Introduction. History of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline and as an academic subject

The history of the Russian literary language has developed as a special scientific discipline, separated from the general history of the Russian language only in the post-October period, mainly in the 30-40s of our century. True, even before that, attempts were made to present the course of development of the Russian literary language in all its volume, and especially the development of the modern Russian literary language.

The first of the linguists-Russianists who developed the course “History of the Russian literary language” (starting with the linguistic situation in Kievan Rus and ending with the language of modern Russian literature to the poet Nadson) was prof. A.I.Sobolevsky. However, the course of lectures prepared for publication, apparently, was not read anywhere and remained in the manuscript. Now this manuscript is being prepared for publication by A.A. Alekseev, it is dated 1889.

History of the Russian literary language of the 17th-19th centuries at the beginning of this century, researched by Professor EF Buddha, who focused exclusively on the study of the language of the works of outstanding writers. Unfortunately, the named book is rightly criticized as a random set of linguistic facts, phonetic, morphological and sometimes lexical, that do not cover the development of the Russian literary language as a single stylistic system, and therefore, of course, cannot be recognized as fundamental in the development of the science of the Russian literary language.

If we understand the subject of the history of the Russian literary language as experiments on understanding the ways and results of the historical existence of the language of Russian writing - the language of monuments of fiction for the most part - then we can assume that this scientific discipline has more distant origins of development. An article by V.V. Vinogradov was once devoted to the elucidation of these origins.

However, the generalization of the heterogeneous knowledge accumulated by philologists-Russianists in the process of studying the language of written monuments and works of art of the word for the entire time of the development of Russian literature was carried out by researchers only in the thirties of our century. The first attempt to fit into a system a complex and varied linguistic material related to the history of the Russian literary language of the 18th and 19th centuries was the monograph by V.V. Vinogradov “Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the 17th-19th centuries” (1st ed. ., 1934; 2nd ed-M "1938).

At the same time, in the first half of the 30s, the traditional idea that the literary language for the entire Old Russian period, through the 17th century, was revised. inclusive, was the Church Slavonic language. With the greatest certainty and clarity, this idea was formulated by Acad. A. A. Shakhmatov. The scientist believed that the Russian literary language is a Church Slavonic (by origin, Old Bulgarian) language transferred to Russian soil, which over the centuries has come close to the living folk language and has gradually lost and is losing its foreign appearance.

Comparing the functioning of the Church Slavonic language on Russian soil with the analogous use of Latin as a literary language among the peoples of Western Europe in the Middle Ages, A.A. Shakhmatov argued that the situation was different with the Church Slavonic language in Russia: was alien to the people, like medieval Latin, for example, to the Germans and Slavs. From the first years of its existence on Russian soil, the Church Slavonic language has irrepressibly assimilated into Russian folk speech - after all, the Russian people who spoke it could not distinguish either their pronunciation or their use of words from the pronunciation and word use of the church language they had learned. As the written monuments of the 11th century prove, even then the pronunciation of the Church Slavonic language became Russified, it lost its character alien to Russian speech; even then, the Russian people treated the Church Slavonic language as their property, without resorting to the help of foreign teachers to assimilate and understand it.

Until the 1930s, the vast majority of Russian philologists, both language historians and historians of Russian literature, shared the traditional point of view on the formation of the Old Russian literary language from the Church Slavonic language that preceded it in time and in social functioning. And only SP Obnorsky tried to oppose the traditional theory with the hypothesis about the primordially Russian, East Slavic character of the originally formed Old Russian literary language in the article “Russian Truth as a Monument of the Russian Literary Language” (1934).

Having considered in this work the language of the oldest Russian legal monument, S.P. Obnorsky established in the phonetics and morphology of Russkaya Pravda according to the list of Novgorodskaya Kormchas in 1282 the unconditional predominance of Russian speech features over Old Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) ones and made a generalizing conclusion about the nature Russian literary language of the older formation (its term). This ancient Russian literary language, according to the scientist, developed in the north and only later, in the process of its growth, experienced the influence of the Byzantine Bulgarian speech culture. The burning of the Russian literary language, as S.P. Obnorsky believed, proceeded gradually with constant intensification.

In the conclusions of his article, S.P. Obnorsky showed a holistic perspective of the development of the Old Russian literary language with its gradual slavicization during the XIII-XVI centuries and with a further approach to folk colloquial speech already in modern times.

The idea of ​​the original East Slavic speech basis of the Old Russian literary language of the older formation was consistently developed by S.P. Obnorsky in the articles that appeared in the 1930s: “The language of agreements between Russians and Greeks” and “The Lay of Igor's Regiment” as a monument of the Russian literary language ”.

S.P. Obnorskiy's hypothesis has drawn criticism from a number of specialists. So, these provisions were not supported by A. M. Selishchev. S. I. Bernstein analyzed in detail the views of S. P. Obnorsky on the emergence of the Old Russian literary language in comparison with the ideas of A. A. Shakhmatov. P. Obnorsky so far relies only on the analysis of two monuments and operates mainly with phonetic and morphological data.It is necessary to expand the range of studied monuments and pay attention to such aspects of the language as syntax and vocabulary, the analysis of which will make it possible to judge with great reason about the true basis of the literary language.As a result, the hypothesis SP Obnorsky, diametrically opposed to the traditional theory, was assessed as “no less plausible, but unable to refute it without further substantiation”

To a certain extent, SP Obnorsky took criticism into account in later works, especially in the monograph “Essays on the History of the Russian Literary Language of the Older Period”. ), the works of Vladimir Monomakh, “The Prayers of Daniel the Zatochnik” and “The Lay of Igor's Campaign”. the significance of the impact on the Old Russian literary language of the older period of the Old Slavonic language, S.P. Obnorsky, in the preface to the monograph, continues to insist on the hypothesis about the actual Russian basis of the Old Russian literary language.He believed that this hypothesis has great methodological significance, standing on the wrong path, in his opinion, scientists saw the origins of the Russian of the literary language in Church Slavonic, in the study of the language of monuments, methodologically incorrectly raised the question of the framework of Russian elements in this or that monument. According to SP Obnorsky, it is necessary to equally illuminate the issue of the share of Church Slavisms in the language of each monument. “Then, on the objective basis of research,” he wrote, “the general problem of the history of Church Slavisms in our language will be posed, for the idea of ​​their influence in our country it is exaggerated. Many Church Slavicisms, evidenced by certain written monuments, had the meaning of conventional, isolated facts of the language, were not included in its system, and later completely dropped out of it, and relatively few layers of them firmly entered the everyday life of our literary language ”

The hypothesis put forward by S.P. Obnorsky found wide acceptance in the works of the 1940s and early 1950s (see Chapter 3, p. 34).

Simultaneously with S.P. Obnorsky, L.P. Yakubinsky studied the language of the same written monuments and studied the problem of the Old Russian literary language; recognized the domination of the Old Slavonic language as the state language of Kievan Rus up to the end of the 11th century, when, especially during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, the Old Slavonic language was ousted from the obligatory state use by the Old Russian literary language itself. It is noteworthy that L.P. Yakubinsky built his conclusions mainly on the basis of an analysis of the language of the same monuments that were in the field of view of S.P. Obnorsky

In the pre-war years, L. A. Bulakhovsky included in the circle of his research interests the problems of the history of the new Russian literary language. literary language of the first half of the 19th century, the time of the most intensive development of the Russian literary language as the language of the Russian nation

The problem of the Russian literary language began to be worked out with particular care at the beginning of the 1950s.During these years, B.A. and in the 1950/51 academic years. This work was recently published on the basis of student records by a group of his students.B.A.

The language and style of the greatest realist writers of the 19th century. in the same years AI Efimov and SA Koporsky devote their monographic research.

VV Vinogradov fruitfully elaborates many general problems of the history of the Russian literary language in his articles and monographs.

A general historical outline of the development of the Russian literary language is presented in the monograph by G.O. Vinokur. He also wrote research chapters devoted to the characteristics of individual periods in the development of the Russian literary language, in volumes of the academic History of Russian Literature.

In parallel with the research of the theoretical direction, the history of the Russian literary language as an academic discipline developed in the same years at the philological faculties of universities and at the faculties of the Russian language and literature of pedagogical institutes. Let us name the teaching aids of S. D. Nikiforov, A. I. Efimov, I. V. Ustinov.

In 1949, the Institute of the Russian Language of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR began to publish a regular scientific series of works under the general title "Materials and Research from the History of the Russian Literary Language." The first volume was devoted to the study of the language of the writers of the pre-Pushkin era - Karamzin and his contemporaries. The second volume contained studies of the language and style of the most prominent writers of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries - Lomonosov, Radishchev, Plavil'shchikov, Pushkin, Lermontov, early Gogol, as well as works that introduced new materials into scientific circulation, extracted from lexicographic sources. The third volume published works on the language of the writers of the Pushkin era - the Decembrist poets, Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov and Belinsky. The fourth volume covered the issues of language and style of writers of the middle and second half of the 19th century.

The late 1950s-1960s are characterized by a new approach to the problems of the history of the Russian literary language. At this time, new sources-letters on birch bark are involved in the orbit of study, in connection with which the question arises of how their language should be qualified.

Scientific methodology is being improved in the approach to the language of traditionally studied written monuments. The concept of "history of the literary language" is delimited from those adjacent to it. The science of the language of fiction and, accordingly, the history of the language of fiction is separated from the history of the literary language as a new scientific discipline. These problems were reflected in the reports presented at the IV International Congress of Slavists in Moscow by Acad. V.V. Vinogradov.

Along with the history of the Russian literary language, similar scientific disciplines are developing on the basis of other old-written languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR, in particular the Ukrainian and Belarusian literary languages.

A definite positive moment in the development of the problems of the history of the Russian literary language in this chronological period in comparison with previous years, we can call the liberation from one-sidedness in the interpretation of the most ancient type of the Russian literary language - from recognizing it either only as Old Slavonic or natively Russian. Thus, V.V. Vinogradov at the IV International Congress of Slavists in 1958 spoke about two types of Old Russian literary language - book-Slavonic and folk-literary. Other scholars, for example E.G. Kovalevskaya, name three types of literary and written language of the Kiev era, recognizing as the third type that of its variety that was entrenched in business and legal writing, which developed almost exclusively on the East Slavic basis.

An achievement can be considered the recognition of the need to distinguish, both in terms of social functioning and in terms of structure, the literary language of the period before the formation of the nation (literary-written language that served the needs of the nationality) and after the formation of the nation (national literary language). This thesis was developed on the basis of various Slavic languages ​​in the report of Acad. V.V. Vinogradov at the V International Congress of Slavists in Sofia in 1963

As an important step in the study of the development of the norms of the Russian literary language of the XIX century. should be considered a collective work in five issues, published in 1964 under the general title "Essays on the historical grammar of the Russian literary language." This is a one-of-a-kind study, for it shows the changes in the norms of the Russian literary language of the named era, regardless of the work of the outstanding masters of the word and their works.

Let's also call the work of prof. Yu. S. Sorokin, dedicated to the development of the vocabulary of the Russian literary language in the XIX century. This work, undoubtedly, is of deep interest, considering the vocabulary of the language as a developing system.

In the 60s -. the works of individual foreign linguists-Russianists - B., O. Unbegaun, G. Hütl-Wort and others appear. The works of these authors are mainly negative, they refute and reject the scientific understanding of the history of the Russian literary language, generally accepted in Soviet linguistics. A deeply grounded rebuff to these attacks was given in due time in the articles of V.V. Vinogradov, L.P. Zhukovskaya, E. T. Cherkasova.

In our opinion, the article by L.P. Zhukovskaya is of the greatest importance. This work is fundamentally important for historians of the Russian language of the most ancient period. L.P. Zhukovskaya, relying on her studies of one of the main traditional monuments of Old Russian writing - "Mstislav's Gospel" (1115-1117), establishes in this monument a rich linguistic variability at the level of vocabulary, grammar, phonetics and spelling, thereby showing that in the monuments of traditional bookishness, which were included in the general process of the development of the Russian language, features of folk colloquial speech were introduced. Consequently, these monuments can be recognized not only as monuments of Russian writing, but also of the Old Russian literary language, along with monuments of original origin. Russian-Church Slavonic bilingualism, according to the researcher, appears only later, in the XIV-XV centuries, when both of these languages ​​began to differ from each other to a great extent. These arguments are developed in more detail and presented in the monograph by L.P. Zhukovskaya.

The importance of the Old Slavic literary-written language as a common literary language of the southern and eastern Slavs in the early stages of their historical existence is emphasized in a number of works by N.I. Tolstoy, M.M.Kopylenko and ours.

In the 60s and 70s, works by I.F. Protchenko appeared on the development of vocabulary and word formation in the Russian language of the Soviet era.

During the same decades, textbooks on the history of the Russian literary language continued to be created and republished: in addition to the book by A.I. Efimov, mentioned above, textbooks and manuals compiled by A.I. Gorshkov, A.V. Stepanov were published in several editions A. N. Kozhin. We will also mention the manuals of Yu. A. Belchikov, GI Shklyarevsky, EG Kovalevskaya.

During the most recent years, the course "History of the Russian literary language" began to be studied in the universities of the socialist countries. According to this course, textbooks were compiled that meet the methodological requirements of Marxist-Leninist theory in the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Bulgaria.

The article by AI Gorshkov “On the subject of the history of the Russian literary language” is of fundamental importance.

The content of the history of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline consists in revealing the “external history” of the language (as opposed to the “internal history” considered in the courses on historical grammar and historical phonetics and lexicology of the Russian language). The history of the Russian literary language is designed to trace all historical changes in the conditions of social functioning of the literary language at all stages of the social development of a given speech community (nationality or nation). Since one of the features of a developed literary language is its multifunctionality, one of the important tasks facing historians of the literary language is to trace the emergence and development of its functional styles.

The history of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline is based on the Marxist thesis of the unity of language and consciousness and the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of nations and national languages. The development of the language is inextricably linked with the life of the people - the creator and native speaker of the language. It is on the material of the history of literary languages ​​that this dialectical-materialistic thesis is learned with particular clarity and strength. The history of the literary language is closely connected with the history of a nationality or nation, with the history of its culture, literature, science and art. Changes in the conditions of social functioning of literary languages ​​are ultimately and indirectly determined by the stages of social development of society.

The modern Russian literary language, which has a great wealth of expressive and pictorial means, acts as the highest form of the language of the general people and differs from the latter in that it is a language "processed by masters of the word."

Delimiting the concept of “literary language” from the concept “language of fiction”, which is close to it, we at the same time realize that one of the distinctive properties of artistry in language should be recognized the aesthetic function of the word inherent in every linguistic fact in works of art of the word.

Thus, the history of the literary language should not be turned into a series of essays on the language of individual writers. But at the same time, we must not forget that, according to V. I. Lenin's definition, “consolidation in literature” should be considered the most important feature of the language of a nation. VG Belinsky's statement that the appearance of each new major writer creates conditions for the progressive development of the entire literary language as a whole is also correct.

One of the main tasks facing the history of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline is to show which of the masters of the word and how "processed" the common Russian language so that it becomes a "great and mighty" language, according to the unanimous opinion of Russian and foreign writers and scientists.

