N.I. Tolstoy appears in the form of a kind of “cultural” ladder:

1. literary language - elite culture

2. vernacular - “third culture”

3. adverbs, dialects - folk culture

4. argot - traditional professional culture.

When considering the proposed system of linguistic and cultural strata, it seems important to take into account the form of existence of the verbal text
- written or oral. Oral texts as a cultural phenomenon are the subject of analysis in works on ethnolinguistics and dialectology (Cf. [Ethnographic study of symbolic means of culture 1983; Paufoshima 1989; Nikitina 1993; Nikitina 1997] and some others). In such cases, researchers primarily come to the attention of the facts of traditional folk culture. In recent years, modern oral urban speech has begun to be studied from a cultural perspective. (See, for example, the works: [Man - Text - Culture 1994; Kitaigorodskaya, Rozanova 1996a; Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture 1996].) The development of this area of ​​research will make it possible to describe a whole layer of modern urban culture, including grassroots culture.

The form of existence (written/oral) influences the internal stratification of linguistic and cultural layers (see N.I. Tolstoy’s diagram). Thus, “elite culture” is, first of all, of course, “bookish”, written culture. But nevertheless, we can talk about a whole range of genres of elite culture that exist in oral form. At the same time, they can receive secondary - written - fixation. Thus, a common genre of oral elite culture in the 2nd half of the 16th-19th centuries. there was a genre of the so-called literary anecdote. A continuation of the traditions of literary anecdote in our time is the genre of oral stories, “tales”, anecdotes (for example, the stories of I. Andronikov, Z. Paperny, Z. Gerdt, etc.). During the era of the totalitarian regime, various forms of “illegal” intellectual folklore occupied a special place in the sphere of elite oral culture. Currently, they receive “retrospective” fixation, most often in memoir literature (see, for example, [Borev 1990; Ginzburg 1991]). It can be noted that some oral genres (for example, an “everyday” joke) allow for ambiguous interpretation (elite culture / urban grassroots culture).

Many genres of urban culture exist at the intersection of oral and written forms. The specifics of modern urban communication and the certain socio-political situation of the 60-80s determined the emergence and spread of a new type of artistic creativity, focused on implementation primarily in oral form. Artistic works of this type have entered cultural use and continue to exist in the form of tape recordings. These are the monologues of the satirist writer Mikhail Zhvanetsky, the songs of Bulat Okudzhava [Karabchievsky 1995], Alexander Galich, Vladimir Vysotsky [Kitaygorodskaya, Rozanova 1993].

Records of oral urban “non-fiction” speech also have cultural value. Their sociocultural significance is determined both by the linguistic characteristics themselves and by their substantive merits. Recordings of oral texts are of linguistic interest as “samples” of different types of speech; from them one can trace the dynamics of the modern literary norm [Kitaigorodskaya, Rozanova 1995]. The texts record linguistic phenomena that are becoming a thing of the past (for example, the old Moscow vernacular), stereotypes of speech behavior of city residents (within the family, at work, on the street) and the change of these stereotypes, reflect the formation of new genres of modern urban
communications (cf., for example, the language of the modern street, speech at rallies [Kitaygorodskaya, Rozanova 1995a]).