Literary language, being the highest stage of verbal communication for a particular social community at a certain stage of social development, is opposed to various “lower”, uncodified speech means that are not usually reflected in writing. Written fixation is considered as an obligatory and most indicative feature of the literary language as such. However, at a certain historical stage, an oral-spoken variety of the literary language is also created, entering into continuous interaction with its higher, written form. The task of historians of the Russian literary language is to trace the indicated interaction reflected in the work of the masters of the word. At the same time, there is a constant interaction of the literary language, subject to strictly ordered norms of word use, with the speech forms of uncodified communication of people. The study of this interaction should also be considered in the range of tasks assigned to researchers of the literary language.

The purpose of our work is to give a brief outline of the history of the Russian literary language (in the traditional sense of this term) over the entire period of its development, from the 10th to the 20th centuries, in connection with the history of the Russian people, mainly with literature, using new, earlier written monuments not involved in the historical and linguistic study, mainly for the pre-national period of the development of the Russian language. Such works of Old Russian literature, the language and style of which have not yet been studied, are "The Word of Law and Grace" by Metropolitan Hilarion (XI century), "The Legend of Boris and Gleb" (XI-XII centuries), "The Word of the Destruction of the Russian Land ”(XIII century),“ Praise to Prince Ivan Kalita ”(XIV century),“ Another Word ”and“ The Tale of the Merchant Khariton Beloulin ”(XVI century). A special section is devoted to studies of the language and style of letters on birch bark, newly found historical sources.

When studying the national period of development of the Russian literary language, a separate chapter is devoted to the linguistic heritage of V.G. Belinsky and the elucidation of its role in the history of the Russian literary language.

For the first time, the language and style of Lenin's works are included in the linguo-historical study. The language of the works of the great leader of the proletarian revolution is organically linked with the entire course of development of the Russian literary language of the previous era and opens up the development of the Russian literary language of the Soviet period.

In the final chapter of the book, we try to follow how the changes in the social functions of the Russian literary language that took place after the Great October Socialist Revolution were reflected in its vocabulary and partly in the grammatical structure.

Thus, we bring to the attention of readers in a brief form the fullest possible sketch of the development, formation and historical fate of the literary language of our people in close connection and in interaction with its history. How we managed to cope with the tasks set before us, we leave it to the readers to judge.

Chapter one. Periodization of the history of the Russian literary language

The history of the literary language reveals the organic relations that exist at all stages of social development between the language and the history of the people. In the vocabulary of the literary language, in its functional styles, the events that marked certain turning points in the life of the people are most vividly and most noticeably reflected. The formation of the literary tradition of books, its dependence on the change of social formations, on the vicissitudes of the class struggle affects, first of all, the social functioning of the literary language and its stylistic branches. The development of the culture of the people, their statehood, their art, and first of all the art of word-literature, leaves an indelible stamp on the development of the literary language, manifested in the improvement of its functional styles. Consequently, the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language can be built not only on the basis of those stages that the common language is going through as a result of objective processes of the internal spontaneous development of its main structural elements - sound structure, grammar and vocabulary, but also on the correspondences between the stages of the historical development of the language. and the development of society, culture and literature of the people.

Until now, the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language has hardly been the subject of special scientific research. Those historical stages, which are recorded by university programs on the history of the Russian literary language, are outlined in the article by VV Vinogradov "The main stages of the history of the Russian language." In the course of AI Gorshkov's lectures, we find the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language in accordance with the university curricula in force in those years: 1. The literary language of the Old Russian (Old Eastern Slavic) nationality (X-early XIV centuries); 2. Literary language of the Russian (Great Russian) nationality (XIV-mid-XVII centuries); 3. The literary language of the initial era of the formation of the Russian nation (mid-17th-mid-18th centuries); 4. The literary language of the era of the formation of the Russian nation and the national norms of the literary language (mid-18th - early 19th centuries); 5. The literary language of the Russian nation (mid-19th century-to the present day).

Let us allow ourselves to make some critical remarks about the proposed periodization of the history of the Russian literary language. First of all, it seems to us that this periodization does not sufficiently take into account the connection between the history of the language and the history of the people. The highlighted periods correspond, rather, to the immanent development of the structural elements of the national Russian language, than to the development of the literary language itself, which is unthinkable without an inextricable connection with the history of Russian statehood, culture, and, above all, the history of Russian literature. Secondly, the indicated periodization suffers from excessive fragmentation and mechanism; in it, such stages of linguistic historical development are artificially torn into separate isolated periods, which should have been considered in an indissoluble unity.

Let us outline our concept of the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language in an inextricable connection with the history of the Russian people, its culture and literature.

It seems to us most expedient to subdivide the entire thousand-year history of our literary language not into five, but only two main periods: the period of pre-national development of the Russian literary-written language and the period of its development as a national language. It would be natural to recognize the time around the middle of the 17th century as the boundary between the two outlined periods, from where, according to the well-known definition of V. Lenin, “a new period of Russian history” begins.

The regularities of the development of Slavic literary languages, thanks to which the pre-national and national periods differ in them, were traced and substantiated in the report of V. V Vinogradov, made by him at the V International Congress of Slavists in Sofia. These differences are quite noticeable and characteristic. Among the most significant should be attributed the appearance in the national period of the development of the literary language of its oral-colloquial form, which as a means of oral national communication between members of the linguistic community, apparently, was absent in the ancient era, when the written-literary form of the language was directly correlated with the dialect colloquial speech and was contrasted with this latter.

In recent years, Corresponding Member was proposed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR R. I. Avanesov special periodization of the most ancient stage in the development of the Russian literary language. In a report at the VII International Congress of Slavists in Warsaw (1973), highlighting the relationship between the Old Russian (Old Eastern Slavic) book type of language, the literary language itself and the language of the national dialect, the named scientist proposed the following chronological division of the era: XI century - first half of the 12th century; the second half of the XII century - the beginning of the XIII century; XIII-XIV centuries This division is based on more and more, according to R.I. Avanesov, the deepening divergence of the book-written and folk-dialect language, taking into account the genre varieties of written monuments, which are strictly differentiated in functional terms.

The division of the history of the Russian literary language into pre-national and national periods of development is widely accepted by both Soviet and foreign historians of the Russian language.

As for the decisive demarcation of the era of development of the literary language of the Russian people (XIV-XVII centuries - usually called the Moscow period) from the previous time proposed by A.I. proper literary and written language of this era. It is the literary language of the Moscow period that is inextricably linked with the literary development of the entire preceding period. After all, we know about the unity of the literature reflected by this language, that is, that ancient Russian literature of the 11th-17th centuries, in which the same literary processes are observed, the existence and rewriting of the same texts that arose in the 11th or 12th centuries ... in ancient Kiev, and copied and lived in Moscow Russia, in the north and north-east of Kiev, and in the XIV century. ("Laurentian Chronicle"), and in the 16th century ("The Lay of Igor's Host") and even in the 17th century. (“The Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoned”). The same applies to such translated works of the Kiev era, such as "History of the Jewish War" by Josephus Flavius, "Alexandria" or "Devgenievo Deed", which undoubtedly arose in the XII-XIII centuries, most of the copies date back to the XV-XVII centuries ... Thus, the unity of Old Russian literature throughout the development from the XI to the XVII century. ensured the unity of the tradition of the Old Russian literary and written language up to the middle of the 17th century.

Too fractional subdivision of the periods of development of the Russian literary language of the national period, proposed by A.I. Gorshkov, also cannot be recognized as sufficiently substantiated. So, we think, it is inappropriate to separate the language of the second half of the 19th century with a sharp line. from the previous Pushkin era, when, undoubtedly, the foundations for the development of the lexical-semantic and stylistic system of the Russian national literary language, which continues to exist today, are already being laid.

So, according to our conviction, it is most rational to single out only two, the main and main periods of the development of the Russian literary language: the pre-national period, or the period of the development of the literary-written language of the nationality (first the Old Russian nationality, the common Eastern Slavic, and then, from the XIV century, the Great Russian nationality ), otherwise the Old Russian literary-written language until the 17th century, and the national period, covering the development of the Russian literary language in the proper sense of this term, as the national language of the Russian nation, starting from about the middle of the 17th century. to our days.

Naturally, in each of the named main periods of the development of the Russian literary language, smaller sub-periods of development are distinguished. Thus, the pre-national period is divided into three sub-periods. The Kiev sub-period (from the 10th to the beginning of the 12th century) corresponds to the historical existence of a single East Slavic nation and a relatively single Old Russian (Kiev) state. The named sub-period can be easily distinguished by such a noticeable structural feature as “falling of the deaf”, or a change in reduced vowels b and b to full vowels in strong positions and to zero sound in weak positions, which, as you know, leads to a drastic restructuring of the entire phonological system of the Old Russian common language.

The second sub-period falls for the time from the middle of the XII to the middle of the XIV century, when dialect branches of the common East Slavic language are noticeably manifested in the literary-written language, which ultimately led to the formation of different from each other in phonetics, morphology and vocabulary, zonal varieties of Old Russian literary written language in the era of feudal fragmentation.

The third sub-period of the development of the literary-written language falls on the XIV-XVII centuries. For the northeast, this is the language of the Muscovite state, in other areas of the East Slavic settlement, these are the initial foundations of the subsequently developed independent national languages ​​of the East Slavic peoples (Belarusian and Ukrainian), acting in the XV-XVII centuries. as a written language of the entire Lithuanian-Russian state, or “simple Russian mova”, which served both the future Belarusians and the ancestors of the Ukrainian people.

The national period of the development of the Russian literary language can also be subdivided into three sub-periods. The first of them covers the middle, or the second half of the 17th century, until the beginning of the 19th century. (before the era of Pushkin). By this time, the phonetic and grammatical systems of the Russian common language were mainly established, however, in the literary, written language, traces of the previously established tradition continue to be felt with sufficient force in the forms of Church Slavonic and business Russian speech. This is a transitional sub-period, a sub-period of the gradual establishment and formation of comprehensive norms of the modern Russian literary language as the language of the nation.

The second sub-period could be called, using the apt definition that was outlined by V. I. Lenin, the time "from Pushkin to Gorky." This time since the 30s of the XIX century. before the beginning of the 20th century, more specifically, before the era of the proletarian revolution, which put an end to the rule of the landowners and the bourgeoisie, the time of the development of the Russian literary language as the language of the bourgeois nation. During these years, the vocabulary of the language, which developed on the basis of a broad democratic movement, was enriched with particular intensity in connection with the flourishing of Russian literature and democratic journalism.

And, finally, the third sub-period in the history of the Russian literary language is singled out, starting with the preparation and implementation of the proletarian revolution, the Soviet sub-period, which continues to this day.

This is, in general terms, the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language, which seems to us the most acceptable.

Chapter two. The beginning of writing among the Eastern Slavs as the main prerequisite for the emergence of a literary language

The question of the beginning of writing among the ancestors of the Russian people - the ancient East Slavic tribes - is directly related to the history of the Russian literary language: writing is a necessary prerequisite for the emergence of a written literary language. Until recently, historical science, answering the question of when and in connection with what its own writing system appeared among the Eastern Slavs, pointed to the relatively late emergence of their own writing in Russia, linking its beginning with the influence of the Christian religion and the Church. According to this traditional view, East Slavic writing begins to develop only from the very end of the 10th century. on the basis of the Old Slavonic, or Old Church Slavonic, writing system received by the Eastern Slavs in finished form during the period of the so-called baptism of Rus, which was timed on the basis of messages from the chronicle to 989. However, historians began to accumulate facts for a long time that did not confirm this traditional view and suggested on the assumption of an earlier origin of writing among the Eastern Slavs. Over the past two decades, data of this kind have been increasing in number, and the time has come to summarize and systematize them. The evidence of an earlier beginning of writing among the Eastern Slavs than what was assumed by the scientific tradition can be reduced to three groups: data extracted from traditional written sources on the history of ancient Russian society; data obtained by the latest archaeological research; news of foreign contemporary writers who reported information about Ancient Russia. By traditional sources for the most ancient period of Russia, we mean, first of all, such a valuable historical monument as the "Primary Chronicle", or "The Tale of Bygone Years", created in Kiev at the end of the 11th-beginning of the 12th century. This complex monument includes the texts of treaties concluded by the most ancient Kiev princes, who lived long before the baptism of Rus, with the Byzantine empire.

Scientists who adhered to the traditional point of view, such as Acad. VM Istrin, believed that the texts of these treaties were originally created in Greek, and then, when compiling The Tale of Bygone Years, at the beginning of the 12th century, they could be extracted from the Kiev princely archives and only then translated into the ancient Slavic-Russian literary language for inclusion in the annals. In 1936, SP Obnorsky took up the question of the language of the agreements between the Kiev princes and the Greeks preserved in the Primary Chronicle. He proved that the translation of the text of the treaties into the Slavic language should be recognized as their contemporary originals. At the very time of their drafting, contracts were drawn up simultaneously in two languages: in Greek for Byzantium and in Old Russian (Slavic-Russian) for the Kiev principality. The very possibility of the appearance of the Old Russian text of these treaties suggests that the Eastern Slavs had a developed writing system at least in the first years of the 10th century, that is, almost a century before the traditional date of the baptism of Rus.

If we turn to the texts of the treaties themselves that have come down to us, then we will find messages that will not leave the slightest doubt that the then Eastern Slavs freely and fairly widely used their writing.

In the agreement with the Greeks of the Kiev prince Oleg, placed in the "Tale of Bygone Years" under the summer of 6420 (912), we read: “And about those who worked in the Greeks of Russia at the Khrestan tsar. If someone dies, do not arrange their own wealth, do not have their qi, but return the estate to small neighbors in Russia. Whether to create such a dress, to take up the dressing of it, who will write Enjoy his name, let him delight him. ” The last words of the paragraph can be translated as follows: "If he makes a will, then let him take his property, to whom he writes about it in his will."

In, the words of the contract who will write(to whom he will write) - we can see a direct indication that the wills were written by Russian merchants with their own hand. If we were talking about wills written by notaries in Greek (under the dictation of the testators), then they would use the verbs bequeathed or refused. Thus, those who lived at the beginning of the tenth century. in Constantinople, the Eastern Slavs could draw up written wills about their property, that is, they undoubtedly knew how to write in their own language, for it is even more difficult to assume that they were so educated that they could write in Greek.

In the agreement concluded between Prince Igor of Kiev and the Byzantine government and placed in the "Initial Chronicle" under the summer of 6453 (945), we read about the gold and silver seals that the ambassadors of the Kiev prince had with them. And the seal, of course, was inscribed with the name of its owner! (All ancient Russian seals known to archaeologists so far always bear the name of the owner. Archeology does not know anonymous seals, marked only with some special sign or coat of arms, without a name.)

In the text of the same treaty we find: “Now, there is your prince, send letters to our kingdom; writing sice: like the messenger of the ship is Seliko. " The words in italics indicate that in ancient Kiev at the time of Igor there was a princely office, which supplied ships of merchants who were heading to trade in Constantinople with letters of identification.

Let's turn to the data of archeology. In 1949, during the excavation of a mound near the village of Gnezdovo near Smolensk, the Soviet archaeologist D.A. Avdusin was able to find among other finds in layers attributed to the 20s of the 10th century, an inscription on the side surface of an earthen vessel - korchaga. The inscription was made in Slavic Cyril letters and was rightly recognized as the oldest Russian inscription. Reading it still cannot be recognized as indisputable. The first publishers were asked to read pea with meaning mustard. Then prof. P. Ya. Chernykh made an amendment to this reading, specifying it in accordance with the data of the historical phonetics of the Russian language. He suggested reading the cryptic word as pea (s) on, comparing it with the adjective known from the canonical Old Church Slavonic texts pea mustard grain. Subsequently, other readings were put forward: Gorouna- possessive adjective on behalf of its own Goroun (the alleged owner of the korchaga); the combination “Goroukh Ya (play)” - Goroukh wrote (Goroukh is the owner of the vessel). However, no matter how we read this inscription, the fact remains that the Cyril letter was widespread among the Eastern Slavs already in the first decade of the 10th century. and was used by no means for religious, but for household purposes.

The second important archaeological discovery was made by Romanian scientists during the digging of the Danube - Black Sea navigable canal, not far from the city of Constanta. This is the so-called Dobrudzha inscription.

The stone slab on which the Dobrudzha inscription was inscribed is poorly preserved, not everything in this inscription can be read, however, the lines containing the dating of the inscription in 6451 (943) are clearly visible. According to the Romanian Slavist DP Bogdan, who published and investigated the named monument in 1956, “The Dobrudzha inscription of 943 is the oldest Cyril inscription, carved on a stone and supplied with a date ... approaches the ancient Slavic texts of the Russian edition (for example, the Ostromir Gospel) ”.

The most widely known over the last one and a half to two decades have been acquired by archaeological excavations that have discovered letters on birch bark in Novgorod and in some other ancient cities of North-Western Russia. The cultural and historical significance of these finds cannot be overestimated. However, to resolve the issue of the beginning of the East Slavic writing, they can be used only as indirect evidence. The texts of the letters dating back to the time before the 11th century have not yet been found. Most of the birch bark letters belong to the XI, XII, XIII and XIV centuries, i.e. to the era in which the presence of a developed and widespread East Slavic writing did not raise doubts (see more about this on p. 56 and f.). Birch bark letters prove the mass distribution of writing at least in the 11th century, which would be absolutely impossible if we proceed from the traditional dating of the beginning of writing in Russia at the end of the 10th century. Archaeologists do not lose hope of discovering birch bark letters in the layers of the 10th century. of ancient Novgorod, since in these oldest archaeological layers are found tools for writing, "wrote", with which they applied letter signs on birch bark.

Thus, the archaeological discoveries of recent decades leave no room for doubts about the early origin of writing among our distant ancestors, the East Slavic tribes of the 9th-10th centuries.

Let us turn to the analysis of the information reported about the Russian letter by foreign authors.

The life and life of the East Slavic tribes at the dawn of their state existence is described in the works of the writers of the peoples neighboring with Ancient Russia. Especially interesting for us are the testimonies left by travelers, geographers and historians who wrote in Arabic. The culture of the Arab people in the early Middle Ages was higher than in European countries, since the Arabs largely preserved the scientific heritage of antiquity. Known is the story of the Arab writer Akhmet Ibn-Fadlan, who traveled from ancient Khorezm to the Volga, to the capital of the then Bulgarian state, the city of Bulgar, in 921-922. In his book, he reports, among other things, about his meetings with Russian merchants, about their customs and rituals. Akhmet Ibn-Fadlan witnessed the burial of a rich Rus who traded in Bulgar and died there. The burial was performed according to an ancient pagan rite, accompanied by the burning of the young wife of the deceased and the property belonging to him. There is no doubt that the deceased Russian merchant was still a pagan. After the completion of all the funeral rites, as Ibn-Fadlan writes, “they built ... something like a round hill and erected in the middle of it a large log of hadang (white tree), wrote on it the name of (this) husband and the name of the king of the Rus and left” ...

So, according to the testimony of Ibn Fadlan, in 921-922. The pagan Rus could write and used their own writing to inscribe names on graves. Unfortunately, the Arab author does not say anything about what exactly the letter of the ancient Rus that he saw was.

Details about the nature of the writing used by the Rus in the 10th century can be found in another Arab writer of the same time, in Abul-Faraj Muhammad Ibn-abi-Yakub, known under the nickname Ibn-an-Nadim. His work, written in 987-988. under the title “Book of the list of news about scientists and the names of the books written by them”, contains a section “Russian letters”, which says: “I was told by one, on whose truthfulness I rely that one of the kings of the Kabk (Caucasus Mountains) mountain sent him to the king of the Rus; he claimed that they have letters carved into the wood. He also showed (literally: he took out) me a piece of white wood, on which there were images; I don't know if they were words or individual letters like that. " And further in the Arabic manuscripts of Ibn-an-Nadim, written signs should be cut in as part of one line, on the decoding of which many scientists worked in vain. Obviously, later scribes distorted the inscription so much that there is no reason to hope for a more accurate reading now. However, in the above message, certain details draw attention to themselves (signs are carved on a piece of white wood), which allow us to conclude that, apparently, the interlocutor of the Arab author showed him nothing more than an ancient letter on birch bark.

Finally, we have one of the most interesting evidence in favor of the great antiquity of Russian (East Slavic) writing in the lists of the Pannonian Life, that is, the life of the founder of the ancient Slavic writing, Konstantin (Cyril) the Philosopher. This monument says that during his missionary journey to Khazaria (about 860), Constantine visited Korsun and “take back that gospel and psalter of Russian writing, and acquire a person who speaks with that conversation, and we are drunk with him and receive the power of righteousness, his devils in attaching, to distinguish between the writing the vocal "naya and the pronounced" naya, and quickly begin to clean and say. " There he met a person who spoke Russian, talked with him and learned from him to read in his language, comparing this language with his own, that is, with the ancient Macedonian Slavic dialect well known to him. The testimony of the "Pannonian Life" is one of the "accursed" questions of early Slavic writing. Many very different and opposite opinions were expressed about the interpretation of this testimony.

Given the current state of Russian and foreign historical sources, reporting only random and fragmentary information about the writing of the ancient Russians in the initial period of the existence of their state, one can hardly hope for a quick and definitely clear solution to the problem. written language among the Eastern Slavs. If you believe the "Pannonian Life" literally, then it should be admitted that Konstantin the Philosopher, even a few years before he invented the Slavic alphabet, could see and study the writing of the ancient Rus.

So, a review of the main domestic and foreign sources testifying to the relatively early beginning of writing among the Eastern Slavs allows us to draw the only correct conclusion that writing among our ancestors arose, firstly, long before the official baptism of Russia, at least in the very the beginning of the 10th century, and maybe a little earlier. And, secondly, the emergence of the East Slavic writing, although it is undoubtedly associated with the common cultural heritage of all Slavic peoples, the Old Slavic, Cyrilic writing, should be explained not by external influences, but primarily by the internal needs of the developing social system of the ancient Eastern Slavs, passing to the X century. from primitive communities to early forms of statehood and the feudal system. We can express our full agreement with Acad. DS Likhachev, who wrote back in 1952: "Thus, the question of the beginning of Russian writing should be approached historically as a necessary stage in the internal development of the Eastern Slavs." At the same time, it should be emphasized once again that the beginning of writing does not at all mean the emergence of a literary language, but is only the first and most necessary prerequisite for its formation.

Chapter three. Problems of the formation of the Old Russian literary and written language

Under the Old Russian literary and written language, it is customary to understand the language that has come down to us in written monuments, both preserved directly in the oldest manuscripts of the 11th-12th centuries, and in later copies. The written language of the earliest times served the multifaceted social needs of the Kiev state: it served the needs of government and the court; official documents were drawn up on it, they were used in private correspondence; chronicles and other works of Russian authors were created in the Old Russian literary language

The Old Russian written language was used both by the main East Slavic population of the Kiev state, and by representatives of other, non-Slavic tribes included in it: Finnish in the north and east, Turkic in the south, Baltic in the north-west. It is very likely that the spread of the Old Russian written language overstepped the limits of state borders and it was in use among the Pechenegs, and among the ancient Kabardians in the foothills of the Caucasus, and among the Moldovans in the Carpathian region.

The literary-written language was called upon to serve all the needs of the Old Russian society. Therefore, we have neither sociological nor linguistic grounds to oppose the literary language with the language of business written monuments of the ancient era, such as, for example, "Russian Truth" or letters, be they on parchment or birch bark

We find one and the same in its internal structure a literary-written language in written monuments created on the territory of Ancient Russia, both of original and translated origin.

Even at the most superficial acquaintance with the language of written monuments of the Old Russian era, its mixed character is revealed.In all its types and genres, there are elements of both East Slavic, folk, and Old Slavonic, book elements. The works of the Russian scientists of the XIX century A.Kh. Vostokov, K.F.Kalaidovich, I.I.Sreznevsky, I.V. Yagich, A.I. language, which was a conglomerate of folk, East Slavic, with Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian in origin It was determined that the ratio of Russian proper and Old Slavonic speech elements in various monuments of Old Russian writing fluctuates depending on the genre of the work and on the degree of education of the author, and partly the scribe of one or another manuscripts. It was found that, in addition to writing in this mixed language (Old Church Slavonic Russian version), in Ancient Russia there was such a writing that was created in a purely Russian language.Finally, it was proved that the Old Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) elements of the Russian literary language over time more and more and are more crowded out and give way to elements of Russian folk speech, which finds its final completion by the first decades of the 19th century, approximately by the era of Pushkin. Everything else about these problems continued to be controversial until the Soviet era.

First of all, the question of the primary or secondary nature of this or that speech element in the composition of the Slavic-Russian literary language, which Kievan Rus began to use already in the 10th century, remained open.

A.A. Shakhmatov was the first Russian philologist who wrote in Soviet times to clearly and fully set out the concept of the nature and origin of the Old Russian literary language. him a coherent theory of the origin of the Russian literary language can be regarded as a synthesis of everything that was done by researchers during the 19th century. It is natural to call this concept the traditional theory of the origin of the Russian literary language.

More decisively than his predecessors, A. A. Shakhmatov elevated the Old Russian, and thus the modern Russian literary language, to the Old Church Slavonic language as a direct source A. A. Shakhmatov wrote about the transformation of the ancient Bulgarian in origin written language into modern Russian, which was gradually taking place in the course of historical development. literary language.

Comparing the history of the Russian literary language with the history of Western European languages ​​that developed in the medieval period under the strong influence of Latin, A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that, in contrast to the West, where Latin was never assimilated with the spoken languages, Church Slavonic “from the very first years of its existence on Russian soil began to assimilate the national language, because the Russian people who spoke it could not distinguish in their speech neither their pronunciation, nor their use of words from the church language they had mastered ”. Obviously, AA Shakhmatov admitted that the Old Church Slavonic language in Kievan Rus was used not only as a language of worship and writing, but also served as a spoken language for some educated part of the population. Continuing this thought, he argued that already the monuments of the XI century. prove that the pronunciation of the Church Slavonic language in the mouths of the Russian people has lost its character alien to the Russian ear.

Thus, A. A. Shakhmatov recognized the composition of the modern Russian literary language as a mixed one, considering its inherent folk, East Slavic in origin, speech elements to be later introduced into it in the course of its gradual "assimilation of living Russian speech", while the elements are Old Church Slavic, Bulgarian in ethnolinguistic origin , reckoning to the original basis of the literary-written language, transferred from the southern Slavs to Kievan Rus in the X century.

This point of view, precisely and definitely formulated in the works of A. Shakhmatov, was shared by about the mid-1930s by the vast majority of Soviet philologists, linguists and literary critics. For example, V.M. Istrin, A.S. Orlov, L. And Bulakhovskii, G.O. Vinokur.

Prof. With P. Obnorsky in 1934, the Scientist analyzed in detail the language of the oldest legal monument of Kievan Rus, formed in the 11th century. and which has come down to us in the senior Synodal list of the “Novgorodskaya helmsman” dated 1282. As the analysis of the language of this monument, mainly phonetics and morphology, carefully carried out by S.P. This observation allowed S.P. Obnorsky to finish his research with conclusions related to the problem of the formation of the Old Russian literary language.

The scientist wrote then: “So, Russkaya Pravda, as a monument of the Russian literary language, as its oldest witness, provides threads for judging the very formation of our literary language. The Russian literary language of the oldest era was, in the proper sense, Russian in all its skeleton. This Russian literary language of the older formation was alien to any influences from the Bulgarian Byzantine culture, but, on the other hand, it was not alien to other influences - influences from the Germanic and West Slavic worlds. On this Russian literary language, apparently, originally cultivated in the north, it was later strongly influenced by the southern, Bulgarian Byzantine culture. The charcoalization of the Russian literary language should be viewed as a long process that went on over the centuries crescendo. It is not for nothing that the Russian-Bulgarian monuments of the older period contain even more Russian elements in the well-known lines than there are in our modern language. Obviously, along these lines, the slandering of our literary language followed later in the very process of its growth. "

The point of view adopted by S.P. Obnorsky in 1934 allowed him in subsequent years to enrich the history of the Russian language with a number of interesting studies. stated above (p. 22) L In 1939, an article appeared about “The Lay of Igor's Host”. In both of these works, the thoughts expressed in the article about the language of "Russian Truth" found further development and clarification. In particular, the assumption about the original northern origin of the Russian literary language did not stand the test of time. Igor's regiment ”as a monument of ancient poetic creativity, made it possible to speak of Kievan Rus as the true cradle of the Russian literary language. The assumption of the ancient influence of the Germanic or West Slavic speech element on the Russian literary language also disappeared. Some of the actual historical and grammatical provisions expressed by S.P. Obnorsky in his article on "Russian Truth," namely, the provisions that the verbal form of the aorist allegedly was not an original attribute of the Russian language and was introduced into it later under Old Slavonic (Bulgarian) impact. The predominance of this expressive form of the past tense of the verb in the language of The Lay of Igor's Host forced us to abandon the hypothesis of its foreign-language origin and recognize its primordial belonging to the Russian literary language.

As for the main point in S.P. Obnorsky's views on the origin of the Russian literary language, the provision on the primacy of the Russian speech base in the literary language of the older formation continued to sound even more confidently in his subsequent works.

The hypothesis put forward by S.P. Obnorsky was met with a number of critical speeches. First, the well-known Soviet Slavist prof. A.M.Selishchev, whose critical article was published only in 1957.

A detailed analysis of S. Obnorsky's views on the origin of the Russian literary language was also given by prof. SI Bernshtein in the introductory article to the fourth edition of AA Shakhmatov's book "An Outline of the Modern Russian Literary Language" (1941). With I. Bernshtein, he recognizes the indisputable value of S. P. Obnorsky's works in the fact that the hypothesis of the Russian basis of the Old Russian literary language, put forward by previous researchers only abstractly, these works transfer to the basis of a concrete study of the language of monuments However, S. I. Bernshtein noted as a methodological flaw works of S.P. Obnorsky is that they pay too much attention to phonetic and morphological criteria and too little vocabulary and phraseological criteria, which are of the greatest importance in deciding the question of the initial basis of the literary language. SI Bernshtein also recognized the negative side of SP Obnorsky's works that only two linguistic monuments have been studied in them so far. He pointed out the need to attract such works by Russian authors that were created in the XI-XIII centuries and have come down to us in relatively early copies, for example, "The Life of Theodosius of the Caves" and "The Legend of Boris and Gleb", preserved in the list of the "Uspensky collection" XII in “The possibility is not excluded,” wrote S.I. the purely Russian literary language of the earliest epoch and the later “slandered language”, the idea of ​​the difference between the genres of literature and language styles that were developing at the same time ”.

Fair and impartial scientific criticism did not stop the research aspirations of S.P. Obnorsky, and he continued to develop the hypothesis put forward by him about the East Slavic speech basis of the Old Russian literary language of the older formation. During the Great Patriotic War, he wrote a new large work, which was awarded the State Prize of the 1st degree. In this study, S.P. Obnorsky significantly expands the range of the monuments of the most ancient period of the Russian literary language analyzed by him. The book contains four essays: 1. “Russian Truth” (short edition); 2. Works by Vladimir Monomakh; 3 “Prayer of Daniel the Imprisoned” and 4. “A Word about Igor's Host”. Expanding the research base naturally contributes to greater convincingness of the conclusions that can be drawn by the researcher from his observations.

In contrast to the early articles of SP Obnorsky, in "Sketches ..." sufficient attention is paid not only to the sound and morphological structure of the language of the studied monuments, but also to syntax and vocabulary. In the course of a more in-depth study of the problem, the hypothesis about the primordially Russian speech basis of the Russian literary language of the older formation received many clarifications and adjustments in comparison with its original interpretation. conservative assumptions, it was necessary to modify and clarify. “But one of the conclusions,” he continues, “is the main one, must be considered unconditionally and unconditionally correct. This is the position on the Russian basis of our literary language, and, accordingly, on the later collision of the Church Slavonic language with it and the secondary nature of the process of penetration of Church Slavonic elements into it, that is, the position revealing the falsity of the previously existing general concept on the origin of the Russian literary language ”.

SP Obnorsky's analysis of the language of all the monuments studied by him shows that the language in them is the same - “this is the common Russian literary language of the older period”. It is necessary to emphasize as an outstanding merit of S.P. Obnorsky in the field of the methodology of the historical and linguistic research of monuments that he did not stop before studying the language of those works that have survived only in later lists. The historians of the language before Obnorsk, as well as, unfortunately, many of our contemporaries, did not dare and do not dare to reveal the original linguistic nature of such written monuments, recognizing it as hopelessly lost under the influence of subsequent linguistic layers. S.P. Obnorsky, deeply knowing the history of the Russian language and owning the method of historical and linguistic analysis, boldly revealed the original linguistic basis of the written monuments of antiquity studied by him, gradually, layer by layer, removing from them the latest neoplasms reflected in the lists that have come down to us. We can compare the work of SP Obnorsky with the work of a painter-restorer who removes the later underpainting from ancient works of Russian painting and makes these wonderful works of art “shine anew” with their original colors.

And one more, it seems to us, extremely important from a methodological point of view was expressed by SP Obnorsky in the preface to his "Sketches ...". Sometimes it is now believed that this scientist called for a nihilistic underestimation of the Old Slavonic language in the history of the Russian literary language. Far from it. Referring to the methodology of linguistic analysis of ancient Russian written monuments, SP Obnorsky wrote: “The position on the origin of the Russian literary language on the Russian basis is of great methodological significance in the further study of the Russian language. Standing on the wrong path, seeing the origins of our literary language in the new Church Slavonic language, we methodologically incorrectly raised the question of the framework of Russian elements in the evidence of a particular monument methodologically. It is necessary to equally illuminate another issue - about the share of Church Slavonic elements belonging to each given monument or series of monuments. Then, on an objective basis of research, the general problem of the history of Church Slavism in the Russian language, of the fate of the Church Slavonic language will be posed. This study should show an objective measure of Church Slavism in our language, or our understanding of them is exaggerated. Many Church Slavicisms, evidenced by certain written monuments, had the meaning of conditional, isolated facts of the language, were not included in its system, and later completely dropped out of it, and relatively few layers of them firmly entered the everyday life of our literary language ”.

Unfortunately, SP Obnorsky's wish, which is so significant in methodological terms, was not implemented either in his own historical and linguistic research, or in subsequent works on the history of the Russian literary language written by other researchers.

SP Obnorsky's theory of the Russian basis of the Old Russian literary-written language was recognized in the late 40s - early 50s by most scientists who were then dealing with the history of the Russian language, and was widely used in textbooks. Thus, SP Obnorsky's theory was supported by Acad. V.V. Vinogradov, prof. P. Ya. Chernykh, prof. P. S. Kuznetsov and others.

In the same years as S.P. Obnorsky, but completely independently of him, he worked out the problems associated with the history of the Old Russian literary language, prof. LP Yakubinsky, who died in Leningrad in 1945. His book “History of the Old Russian Language”, completed in 1941, was published after his death. Answering the question about the origin of the Old Russian literary language, L.P. Yakubinsky relied on a linguistic analysis of the same main monuments of Old Russian literature as S.P. Obnorsky. His essays on the language of Vladimir Monomakh's works and "The Lay of Igor's Host" were published on the pages of periodicals even before the publication of the named book.

In his historical and linguistic constructions, L.P. Yakubinsky proceeded from the self-evident fact of the coexistence of Old Slavonic and actually Old Russian linguistic phenomena in ancient Russian written monuments. He assumed that this could be explained by the successive change of two literary languages ​​in the process of the historical development of the Kiev state. According to L.P. Yakubinsky, in the most ancient period of the existence of the Kiev principality, after the baptism of Rus, in the 10th century. and in the first decades of the XI century. the Old Slavonic literary language undoubtedly prevailed. It became the official state language of the ancient Kiev state. In the Old Slavonic language, according to LP Yakubinsky, the most ancient pages of the Primary Chronicle were written. The same old Slavonic state language was used for his sermon by the first Russian by origin Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev, the author of the famous "Lay of Law and Grace."

Since the second half of the 11th century, in direct connection with those social upheavals (uprisings of the smerds led by the Magi, the unrest of the urban lower classes), which the ancient Russian feudal society was experiencing during this period, the influence of the ancient Russian written language itself increased, which is recognized as the state language Kievan Rus at the beginning of the XII century. during the reign of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, who came to power as the Grand Duke of Kiev in 1113 after the suppression of the uprising of the urban poor.

The historical concept of L.P. Yakubinsky was not subjected to all justified criticism of V.V. Vinogradov and did not receive recognition in the further development of the science of the Old Russian literary language, although, undoubtedly, this concept has its own rational kernel and it cannot be completely rejected.

Since the second half of the 1950s, the attitude towards S.P. Obnorsky's theory has changed, and his views on the formation of the Old Russian literary language have been criticized and revised. The first to criticize the theory of S.P. Obnorsky was acad. V.V. Vinogradov. In 1956, this author, outlining the basic concepts of Soviet scientists on the origin of the Old Russian literary language, names the names of A.A. Shakhmatov, S.P. Obnorsky and L.P. Yakubinsky, without giving preference to any of the scientific hypotheses expressed by them.

In 1958 VV Vinogradov speaks at the IV International Congress of Slavists in Moscow with a report on the topic: "The main problems of studying the education and development of the Old Russian literary language." Having outlined in his report all the scientific concepts on this problem, V.V. Vinogradov puts forward his theory of two types of Old Russian literary language: book-Slavonic and folk-literary, which interacted widely and diversifiedly with each other in the process of historical development. At the same time, V.V. Vinogradov does not consider it possible to recognize as belonging to the Old Russian literary language monuments of business content, the language of which, in his opinion, is devoid of any signs of literary processing and is normalized.

In 1961, NI Tolstoy took a completely special position when considering the origin of the Old Russian literary language. According to the views of this scientist, in Ancient Russia, as in other countries of the South and East Slavic world, up to the 18th century. The Old Slavic literary-written language with its local branches was used as a literary language.

The point of view of N.I. Tolstoy was supported, developed and partially refined in the works of some other scientists, for example, M.M.Kopylenko, and in our article.

In the articles of V.V. Vinogradov, published in the last year of his life, new ideas were expressed about the problem of the formation of the Old Russian literary language. Defending in general the position about its original character, disputed by such foreign scholars as B. Unbegaun and G. Hütl-Wort, V.V. Vinogradov admitted that the Old Russian literary language was complex in nature and that four different component: a) Old Church Slavonic literary language; b) business language and diplomatic speech, developed on an East Slavic basis; c) the language of oral creativity; d) actually folk dialect elements of speech.

L.P. Zhukovskaya expressed a new point of view on the relationship between the Old Slavic and Old Russian literary languages ​​in the initial periods of their social functioning. Studying the language of traditional translated monuments of Old Russian writing, in particular the language of the Mstislav Gospel of 1115-1117, this researcher discovered many cases of variation, lexical and grammatical, in the texts of the Gospel readings that are identical in content; scribes of a wide range of words and grammatical forms, both common Slavic and Russian proper. This testifies, according to L. P. Zhukovskaya, that the monuments of traditional content, that is, church books, can and should be considered among the monuments of the Russian literary language; from the point of view of L.P. Zhukovskaya, one can speak of the Church Slavonic language, which differs from Russian, only starting from the 15th century, after the second South Slavic influence on the Old Russian literary language. As we think, this point of view also suffers from a certain one-sidedness and is not devoid of polemical impetuosity, which does not contribute to the objective identification of truth.

In 1975, “Lectures on the history of the Russian literary language (X-middle of the 18th century)” were published posthumously, read by BA Larin back in 1949-1951. Concerning the problems of the formation of the Old Russian literary language, BA Larin argues not only with scientists who adhered to traditional views on this issue; not limiting himself only to an exposition of A. A. Shakhmatov's views, he criticizes the works of S. P. Obnorsky, considering his position in many respects narrow and one-sided. BA Larin admits it is possible to talk about the folk speech basis of the Old Russian literary language, while referring its beginning to a much earlier historical period than S.P. Obnorsky. B. A. Larin found the first manifestations of the Russian literary language proper already in the ancient agreements of the Kiev princes with the Greeks, in particular, in the treaty between Prince Oleg and Byzantium in 907, seeing in “Russkaya Pravda” the reflection of the same business literary-written language in East Slavic speech basis. At the same time, BA Larin did not deny the strong progressive influence of the Church Slavonic language on the Old Russian language, recognizing the latter as “foreign” in relation to the speech of the ancient Eastern Slavs.

Turning to the scientific views on the formation of the Old Russian literary language, expressed by S.P. Obnorsky and his critics, we must nevertheless give preference to the works of S.P. Obnorsky. Undoubtedly, much in them was born of polemic hobbies, much needs improvement and further in-depth research. However, his conclusions are always based on a deep linguistic and stylistic analysis of specific written monuments, and this is their strength!

Let us express our preliminary considerations about the origin of the Old Russian literary language.

From our point of view, in the process of the formation of the Old Russian literary-written language, the primary should be recognized as the folk colloquial speech of the East Slavic tribes, the ancient East Slavic folk dialects; we recognize them as primary in the sense that they, undoubtedly, approached the historical moment of the emergence of writing already internally prepared, reflecting the relatively high stage of social development of their carriers.

The business writing that was quite widely branched in genre and stylistic respect, which arose among the Eastern Slavs at the time of their transition from a primitive communal system to a class society, reflected the multifaceted and diverse needs of this society. Here we find written wills, international treaties, and inscriptions on household items and products, and commemorative inscriptions on stones and gravestones. and private correspondence. The consolidation of the spoken language in various spheres of business writing was not yet, of course, a literary language, but to a large extent paved the way for its emergence.

Folk dialects of East Slavic written language developed and polished and in the process of the birth and formation of original speech artistic creativity in its original oral existence. There is no doubt that the East Slavic tribes in the 9th-10th centuries. possessed a rich and developed oral folk art, epic and lyric poetry, tales and legends, proverbs and sayings. This oral and poetic wealth, undoubtedly, preceded the emergence of written literature and literary language and largely prepared their further development.

As the discoveries made by researchers of ancient Russian literature, and in particular acad. DS Likhachev, the emergence and development of the written form of annals was preceded by the so-called "oral chronicles" - stories and legends passed down from century to century, from generation to generation, very often within a single clan and family. As the works of the same researcher show, ambassadorial speeches were originally used in oral form, and only later were fixed in writing.

However, the development of oral folk poetry in itself, no matter how intense it may be, cannot lead to the formation of a literary language, although it certainly contributes to the improvement in the polishing of colloquial speech, the appearance in its depths of figurative means of expression.

The conditions for the emergence of a literary language among the Eastern Slavs are specific. They are expressed in that unique and inimitable combination of rich and expressive folk speech with a well-developed, harmonious and having inexhaustible word-formation potential in the common literary-written language of the Slavs - the ancient Church Slavonic written language. Other literary languages ​​of the peoples of Europe did not have similar conditions for development. In contrast to the Latin language, which served as the official written and literary language of the peoples of Western Europe during the Middle Ages, the ancient Church Slavonic language, close to the common Slavic forms of speech communication and itself created as a result of the joint speech creativity of various branches of the Slavs, was always available to the speech consciousness of the Eastern Slavs ... The ancient Church Slavonic language did not suppress the linguistic development of the Eastern Slavs, but, on the contrary, gave a powerful impetus to the development of their natural language, entering into an organic unity with the Eastern Slavic folk dialects. This is the great cultural and historical significance of the Old Slavic language for the East Slavic peoples.

It is necessary to emphasize once again the high level of lexical and grammatical development of the Old Slavic literary-written language. Established mainly as a language of translated church writing, the Old Slavic literary-written language organically absorbed all the achievements of the high speech culture of medieval Byzantine society. The Greek language of the Byzantine era served as a direct model in the formation of the literary and written language of the ancient Slavs, primarily in the field of vocabulary and word formation, phraseology and syntax. It should be remembered that the Greek language of the Byzantine era itself is not only a direct heir to ancient speech values, but also a language that absorbed the richness of the ancient languages ​​of the East - Egyptian, Syrian, Hebrew. And all this innumerable speech wealth was transferred by the Greek language to his direct heir, as it were, to the ancient Slavic literary language adopted by him. And the Eastern Slavs, having perceived in the X century. church books in the ancient Slavic language from their older brothers in culture, southern Slavs and partly Western, Moravian, thereby became the owners of this Slavic-Hellenic speech treasure. Thanks to the organic fusion with the ancient Slavic written language, the literary language of Kievan Rus, the Slavic-Russian literary language immediately became one of the richest and most developed languages ​​not only of Europe at that time, but of the whole world.

Thus, the process of the formation of the Old Russian literary and written language in the X-XI centuries. can be likened to grafting a fruit tree. The wild, the rootstock, by itself could never develop into a fruiting noble plant. But an experienced gardener, having made an incision in the stem of the stock, inserts a branch of a noble apple tree, a scion into it. It grows together with the wild in a single organism, and the tree becomes capable of producing precious fruits. In the history of the Russian literary language, we can call the East Slavic folk speech a kind of "rootstock", while the ancient Slavic written language served as a noble "scion" for it, enriching it and organically merging with it in a single structure.

Chapter four. Old Russian literary and written language of the Kiev period. Monuments of the literary language - "The Word of Law and Grace", "The Legend of Boris and Gleb"

In the previous chapter, we made a conclusion about the origin of the Old Russian literary-written language as a result of the organic fusion of the East Slavic folk speech and the written Old Slavic language. In the monuments dating back to the period of the XI-XII centuries, the Old Russian literary-written language manifests itself in different ways, depending on the target orientation and content of the works that it served. It is therefore natural to talk about several genre-stylistic branches of the literary-written language, or, in other words, about the types of the literary language of the most ancient era.

The question of the classification of such varieties, or types, of language in scientific works and textbooks is interpreted differently and can be recognized as one of the most complex issues of Russian studies. It seems to us that the main difficulty of the problem lies in the inaccurate use and lack of elaboration of the terms used by philologists studying the history of the Russian language. The very complex and intricate problem of the relationship between the Old Slavic language of the Russian edition and the actual Old Russian literary-written language in the most ancient period of its existence has not been resolved either. The question of bilingualism in the Kiev state is unclear. However, in spite of the difficulties encountered on the way of the researcher, this problem should receive a positive solution at least in the order of a working hypothesis.

As already mentioned, V.V. Vinogradov spoke about two types of Old Russian literary language: Church book, Slavic, and folk-literary, simultaneously bringing the language of Old Russian business writing outside the literary language. A similar interpretation of this problem is available in the course of AI Gorshkov's lectures. G.O. Vinokur, however conditionally, considers it possible to recognize three stylistic varieties of literary-written language in the Kiev era: business language, church-book language, or church-literary language, and secular-literary language.

We find a different interpretation of the question of the stylistic varieties of the Old Russian literary language in the works of A.I. Efimov. This scientist in all editions of his "History of the Russian literary language" identifies two groups of styles in the literary language of Ancient Rus: secular and church service. Among the first, he refers: 1) writing and business style, reflected in such legal monuments as "Russian Truth", as well as contract, grant and other letters; 2) the style of literary and artistic narration, captured in "The Lay of Igor's Host"; 3) the chronicle-chronicle style, which, according to A.I. Efimov, developed and changed in connection with the development of chronicle writing; and, finally, 4) epistolary, represented by private letters not only on parchment, but also on birch bark. These secular styles, according to AI Efimov, were formed and developed in unity and interaction with those styles that he calls church services: 1) liturgical styles (gospels, psalteries); 2) hagiographic style, in which, according to his opinion, speech means of both church book and colloquial everyday origin were combined; finally, 3) the preaching style, which is reflected in the works of Cyril Turovsky, Hilarion and other authors.

The interpretation of the problem of styles of the Old Russian literary language, proposed by A.I. Efimov, seems to us the least acceptable. First of all, in his system of styles, the written monuments of the proper Russian are mixed, that is, they are the works of Russian authors, and the translated Old Slavic ones, such as, for example, the gospels and psalteries referred to the “liturgical styles”, the texts of which came to Russia from the southern Slavs and, copied by Russian scribes, underwent linguistic editing, bringing the Church Slavonic language of the first lists closer to East Slavic speech practice. Then A.I. Efimov takes into account far from all varieties of written monuments, in particular, he completely ignores the works of rich translated literature, which largely contributed to the stylistic enrichment of the Old Russian literary language. Finally, A. I. Efimov is too straightforward in referring certain monuments to any one of the “styles”, without taking into account the stylistic complexity of the monument. This primarily concerns such a diverse work as “The Tale of Bygone Years”.

However, A.I. Efimov, in our opinion, is right when he speaks about the unity and integrity of the Old Russian literary language, which arose as a result of the interaction of two different linguistic elements.

Some researchers, both linguists (R. I. Avanesov) and literary scholars (D. S. Likhachev), tend to view the linguistic situation in the Kiev state as Old Slavic-Old Russian bilingualism. First, the widely understood bilingualism presupposes that all works of church content, as well as all translated works should be considered as monuments of the Old Slavonic language, and only works of a secular nature and monuments of business writing, including records and postscripts on church manuscripts, are given the right to be considered monuments of the Russian language. ... This is the position of the compilers of the "Dictionary of the Old Russian Language of the XI-XIV centuries." Secondly, supporters of the theory of Old Russian bilingualism are forced to admit that even within one work, one or another Old Russian author could switch from Old Russian to Old Church Slavonic and vice versa, depending on the topic touched on in the work or in its individual parts.

In our opinion, it is still advisable to proceed from the understanding of the Old Russian literary-written language, at least for the Kiev era, as a single and integral, albeit complex, language system, which directly follows from our concept of the formation of the Old Russian literary language, set out in the third chapter. It is natural to single out separate genre-stylistic varieties, or stylistic types, of the language as part of this single literary-written language. Of all the proposed classifications of such stylistic branches of the Old Russian literary language for the initial Kiev era, it seems the most rational one in which three main genre-stylistic varieties are distinguished, namely: church book, as its polar opposite in stylistic terms - business (actually Russian) and as a result the interaction of both stylistic systems - literary proper (secular-literary). Naturally, such a three-part division also presupposes intermediate links of the classification - monuments in which various linguistic features are combined.

The listed stylistic varieties of the Old Russian literary-written language differed from each other mainly in the proportion of the book-Slavic and East Slavic speech elements that formed them. In the first of them, with the unconditional predominance of the book-Slavic speech element, there are more or less significant numbers of individual East Slavic speech elements, mainly as lexical reflections of Russian realities, as well as individual grammatical East Slavicisms. The language of business monuments, being mainly Russian, is not devoid, however, of separate Old Slavonic, book contributions in the field of both vocabulary and phraseology, and grammar. Finally, the literary language itself, as already mentioned, was formed as a result of the interaction and organic combination of both stylistically colored elements with the predominance of one or the other, depending on the theme and content of the corresponding work or part of it.

We include monuments of church-religious content created in Kievan Rus by Russian-born authors to the church-book stylistic variety. These are works of ecclesiastical and political eloquence: “Words” by Hilarion, Luka Zhidyaty, Kirill Turovsky, Kliment Smolyatich and other, often nameless authors. These are hagiographic works:. "The Life of Theodosius", "Paterik Kiev-Pechersky", "Legend and Reading about Boris and Gleb", here also adjoins the canonical church-legal writing: "Rules", "Statutes", etc. Obviously, to the same group can also be attributed to works of the liturgical and hymnographic genre, for example, various kinds of prayers and services (to Boris and Gleb, the Feast of the Intercession, etc.), created in Russia in ancient times. In practice, the language of this kind of monuments hardly differs from that which is presented in the works of translated, South- or West-Slavic origin, copied in Russia by Russian scribes. In both groups of monuments, we find those common features of the mixing of speech elements that are inherent in the Old Slavic language of the Russian version.

To the texts in which the actual Russian written language of that time stands out, we include all works of business or legal content, without exception, regardless of the use of this or that writing material in their compilation. To this group we include the “Russian Truth”, and the texts of the most ancient treaties, and numerous letters, both parchment and copies of them on paper, made later, and, finally, in the same group we include letters on birch bark, for the exception of those that could be called examples of "semi-literate spellings."

We include such works of secular content as chronicles as monuments of the literary stylistic variety of the Old Russian language, although we have to take into account the diversity of their composition and the possibility of inostyle inclusions in their text. On the one hand, these are deviations from the church book content and style, such as the well-known "Teaching on the Executions of God" as part of the "Tale of Bygone Years" under 1093, or the life stories about the tonsured of the Caves Monastery in the same monument. On the other hand, these are documentary entries into the text, such as, for example, a list with treaties between the most ancient Kiev princes and the Byzantine government under 907, 912, 945, 971. and others. In addition to the chronicles, we include the works of Vladimir Monomakh (with the same reservations as concerning the chronicles) and such works as "The Lay of Igor's Campaign" or "The Prayer of Daniel Zatochnik" to the group of literary monuments proper. Works of the genre of “Voyages” also adjoin here, starting with “The Voyages of Hegumen Daniel” and others. Undoubtedly, the monuments of ancient Russian translated literature, knowingly or with a high degree of probability translated into Russia, adjoin this genre-stylistic variety of the literary language. especially works of a secular nature, such as "Alexandria", "History of the Jewish War" by Josephus Flavius, "The Tale of Akira", "Devgenievo Deed", etc. These translated monuments provide a particularly wide scope for historical and stylistic observations and their relatively large volume in comparison with the original literature, and the variety of content and intonation color.

Let us note once again that we do not reject the texts of certain literary works proper, both original and translated, if they have come down to us not in originals, but in more or less late copies. Naturally, in the historical-linguistic and stylistic analysis of texts of this kind, special care is required, however, the lexical-phraseological and stylistic nature of the text can undoubtedly be recognized as more stable in time than its spelling, phonetic and grammatical linguistic features.

Further, in this chapter and in those following it, we give experiments of linguistic and stylistic analysis of individual monuments of Old Russian literature and writing of the Kiev era, starting with the monuments of church books in content and style.

Let us turn to the language of Metropolitan Hilarion's “Words about Law and Grace” - the most valuable work of the mid-11th century.

"The Word of Law and Grace" is attributed to Hilarion, a well-known church-political figure of the Yaroslav era, who was appointed by him to the Kiev Metropolitanate against the will of Byzantium, a native of Russia, an experienced master of church ornamentation in the 11th century. The outstanding monument of the art of the word testifies to the great stylistic skill of its creator, to the high level of speech culture in the Kiev state of that time. The "Word of Law and Grace" has not yet been studied linguistically. Unfortunately, it did not come down to us in the original, and for study we must turn to the lists, the oldest of which date back not earlier than the turn of the XIII-XIV centuries, that is, they are two or two seconds apart from the moment the monument was created. half a century.

We find a few individual remarks about the language and style of the mentioned monument only in a number of popular works and textbooks, and these remarks are of a general and superficial nature. So, G.O. Vinokur in his book "Russian Language" (1945) characterizes "The Word of Law and Grace" as a monument of the Old Church Slavonic language. This scholar wrote: “The Old Church Slavonic language of Hilarion, as far as can be judged from the late copies, in which his“ Lay ”was preserved, ... is flawless." LP Yakubinsky gave a special chapter to Hilarion's “Word ...” in The History of the Old Russian Language. However, it contains mainly general historical information about the life and work of Hilarion, and also sets out the content of the monument. This chapter in the book of L.P. Yakubinsky is intended to serve as an illustration of the position of the primacy of the Old Slavonic language as the state language in the most ancient period of the existence of the Kiev state. Recognizing Hilarion's language "free ... from Old Russian elements," he argued that "Hilarion clearly distinguished ... his spoken language from the literary Church Slavonic language."

The compilers of the textbook on the history of the Russian literary language published in Lvov - V.V.Brodskaya and S.S. In this book, the East Slavic speech basis is recognized for the language of Hilarion, the authors find in Hilarion's "Lay ..." traces of his acquaintance with such ancient Russian legal monuments as "Russian Truth" words like damsel or daughter-in-law, which are common Slavic.

One of the reasons for the fact that contradictory and unfounded statements appeared about the language of the “Word of Law and Grace” could be that scientists did not turn to the manuscripts that preserved the text of the work, but limited themselves to editions that were far from perfect in textual terms. "The Word about Law and Grace" was first published in 1844 by A. V. Gorsky according to the only copy of the first edition of the monument (Synodal No. 59I). The named edition was used by researchers who judged the language of "Lay ...". The same edition was reproduced in his monograph by the West German Slavist Ludolf Müller.

As shown by N. N. Rozov, the publication of the Lay ... prepared by A. V. Gorsky is linguistically inaccurate. A.V. Gorsky was forced to meet the wishes of the then church authorities, adapting the language of the monument to the standard of the Church Slavonic language, which was taught in theological educational institutions of the 19th century.

For a linguistic study of the “Words of Law and Grace”, it is therefore necessary to refer directly to the manuscripts of the monument. The oldest surviving list of the “Words of Law and Grace” can be recognized as the text of the so-called Finnish passages. True, in the named manuscript, it was preserved only in the form of one relatively small fragment. This passage, consisting of one sheet, written in two columns on both sides, 33 lines in each column, contains the central part of Hilarion's speech (the manuscript is kept in the BAN under the code Finl. No. 37). "

The text of the passage was published in full in 1906 by F.I.Pokrovsky, who identified the passage with the work of Hilarion. Following I. I. Sreznevsky, who first drew attention to the manuscript, F. I. Pokrovsky dated it to the 12th-13th centuries. A closer paleographic study of the passage allowed OP Likhacheva to clarify the dating of the manuscript and to attribute it to the last quarter of the 13th century. The indications of this list should be recognized as especially valuable in textological terms, since it undoubtedly dates back to the era before the second South Slavic influence and therefore is free from the artificial Slavicization of the language, reflected in later lists.

Comparison of list F with the editions of Gorsky and Müller shows that it retains more authentic and original reading in relation to the language.

From the grammatical point of view, list F reveals, as one would expect, a greater archaism in the use of word forms than other lists and publications. So, if in later texts the forms of the supine are usually successively replaced by similar forms of the infinitive, then the list F systematically maintains the use of supine in the function of the circumstance of the goal with predicate verbs denoting movement: “Come to earth visit ih ”(F, 3, 21-22); “Do not come ruin law n perform "(F, 2, 19-21).

It seems to us quite indicative that the list contains Ph lexicon with a full-voiced combination of sounds, however, for this passage, the example is unique: “the Romans came, polonisha Yerslm ”(F, 4, 20-21). In all other lists and publications in this place there is an incomplete version of the verb: plnisha .

Characteristic is the change of the vowel a to o at the root of the word dawn:“And the law for seven as eve (e) rnAya dawn extinguished ”(F, 4, 24-25). In other lists and publications - dawn or dawn(named after plural).

Since the list F, no doubt, was rewritten on the territory of the ancient Novgorod land, phonetic Novgorodism is noted in it: “къ shepherd lost ”(F, 2, 18). In the rest of the texts, the natural sheep.

Thus, the use of data from the most ancient list of "Lay ...", despite its fragmentary nature, allows to some extent clarify our ideas about the original linguistic basis of the monument.

Let us turn to the main list of the first edition of Hilarion's "Lay ...", which served as the basis for the editions of Gorsky and Müller. The named list was reproduced with sufficient accuracy by N. N. Rozov in 1963. This researcher, on the basis of paleographic data, managed to amend the generally accepted dating of the Synod list. No. 591 and attributed it not to the 16th century, as has been customary until now, but to the 15th century. Thus, the most valuable textually list turned out to be a whole century older, which greatly increases the authority of its linguistic indications.

List C contains the text of the monument that underwent the second South Slavic influence. This is evidenced by the systematic use of the letter "yus large" in it, not only in place of the etymological nasal vowel, but in general instead of the grapheme su, as well as the spelling of the vowel a without iotation after other vowels: “from every rati and planet” (C, 1946, 19). Let us also cite such a purely Slavicized spelling: “we do not drive our hands into bgV tvzh (d) him” (p. 198a, 4-5).

Obviously, under the influence of the same second South Slavic influence, the form polonisha, which we noted in the F list is replaced in C with the usual Church Slavonic plnisha(C, 179a, 18). However, the more indicative for the original linguistic basis of the monument, preserved in spite of the Slavic fashion by text C, is such a feature as the spelling of the name of the Kiev prince with a full-voiced combination: Volodymer. In text C we read: “Let us also praise, according to our strength, with small praises, the great and wondrous creation of our teacher-body and the mentor of the great kagan of our land Volodymer "(C, 1846, 12-18). In the editions of Gorsky and Müller in this place, the usual Church Slavonic form of this name: "Vladimira"(M, 38, 11-12). There is no doubt that it was the spelling with full accord that stood in the protograph of "Lay ...". This is all the more obvious that, somewhat lower in the list C, another peculiar spelling of the same name with a vowel o after the letter is preserved. l in the first root: “noble from the noble, our kagan Vlodimer "(C, 185a, 9-10). Wed a similar spelling with a clear trace of the full agreement previously standing in the text: “existing in work in plonenii "(C, 199a, 7-8). In publications in both cases, instead of the marked spellings, the usual Church Slavonic ones with disagreement: "Vladimer"(M, 38, 20), “in plneni "(M, 51, 15-16).

Typical for word usage in our monument are lexemes such as which(meaning dispute, quarrel) and robicich(the son of a slave). Note: “and there are many conflicts between them and which "(C, 1726, 3-4); “And there are many quarrels between them and which "(M, 26, 21-22).

Word which, Occasionally found in Old Slavic monuments proper, for example, in the "Suprasl Manuscript", it is very common for the East Slavic writing of the older period.

Noun robicich appears in list C “Words of Law and Grace” in several spellings, which are reflected in different ways in editions. See, for example: “Give birth to Hagar a slave, from Abraham a slave robichisht "(C, 1706, 19-20); “VilovaahV on chrestiany, rabichishti free for the sons ”(C, 1726, 1-3). In the editions of Gorsky and Müller: “give birth to Hagar a slave from Abraham rogue "(M, 25, 7); “To violence against Christians, robichichi free for sons ”(M, 26, 20-21). It is characteristic that even Gorsky and Müller retained the East Slavic versions of this word. The lexeme itself is common for early East Slavic speech use.

Let us note in the monument the peculiar semantics of the word dawn (dawn). While in the Old Church Slavonic monuments proper the meaning of radiance, light, glimpse, as well as a day is inherent, in the "Word of Law and Grace", as the above example testifies, the meaning of this noun coincides with modern Russian: bright illumination of the horizon before sunrise and after sunset. Wed discrepancies in the text C and edition M: “and the law is seven like evening dawn extinguished ”(zar - local over. singular; p. 179a, 19-20); "And the law is seven, as the evening dawn is extinguished" (charge- them. pad. units h; M, 33, 4-5).

For the morphology of list C, the systematic use of the East Slavic inflection b into the genus is typical. pad. units h. in them. and wines. pad. pl. h. declension noun with basic on -ia and wines pad pl. noun declension into -io “from d'vits "(C, 176 a, 15), “from trinity "(C, 176a, 19), "N" shadow "(C, 179a, 12), “for sheep "(C, 1956, 11), “wives and baby " psi ”(C, 199a. 6) and others. In publications, all inflections of this type are replaced by the usual Church Slavonic -I, -a However, see- "Baby"(M, 51, 15).

No less frequent in the text C of inflection are the feminine pronouns with b in the genus. pad .: "From her"(C, 1706, 10), "k'rabb eb" (C, 1706, 16). In editions, these inflections are also changed to Church Slavonic “from not me"(M, 25, 1), "k a slave in her "(M, 25, 5).

The preservation of the East Slavic inflections in list C, despite the second South Slavic influence, gives us the opportunity to attribute spellings of this kind to the "Lay ..." Similar inflections are presented in abundance in other East Slavic written records of the 11th century, for example, in Izbornik 1076: "Grandee"(wine pad plural h), "Srachits"(wine pad plural), "Chest"(wine pad plural) and many others. dr

Considering the use of the East Slavic inflection -b in the text of list C, one should dwell on the word form spread, which has caused contradictory interpretations in the special literature. So, if we read in C: “there are many distribution and which ”(C, 1726, 3-4), then in the edition of M-“ and there was between them strife many and who ”(M, 26, 21-22). Müller comments on this passage as follows: “The scribe perceived a mistake, strife as a form of unity, number and therefore had to attribute the word“ many ”to“ kotory ”” (M, p. 68, note) Contrary to Müller's opinion, the word distribution- this is undoubtedly pl. the number of them. pad - Old Slavic distribution, which in the Russian version of the Church Slavonic language naturally turns into distribution. All Mueller's reasoning on this matter would have been superfluous had he looked directly into manuscript C, bypassing Gorsky's edition!

East Slavism, characteristic of the monuments of the XI-XII centuries, we can recognize the facts of the absence of a second palatalization, which are repeatedly encountered in the text C. To before -Ь in dates (local) pad. units number of wives. kind of noun and adj. based on -a. So we read in the manuscript: “not in xVdb and unknown to the land that ruled. нъ въ рVskь "(C, 185a, 4-5) and further: “more than that we have heard it always about the goodness of the earth greek "(C, 1856, 11). In the editions, such a discrepancy between the text and the norms of the standard Church Slavonic language has been eliminated, and we read in them: “but Russian "(M, 38, 17) and “about the good land Grechstyi "(M, 39, 4). However, further on, text C contains a similar spelling: “Our rulers ogrozi to the countries” (C, 199a, 1-2). And this deviation from the standard was kept in the editions: "Lord ours will fool the countries ”(M, 51, 12). Müller thinks To an explicit slip of the tongue (M, p. 139). He also draws attention to the extremely rare burial of the title lord in relation to the Russian princes.

It seems to us that the marked spellings in the text C can go back either to the protographer of the “Words about Law and Grace”, or to one of the oldest intermediate lists of the first oldest edition of the monument. Observations on the language of the lists should be systematically continued in the course of further textological study of the monument, fruitfully begun by N.N. Rozov.

However, even now some preliminary final conclusions could be drawn. Firstly, the linguistic and textological study of the monument should be carried out not according to its imperfect editions, but directly from the manuscript. language "impeccably Old Church Slavonic".

Undoubtedly, in the "language of the Word." Old Slavicisms occupy a prominent place and perform significant stylistic functions. It is not by chance that the author of the monument himself refers to the audience as connoisseurs and connoisseurs of book eloquence: “We do not write, we do not want to taste the sweetness of books” (C, 1696, 18-19). the orator himself "overwhelmed" his "Word." In the late lists of "Words ..." are quite stable and tangible These East Slavicisms in the language of Hilarion's works cannot be recognized, in our opinion, either involuntary or accidental. They are not accidental for Hilarion's word usage as a son of his people and his time. are involuntary, because each of the East Slavic elements of the language used by him has its own irreplaceable and inalienable meanings th and stylistic function. Let them be used in the church book, solemn style, but in the style of the literary Slavic-Russian language, mixed by its nature and origin of the written language of Kievan Rus.

Another literary monument, created at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries, is dedicated to the glorification of the first Russian princes-martyrs. This is one of the outstanding works of Old Russian literature of the Kiev period - "The Legend of Boris and Gleb", which differs from other monuments of the same subject in both volume and stylistic originality.

In Ancient Russia, "The Legend of Boris and Gleb" existed and was rewritten in parallel with another great work - "Reading about Boris and Gleb", the author of which is recognized as a well-known writer of the late 11th century. Nestor, a monk of the Pechersky Monastery.

The question of the relative antiquity of both of these works still cannot be considered finally resolved. We are inclined to the opinion expressed by N. N. Voronin, who recognized the "Tale" arising later than "Reading" and finally taking shape in the first decades of the 12th century. (after 1115), when previously created sources were included. The origin of the "Legend", apparently, is connected with the activities of the clergy who served at the church in Vyshgorod, where the relics of the princes were solemnly transferred during their canonization.

The value of The Legend of Boris and Gleb for the history of the Russian literary language is determined not only by the early time of its creation, but also by the fact that this work has come down to us in the oldest copy in the Uspensky collection, rewritten no later than the turn of the XII-XIII centuries. Thus, the distance between the time of the final addition of the monument and the date of the list that has come down to us does not exceed a hundred years.

The Legend of Boris and Gleb is one of the earliest examples of the Old Russian hagiographic genre and therefore is inextricably linked with church tradition. The author of the "Tale ..." himself indirectly points to those works of hagiographic writing that circulated in the then Kievan Rus and could serve as an example for him to follow. So, the author, talking about the last hours of the hero of his "Legend ...", Prince Boris, reports that he "thinks of the torment and passion of the holy martyr Nikita and St. Vyacheslav: like this former murder (murder)" (p. 33 , lines 10-12). Here are named: the first - translated from Greek (apocryphal) life of the martyr Nikita, the second - Czech life of Prince Vyacheslav, who was killed in 929 at the slander of his brother Boleslav. Vyacheslav (Wenceslas), canonized, was recognized as the patron of the Czech Republic.

But, adhering to the hagiographic tradition, works about Boris and Gleb at the same time fell out of it, since the very circumstances of the life and death of the princes did not fit into the traditional schemes. The martyrs usually suffered and died for the confession of Christ, being urged by the tormentors to renounce him. Nobody forced Boris and Gleb to renounce. Prince Svyatopolk, who killed them, was formally considered the same Christian as they are. Victims of political murder, Boris and Gleb were declared saints not for their confession of faith, but for their obedience to their elder brother, for their brotherly love, for their meekness and humility. Therefore, convincing the church authorities of the holiness of the princes was not an easy and not easy task, especially to defend the need for their canonization before the Byzantine churchmen. It is no coincidence, according to the testimony of "The Legend ...", the Kiev Metropolitan George himself, a Greek by birth and upbringing, "byasha ... not firmly versing to the saint" (p. 56, line 21). The entire "Legend ..." is aimed at proving the holiness of Boris and Gleb and the need to glorify them.

In terms of content and style, The Legend of Boris and Gleb is a very complex and diverse work. In panegyric sections, it approaches the hymnographic and liturgical template, in the narrative parts it adjoins chronicle-chronicle messages. The actual artistic side of stylistics in the works about Boris and Gleb is thoroughly and heartfeltly revealed in the works of IP Eremin, in particular in his "Lectures on the History of Old Russian Literature" (Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1968). The language in which the "Legend ..." is written is also not homogeneous. Revealing the dual nature of the literary-written language adopted at that time, we note the predominant use of ancient Slavic elements of speech in those places of the text where the goal is to prove the holiness of princes or to glorify their merits. So, Boris, having learned about the death of his father, the Kiev prince Vladimir, “start to wipe out and his face will all be fulfilled, and pouring out with tears, and not being able to speak, in his heart he will begin to look like this:“ Alas, shine my eyes, radiance and to the dawn of my face, my bliss, the punishment of my misunderstanding! Alas, my father and my lord! "” (p. 29, lines 6-11).

In the above passage, we do not find East Slavic speech elements, with the exception of the phrase my goodness, designed according to the norms of phonetics and morphology of the Old Russian, and not the Old Slavonic language. And the same solemn bookish, ancient Slavic language is found further on in those pages where the fate of young princes is mourned and their virtues are glorified.

However, when facts and events are reported, traces of a chronicle source appear clearly, apparently the oldest "Primary Chronicle Code", which preceded the appearance of the "Tale of Bygone Years." So, we see there a systematically expressed East Slavic phonetic and morphological design of our own personal names and geographical names: Volodimer, Volodimer, Peredslava, Novgorod, Rostov etc. On the very first pages of the "Tale" in its chronicle part we meet verbs with an East Slavic prefix ros- ("rostrig beauty for her face ”-s. 27, line 12; with. 28, line 1). Next is the characteristic East Slavism pink(vm. different). It should be noted that this linguistic fact was not correctly understood even by the scribe of the Uspensky Collection, who did not recognize the word, which is alien to literary traditions: rosnam lands in princes ... "Instead of an adjective rosnam, apparently originally read rosnam. The discrepancies to this passage show that the other scribes did not perceive this word either. Among the options we find: various L; razdnam-C; By vigilant(?!) - M; idle - R; different A. Some scribes correctly understood the meaning, but conveyed it in forms that were more familiar for the later periods of the development of the literary language, while others completely distorted what was written.

The portrait characterization of Prince Boris in the chapter "Tales ..." benevolent Boris, the good rooted, obedient to the father "(p. 51, lines 21-22), - but with characteristic East Slavism, when it comes to the appearance of the prince or his fighting temperament:" cheerful face, beard mala and us' "(line 24)," v'ratkh'h'b'r' "(obviously, spoiled good-looking. 52, line 1). Stylistically very indicative of the use of incomplete and full-voiced forms city ​​- city in Praise to Vyshegorod. Let us cite this passage in full: “Blessed truly and more highly than all hail russkyih and higher hail, imy, such a treasure in himself, he doesn’t have peace! In truth Vyshegorod nominated: highest and exceeding city ​​bsbh, the second Selun appeared in the Russian land, imbued with medicine without medication ”(p. 50, lines 11-14). Among the phenomena of morphology, we note in this passage the absence of a second palatalization To front -B, that we observe in the initial part of the "Legend ...", and in such monuments as "The Word about Law and Grace", in the "Izbornik 1076".

The concluding part of "The Tale ..." tells about the posthumous miracles of Boris and Gleb, about the discovery and transfer of their relics. And here the ancient Slavic speech element is interspersed with the Russian one. Let us note a vivid example of the introduction of colloquial speech into the text. The article “On the Presentation of the Holy Martyr” tells how, when unveiling the relics of Boris, the Metropolitan, taking the hand of the saint, blessed the princes with it: Bolshe our shii, and to ochima, and to the crown of the head and by seven put your hand in the coffin ”(p. 56, lines 17-19). And when they began to sing the Liturgy, “Svyatoslav's speech to Brnovi:“ Don't put me on my head ”. And take off Birn's cowl from the prince, and see nigt holy, and take off chapters and bring in to Svyatoslav too ”(ibid., lines 20-21). In the words of the prince, reflected in the story, undoubtedly lies the stamp of speech reliability: this is how these words were remembered by everyone around him.

We also see in this ancient monument the same written literary language of the older period, a mixed language, Slavic-Russian, a language in which the East Slavic speech element makes itself felt sometimes even stronger and brighter than in our modern Russian literary usage.

SHORT COURSE OF LECTURES

FOR THE DISCIPLINE "HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE"

Lecture number 1

Historical characteristics of the language. The history of the Russian literary language as a science. Main categories.

1. Subject of the history of the Russian literary language. Course subject- the history of the development of the native language, the processes of its development, their essence. Referring to ancient written records as object of study course.

The history of the Russian literary language is the science of the essence, origin and stages of development of the Russian national language, its use in different speech registers, the change of these registers, their evolution. Traditions of studying the history of the Russian literary language: the history of the Russian literary language as a historical stylistics (in the works of V.V. Vinogradov, G.O. Vinokur and their followers A.I. Gorshkov, E.G. followers - N.I. Tolstoy, M.L. Remneva), as historical sociolinguistics (B.A.Uspensky, V.M. Zhivov).

The concept of the literary language. Literary language as a phenomenon of book culture. Historical and cultural preconditions and conditions for the formation of the literary language. The concept of literary and written language, literary language and language of fiction. Literary and spoken language. Stylistic heterogeneity of the literary language, changes in its character in the process of historical development.

The concept of language norms. The book norm as the basis of the literary language, the linguistic norm as a historical category. Language system and norm. Various types of norms. Specificity of the book norm. Its connection with learning and conscious assimilation, with the literary and linguistic tradition. The connection between the history of the literary language and the history of culture.

2. Language situationas a factor in the development of the literary language. Typology of cultural and linguistic situations: monolingualism, bilingualism (foreign language), diglossia. Dvuyazy- the coexistence in society of two languages ​​equal in terms of their functions. Diglossia- a stable linguistic situation characterized by a stable functional balance of coexisting languages ​​that are in additional distribution. Signs that distinguish diglossia from bilingualism: the inadmissibility of using the book language as a means of spoken communication, the lack of codification of the spoken language and parallel texts with the same content. Changes in the linguistic situation in the history of the development of the Russian literary language. Evidence of the existence of diglossia in Ancient Rus (B.A. Uspensky, V.M. Zhivov). Arguments against diglossia (V.V. Kolesov, A.A. Alekseev).

3. The main stages of the development of the Russian literary language . Different points of view on the issue periodization of the course of the history of the Russian literary language: B.A. Uspensky, A.M. Kamchatnov and the periodization accepted by most linguists.

I period. The literary language of Ancient Rus (XI-XIV centuries) - the initial stage of the literary and linguistic history of the Eastern Slavs. II period. The development of the Russian literary language on the basis of ancient Russian literary and linguistic traditions in the context of the consolidation of the Russian people (XIV-XVII centuries). III period. Formation of a new type of Russian literary language (XVIII - early XIX centuries). Experiments in the normalization of the Russian literary language and the construction of its stylistic system. IV period. The development of the modern Russian literary language (from the beginning of the 19th century) as a unified and universal normalized system serving all spheres of cultural activity. The design of the system of normalized oral speech as a reflection of the process of ousting dialects and vernacular from the sphere of oral communication.

Lecture number 2

Literary language of Ancient Russia (XI-XIV centuries): the origin of the Russian literary language.

1. The first South Slavic influence (X- XIcenturies).

After the baptism of Rus (988), the Bulgarian version of the Old Slavonic language, the South Slavic language, was adopted and writing in this language was spread. The assimilation of the South Slavic book tradition was due not so much to an orientation towards Bulgaria, but to the intermediary role of the South Slavs as conductors of Greek cultural influence: the orientation was Greek, the writing was Bulgarian. Thus, Christianization introduces Russia into the orbit of the Byzantine world, and the Church Slavonic language acts as a means of Byzantisation of Russian culture. All of the above allows us to talk about first South Slavic influence and connects with it the initial phase of the formation of the literary language of the Eastern Slavs. In fact, the first South Slavic influence was the baptism of Rus according to the Eastern model and the borrowing of the ancient Bulgarian writing. The Old Church Slavonic language early began to be exposed to the influence of ethnic languages ​​and disintegrated into different editions (versions), in particular, a Russian version of the Church Slavonic language is being formed. On the other hand, the presence of ancient Russian monuments in Russia testifies to the existence of writing in two languages. An important question of this period is the following: to determine which of them is the literary language of Ancient Russia.

2. History of scientific controversy about .

History of scientific controversy about the origin of the Russian literary language connected with the tradition of opposing the theory of the Old Slavonic origin of the Russian literary language A.A. Shakhmatov and the theory of the primordial East Slavic basis of the Russian literary language S.P. Obnorsky.

The hypothesis of A.A. Shakhmatova became widespread. In his work "Essay on the Modern Russian Language" A. Shakhmatov wrote: "By its origin, the Russian literary language is a Church Slavonic (by its origin Old Bulgarian) language transferred to Russian soil, which over the centuries has drawn closer to the national language and has gradually lost and is losing its foreign appearance." In his opinion, "the ancient Bulgarian language in Russia was perceived as a foreign language for no more than a century, after which they got used to it as their own", which allows us to talk about "Russification" of the South Slavic base... To prove this thesis, A.A. Shakhmatov gives 12 signs of the foreign language basis of the modern Russian language: 1) incomplete agreement; 2) combination ra, la at the beginning of a word; 3) combination railway vm. f; 4) affricate SCH vm. h; 5) no transition [e]> [o]; 6) initial NS vm. at; 7) solid z vm. soft ( favor, unassuming); 8) vocalization oh e in place of the reduced; 9) clearing vowels s, and in place of tense reduced; 10) grammatical forms with Church Slavonic inflections (m: -ago, -yago; f. p.: - her); 11) Church Slavonic word formation; 12) Church Slavonic vocabulary.

In the 50s. 20th century S.P. Obnorsky put forward a theory of the East Slavic basis of the Russian literary language, assuming that the modern Russian language in its genetic basis is not borrowed, but Russian. In his works, we are talking about the Old Russian literary language, which, since the time of the second South Slavic influence, began to undergo Church Slavization, more precisely, "Slander" of the Russian language... Disadvantages of the theory: it is not clear what the specific weight of the Church Slavonic superstratum is; orientation towards a genre-limited range of sources of oral folk tradition, which served as the basis for the formation of a supra-dialectal form - koine. As a result, the Church Slavonic language "froze", being used only in the cult sphere, and the Old Russian language evolved.

After the release of S.P. Obnorsky (1934), a scientific discussion began, a critical attitude to his theory was noted (A.M.Selishchev, V.V. Vinogradov), new concepts appeared. The concept of diglossia (B.A. Uspensky, A.V. Isachenko), according to which the Church Slavonic language was the literary language, and folk colloquial speech existed in parallel, not being a literary form. The concept of bilingualism (F.P. Filin, following M.V. Lomonosov) is the coexistence of Church Slavonic and Old Russian languages, each with its own varieties. The hypothesis of V.V. Vinogradov - the idea of ​​the unity of the literary language on a nationwide basis. Two types of Old Russian literary language: book-Slavonic and folk-literary (according to V.V. Vinogradov).

Lecture number 3

Literary language of Ancient Russia (XI-XIV centuries): characteristics of written monuments.

1. Types of written monuments of Kievan Rus.

Traditionally, it is customary to talk about two types of written monuments of Kievan Rus: Christian and secular. Monuments of Christian literature were created in the Church Slavonic language. Translated Christian Literature includes the Gospel, Psalter, Prologues, Patericons. Genres of original Christian literature are "Walkings", "Lives", "Words", "Teachings". Translated secular literature- these are works translated from Latin, Greek ("History of the Jewish War" I. Flavius, "Devgenievo Deed"). Original secular literature- folk-literary monuments created in the Old Russian language (chronicles, chronicles; "The Tale of Bygone Years", "The Word about Igor's Campaign", "The Teaching of Vladimir Monomakh").

The variety of written monuments of Kievan Rus also determines the typology of linguistic traditions and their varieties, which are characterized by the ratio of different linguistic elements within the same ancient text.

Varieties of linguistic traditions based on Church Slavonic: standard, complicated, formulaic, simplified, hybrid Church Slavonic language. The standard Church Slavonic language is the language of the Gospel, life. Complicated Church Slavonic is a presentation, reinforced rhetorically, poetically, exotic, expressive, archaic lexemes. Formal ("clichéd") Church Slavonic is a direct quotation or paraphrasing of canonical (biblical) texts (Christ of kissing, banner of the Cross, etc.). The simplified Church Slavonic language is characterized by the inclusion of elements of the vernacular spoken language. The hybrid Church Slavonic language is a stripe, the replacement of the linguistic means of the Church Slavonic language with elements of the folk-spoken language.

Varieties of linguistic traditions based on the Old Russian basis: standard, dialectal, complicated, business (formulaic), Slavicized Old Russian language. The standard Old Russian language is a linguistic tradition that demonstrates the general tendencies of the Old Russian language. The dialectal Old Russian language reflects certain dialectal features. Complicated Old Russian language is an exposition, reinforced rhetorically, poetically, contains symbolic and figurative use, a reflection of folklore traditions. The business (formulaic) Old Russian language is based on the use of clichés, standard expressions of Old Russian documents (go to the company, knock your head down, face it, etc.). The Slavicized Old Russian language is a linguistic tradition, where only some forms are non-systematically Slavicized.

2. The status of business writing in Ancient Russia

In Ancient Russia, business writing has an ancient tradition, which is confirmed by 3 agreements between Oleg and the Greeks, found in the Tale of Bygone Years. The ambiguous status of business writing in the history of the Russian literary language (isolation or a stylistically defined variety) is motivated by a critical socially oriented situation of its emergence. G.O. Vinokur gives arguments testifying to the isolation of the business language: functioning only in the field of business records management, the content of business documents is limited by the nature of their use, the semantically limited composition of vocabulary. A.I. Gorshkov, A.M. Kamchatnov believe that there is no sufficient reason to isolate the business language from the system of varieties of the Old Russian language, since “it (the business language) is a socially important, stylistically processed and ordered variety of the use of the Old Russian language, and at subsequent stages of development it gradually strengthened its ties with the“ proper literary "Language and its influence on it." A.M. Kamchatnov: “... XI-XIV centuries. characteristic is the opposition of three styles of the literary language - sacred, Slavic-Russian and business ”.

The linguistic specificity of business documents was determined by the peculiarities of its content, as evidenced, for example, by the statement of Afanasy Matveyevich Selishchev: “When they talked about theft, about a fight, about a torn beard, about a face broken in blood, the corresponding speech was also used - the speech of everyday life ... style, but also the accuracy of the content of business speech, documentary accuracy required the use of appropriate words - Russian words of a certain meaning. " Indeed, it was about objects, phenomena and concepts, specifically Russian. Therefore, the basis of business monuments is the Old Russian language, the connection with the terminological system of oral law, the absence of sacredness. Thus, we can note the following features of the business legal writing of Ancient Russia ("Russian truth", donation and contractual letters): genre-functional marking (use for practical need), semantically limited content of the content structure (use of legal vocabulary: vira, vidok, archetype, tatba, headache, istsevo, etc.), monotony of syntactic constructions (conditional subordinate clauses, imperative-infinitive constructions, stringing of simple sentences), the presence of linguistic formulas and the absence of figurative and expressive means.

3. Linguistic specifics of everyday written works: birch bark letters (private correspondence) and graffiti (everyday, dedicatory, religious inscriptions).
Lecture number 4

Cultural and linguistic situation of Moscow Russia at the end of the XIV - the middle of the XV century.

1. Ways of development of the spoken and literary language during the formation of the Moscow state.

From the second half of the XIV century, the Moscow principality began to develop rapidly, joining the neighboring ones. Moscow is the spiritual and political center of Russia: “Moscow is the third Rome”. Moscow's speech is becoming motley, including borrowings from the languages ​​of neighboring peoples. One of the transitional dialects is being formed - moscow koine, which became the basis of the language of the Great Russian people. This language differed from the Old Russian language, for example, in its vocabulary (due to changes in ideology, realities). In addition to extralinguistic prerequisites that led to the restructuring of relations between the book and non-book languages, there were also designated intra-linguistic reasons that characterize the spoken language of the Moscow state by the end of the 14th century. Among them - the change in the phonological system after the process of the fall of the reduced ones; loss of grammatical categories (vocative form, dual number); unification of types of declension in plural. h; use of a perfect without a ligament; the spread of new alliances. In this situation, the spoken and literary language began to differ from each other: previously neutral (general) forms become specifically bookish, i.e. new correlations between Church Slavonic and living Russian are formed. So, the forms rutsh, nosh, pomozi, Bozh, pekl, moogl, me, cha, etc. are now contrasted with the forms of colloquial speech. Accordingly, the distance between Church Slavonic and Russian as a book and non-book languages ​​increases.

2. Second South Slavic influence.

One of the controversial issues in the history of Russian writing remains the question of the role of the so-called K. XIV century. - early. XVI century - the second wave of influence on Russian book culture from the South Slavic written culture (Bulgaria and partly Serbia) after the period of the Christianization of Rus (X-XI centuries). This was a reform of the principles of translation from the Greek language, literary language and spelling, carried out in the XIV century. Bulgarian Patriarch Euthymius Tarnovsky, which spread very quickly. The implementation of the reform in Russian writing is associated with the name of Metropolitan Cyprian - a Serb or, according to other sources, a Bulgarian by birth, who emigrated to Russia in the general stream of South Slavic emigration. Hence another name for the process - Kipranovskaya on the right.

In the 19th century, A.I. Sobolevsky. Sobolevsky's discovery was widely recognized. B.A. Ouspensky: "This phenomenon is based on purificatory and restoration tendencies: its immediate stimulus was the desire of Russian scribes to cleanse the Church Slavonic language of those colloquial elements that penetrated it as a result of its gradual Russification (ie adaptation to local conditions)." First of all, A.I. Sobolevsky drew attention to changes in the external design of manuscripts, pointed out innovations in graphics, changes in the spelling of these written monuments in comparison with previous periods. On this material, he concluded that Russian writing in the period of the end of the XIV century - early. XVI century fell under the strong influence of the South Slavic writing, hence the term "second South Slavic influence". In fact, all the indicated changes brought the Old Russian manuscripts closer to the Bulgarian and Serbian written monuments of the same era. Indeed, the model for Russian manuscripts is the revised church books of Bulgaria and Serbia, where by the end of the XIV century. the editing of religious books was completed, and many prominent church figures (Metropolitan Cyprian, Gregory Tsamblak, Pakhomiy Logofet) arrived in Moscow. In connection with the political and economic growth of Moscow, the authority of the Moscow church, church literature, and, therefore, the role of the Church Slavonic language is also increasing. Therefore, the activity of editing church books in Moscow during this period turned out to be appropriate. Correction and rewriting of books was primarily due to the translation of the Russian Church from the studio charter that prevailed in Byzantium until the end of the 11th century. and from there came to Russia, to the Jerusalem charter, which was consolidated in the XIV century throughout the Orthodox world. The conservatism natural for the church and reverence for antiquity prompted the scribes, on the one hand, to preserve the written tradition of ancient texts, deliberately archaizing the book language, and on the other hand, the Slavic languages ​​in the 14th century changed so significantly in the system of vocalism, consonantism, accentology, and in lexical and grammatical terms, the use of many signs in ancient texts has become incomprehensible. These are letters like @, \, #,>, i, s, ^, h. A true understanding of their use could be achieved on the basis of the creation of a scientific history of the Slavic languages, but the church scribes of the XIV century were still far from even setting such a task. And now artificial rules for writing these letters are being developed, the use of which has become unclear. The Russian scribes meet these artificial rules with a dull but stubborn resistance. Therefore, the goal of the correction undertaken by the scribes is to bring the church books into the original, most accurate, corresponding to the Greek originals, form.

Consequences second South Slavic influence:

1) restoration in graphics of Greek letters (j, k, ^, i), big yus, which has disappeared from practice; the emergence of ideographic signs and symbols (DS Likhachev notes the "geometric ornament of the text");

2) elimination of iotation, i.e. the absence of spellings with j in the post-vocal position before a and #, now the iotation is conveyed not by the letter ", but by the letters a and #: svo # (////// svoa), dobraa, deacon (spelling unoted letters is a Greek sample);

3) the spelling of erov obeys the distributive rules: at the end of a word always b, in the middle b. This artificial rule was due to the coincidence of reflexes of etymological * b, * b in one phoneme, which made these letters homophonic and interchangeable.

4) the distribution of the letters i and and in the spelling: i is written before the vowels, which is also associated with the Greek model (this rule was adopted by civil spelling and survived until the reform of 1917-1918);

5) reflection of reflexes and processes of the book-Slavic language (palatalization, the first full consent);

6) an increase in the number of titles, superscripts and punctuation marks.

7) the emergence and spread of a rhetorically decorated manner of writing - style of "weaving words"- as a way of constructing a text that originates in church works, then transmitted to secular ones. For the first time in Russia word weaving style scribe XIV century - early. XV century Epiphanius the Wise introduced in the "Life of Stephen of Perm".

Weaving words style arose “from the idea of ​​hesychasm about the unknowability and namelessness of God, that is, one can only approach the name of God by trying different ways of naming ”(LV Zubova). Hesychasm is an ethical-ascetic teaching about the path to the unity of man with God, about the ascent of the human spirit to deity, the "divinity of the verb", the need for close attention to the sound and semantics of a word that serves to name the essence of an object, but is often unable to express the "soul of an object" , convey the main thing. Hesychasts refused the word: contemplation gives direct communication with God, therefore hesychasts were also called "silent". The word is "divine verb."

The term "weaving words" does not quite adequately convey the essence of the style. The phrase "weaving words" was known even before Epiphany to mean "to produce new words"; in translations of the Byzantine hymn we meet: "the word weaving the word sweetness." Thus, neither the term "weaving of words", nor the ornate rhetorical style for the XIV-XV centuries. not new. What is new is the motivating reason for the return to ornateness. The hesychast identification of the word and the essence of the phenomenon caused in verbal creativity, it would seem, the opposite result - pleonasm, which was justified for this era, since the unity of a high idea with a low one was embodied in the designation of the concreteness of "things". And the hagiographic genre accumulated various vocabulary of common meaning, the general meaning turned out to be important, and not the meanings of individual words, which became the basis for the development of polysemy and synonymy. Moreover, the focus is on abstractness, emotionality, symbolism, imagery of linguistic means of expression and constructions.

An important consequence second South Slavic influence became the emergence of correlative pairs of correlative Slavisms and Russisms. Direct lexical borrowings from Russian into Church Slavonic became impossible. A kind of bilingual Russian-Church Slavonic dictionary is being created (verb - I say, rekl - said, today - sevodni, truth is truth). Thus, second South Slavic influence predetermined the transition to bilingualism.

In general, it should be noted that the Cyprian on the right, which took place against the backdrop of a national upsurge (the century between 1380 and 1480 is the time between the Battle of Kulikovo and the complete elimination of Rus' dependence on the Golden Horde), still did not cause such a split in the church and society, which was later caused by Nikon's right wing of the 17th century, which took place against the background of serfdom of the peasantry. Meanwhile, after all, both the one and the other on the right are two stages of the same process of formation of the modern Church Slavonic language with its artificial spelling and other features of inept archaization, carried out in an atmosphere of complete absence of the history of Slavic languages ​​as a science.

Lecture number 5

The linguistic situation of the second half of the 15th-16th centuries.

1. Archaization of the language of journalism second half of the 15th-16th centuries

In the second half of the 15th century, the process of state building was influenced by the worldview of two spiritual and religious movements: mystical Orthodoxy and theological rationalism. The ideas of mystical Orthodoxy were defended by the "Trans-Volga elders" led by Nil Sorsky, since they opposed church and monastic land tenure, condemned the decoration of monasteries, declared asceticism, aloofness from worldly affairs, including politics, and continued to develop the ideas of hesychasm. In their messages, the “elders of the Volga region” gave preference to religious and moral issues, expressed a critical attitude towards the Holy Scriptures, therefore, strict adherence to the norms of the Church Slavonic language and the absence of rhetorical excesses were relevant for their manner of writing. The manner of presentation of the “elders of the Volga region” was followed by Maxim the Greek, Andrey Kurbsky. The ideologist of another church-political trend of the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th centuries, which was called "Josephite", - Joseph Volotsky (Ivan Sanin, 1439-1515) - is the author of outstanding works of publicistic nature. The views of his supporters are directly opposite: they defend the inviolability of church dogmas and the political influence of the church, defend church and monastery land tenure, support the concept of absolute monarchy, aestheticization of the rite. The "Josephites" paid a lot of attention to the description of specific events, details of Russian life, therefore, their works reflected both pompous Slavonic book rhetoric and colloquial everyday linguistic elements. Ivan the Terrible wrote in the style of “Josephite”.

2. Stylistic varieties of secular literature and business writing in Moscow Russia.

Specificity of secular literature of Moscow Russia- strengthening of social and political importance. Therefore, those works that had pronounced political tendencies and were aimed at glorifying and exalting the young Moscow state are formalized by means of the Church Slavonic language ("The Legend of the Mamayev Massacre", "The Tale of the Taking of Constantinople"). This literature gradually began to become on a par with church-religious literature, and at the same time the authority of the folk-literary language was rising. In addition, the folk-literary type of language could differ not in structural elements, but in rhetorical technique: the presence / absence of rhetorical adornment ("Walking the Three Seas" by A. Nikitin is a work of the folk-literary type of language without rhetorical means of expression).

In general, the following can be considered the specific features of secular literature during this period: semantic conditioning in the choice of linguistic tradition; alternation of contexts, typical for Church Slavonic and Old Russian languages, within one work; deliberate mixing of linguistic elements of different traditions, depending on the context; strengthening the authority of the folk-literary language.

Expansion of functions business language of Moscow Russia... A variety of genres: from letters of command (private letters) to state acts, reflecting the standard commanding business language. Rapprochement of business language with book and literary (article lists). The invasion of the vernacular element into the sphere of business writing (letters, "torture" speeches, "interrogative" speeches). Availability of standard language formulas - initial and final forms (exemption and vacation books, petitions). Mastering foreign language vocabulary and expanding the subject and structure of the business language ("Vesti-Courants", article lists).
Lecture number 6

Cultural and linguistic situation in South-Western Russia (mid-16th century). The influence of the book tradition of South-West Russia on the Moscow book tradition.

1. Characteristics of the cultural and linguistic situation in Southwest Russia.

By the middle of the XVI century. in Southwestern Russia, a situation of bilingualism has developed, when two literary languages ​​coexist: the Church Slavonic language of the southwestern Russian edition and "simple mova". At the heart of "simple language" is the official clerical language of South-Western Russia, officially recognized in the Polish-Lithuanian state as the language of legal proceedings. This language gradually lost its functions as a business language and became a literary language. Unlike the book-Slavic language of Muscovite Rus, it discovers in its composition an undoubted colloquial substratum, which is artificially “downgraded” due to Slavicization (Ukrainian version of “simple language”) and polonization (Belarusian “simple language”). By the second half of the XVI century. the prestige of “simple language” is growing: they are beginning to codify it (the dictionaries of L. Zizania, P. Berynda); create scientific, journalistic works; translate biblical books into simple MOV. The Church Slavonic language at this time assumed the status of the language of the learned class: the fundamental grammars of Lavrenty Zizaniy and Meletius Smotritsky appeared; orientation to Latin in grammar (construction and form) and vocabulary (borrowing-Latinism) as a result of the influence of Western European Catholic culture; the presence of polonisms and Ukrainianisms through the secular business and social and everyday language of educated people. This is how the southwestern version of the Church Slavonic language was formed. Thus, the southwestern edition of the book-Slavic language and “simple (Russian) mova” are literary and linguistic mediators of Western European influence.

2.Literation of "Russian baroque" In the middle of the 17th century. Ukraine is reuniting with Russia and turning from a cultural center into a periphery. Local scribes move to Moscow: Simeon Polotsky, Sylvester Medvedev, Karion Istomin, later Feofan Prokopovich. Their creative heritage - literation of "Russian baroque" presented by solemn, epistolary, oratorical prose, verses and drama. The language of this literature is book-Slavic, but different both from the Church Slavonic language of the Russian edition, and from the Church Slavonic language of the South-West Russian edition. It is distinguished from the "old" Church Slavonic by the presence of Latinisms, Polonisms, Ukrainianisms, the names of ancient heroes and gods. It differs from the Church Slavonic language of the South-West Russian edition in a smaller number of Polonisms and provincialisms.
Lecture number 7

Cultural and linguistic situation in the first half of the 17th century. Formation of the East Slavic grammatical tradition.

The process of standardizing the literary language is associated with the development of book printing. In 1553 the Printing House was created in Kitay-Gorod. In the second half of the XVI century. the first printed books appear in Moscow. Typography contributed

• 
  developing uniform spelling;
• 
  strengthening the unifying role of the literary language in relation to territorial dialects;
• 
  the spread of the literary language throughout the territory of the state and among all social groups of literate people.

These reasons caused the need to codify the book-Slavic grammatical system of the 16th-17th centuries, which is reflected in the appearance of alphabet books and grammars. For example, the first printed book - "Primer" by Ivan Fedorov (Lvov, 1574) - is a truly scientific work on Slavic grammar.

Grammars existed before the beginning of printing: in the XI - XIV centuries. specific lexical and grammatical works appeared (pre-national stage in the development of the grammatical tradition), in the XVI-XVII centuries. - translated grammars (pre-national stage in the development of the grammatical tradition). So, in the 20s. XVI century Dmitry Gerasimov translated the Latin grammar of Donatus (IV century BC).

The grammatical works published during this period in Western Russia are also oriented towards Greek grammars. In 1596, the grammar "Adelphotis" (Adelphotis from the Greek ‘brotherhood’) was published, published by students of the Lviv Brotherhood School, which became the first textbook for the comparative study of Slavic and Greek grammars. It is no coincidence that the entire grammar was called "The grammar of the good-spoken Hellenic-Slavic language", contained grammatical categories close to the Greek samples (vowels are long and short, consonants are semi-vowels and mute).

The grammar "Adelphotis" became the basis for another grammatical work. It was Lavrenty Zizania's "Grammar of the Slovene Perfect Art in Eight Parts of the Word", published in Vilna in 1591, which expounded the traditional for antiquity "doctrine of the eight parts of the word." Some parts of the grammar of Zizania are presented in such a way that the text in Church Slavonic is accompanied by a translation into "simple mov". This feature of grammar reflects the school practice of Southwestern Russia. There is a contrast between the forms of the Church Slavonic language and “simple language” at different levels: spelling (colikw - kolkw, four - chotyri), lexical (vhdanstvo - vhdan, well-known - singing) and grammatical (hedgehog - zhebyzmy wrote). Correlates to Church Slavonic words of Greek origin in "simple move" are complex words that are tracing them, which in their structure can be regarded as Slavicisms (etymology - true words). Therefore, the opposition of the forms of the Church Slavonic language and "simple language" in some cases is the opposition of the bookish and the colloquial, in others it is the opposition of the Greek and Slavic. Thus, Lavrenty Zizaniy clearly artificially seeks to contrast the spelling appearance of words that coincide in the Church Slavonic language and “simple mov”. Specific features of grammar: singled out proper and common nouns (as opposed to "Adelphotis"), 5 pledges, 4 moods (indicative, vocative, prayer, indefinite). Grammar appendix - "Leksis, that is to say, the speeches are briefly collected and interpreted from the Slovenian language into simple Russian dialect" (1061 words).

At the beginning of the 17th century. the most complete and thorough work on Church Slavonic grammar appears. This is the Slovenian Grammar Correct Syntagma, published in the town of Evje in 1619 by Meletij Smotritsky. The grammar contained the following sections: "Spelling", "Etymology", "Syntax", "Prosody". Grammatical terminology has been introduced: slots are syllables, speech is a word, a word is a sentence, etymology is morphology, word parts are parts of speech. There were 8 "word parts" in Smotritsky's grammar. Momentum. Verb. Participle. Naughty. Prhdlog. Union. Interjection". Moreover, the adjective is included in the name. The term "participle" is introduced by M. Smotritsky for the first time. Thus, the ancient (Greco-Roman) division of the dictionary into parts of speech passed into the Slavic-Russian grammar of Smotritsky. Specific grammatical categories are marked: 7 genders (general, masculine, feminine, medium, any, bewildered, familiar); 4 pledges (active, passive, medium, deferred); 4 past tenses (transitory, past, past, unsatisfactory); introduces the concept of transitive and intransitive verbs, as well as personal, impersonal, obstinate (irregular), insufficient verbs. At the same time, M. Smotritsky translates certain grammatical constructions into "simple language", thereby codifying it in a certain way.

In 1648, a revised edition of Melety Smotritsky's Grammar was printed at the Printing House in Moscow. When she reissued the form where, abym and so on, since they were alien to the colloquial speech of Moscow reference officers, they were perceived as bookish and preserved in the text. Therefore, the forms of "simple language", which are designed to explain the Church Slavonic forms of Meletius Smotritsky's "Grammar", were transferred to the rank of normative Church Slavonic forms. The revision also affected many grammatical rules, in particular the declension paradigms, bringing them closer to the traditions of colloquial Great Russian speech. The changes also concerned the accentological system, which in the previous edition reflected the norms of Western Russian pronunciation.

In general, Melety Smotritsky's Grammars is a fundamental set of grammatical rules of the Church Slavonic language and a normative model for liturgical books. It was this treatise that became the basis for the grammatical normalization of the official version of the Church Slavonic language up to the time of M.V. Lomonosov, who himself studied this grammar.

Along with the indicated grammars in the XVI century. Church Slavonic-Russian dictionaries appear in Western Russia. To assess the significance of this phenomenon, it is enough to note that in Russian conditions such dictionaries will be published only in the second half of the 18th century.

In addition to the aforementioned "Lexis" by L. Zizania, mention should be made of the "Lexicon of Slovenian Russian and the names of tlkovaniya" by Pamva Berynda (1st edition - Kiev, 1627). There are almost 7000 words in the dictionary, and this number seemed incredible. At the same time, “Russian speech” (“simple mova”) is contrasted with “Volyn” (Ukrainian) and “Lithuanian” (Belarusian): tsl. phten - ox. phven - lit. rooster. "Lexicon" by P. Berynda is broader in its vocabulary. The dictionary is supplemented with an index of proper names contained in the church "Saints", where the interpretation of names of Greek, Jewish, Latin origin is presented.
Lecture number 8

New traditions of the development of the literary language in the second half of the 17th century. Expansion of the functions of the Church Slavonic language.

1. Nikonovskaya on the right(serXVIIv.).

The change in the Church Slavonic language under the influence of the southwestern ideology is the result of the need to normalize the language, which is expressed in the middle of the 17th century. in conducting a new book conference under the leadership of Patriarch Nikon. Linguistic attitudes of reference books - editing of books according to Greek models. So, the spellings were brought into Greek correspondence: aggel, Jesus. Nikon's edition regulated changes in the accentology of names: Avvakym (vm. Avvakum); Michael (vm. Michael); in case management: forever and ever (forever and ever); in Christ (also about Christ); in the use of old word forms: mine, yours (vm. mi, ty); However, opponents of the reform - a truly Orthodox audience - perceived the writing of Jesus as anti-Christian. In their opinion, a change in the form of a word, the nomination of something entails a distortion of the very essence of the Christian concept; God is the author of the text, and you cannot change the text; the expression must be correct, i.e. Christian. Therefore, a different attitude to the linguistic form of the word became the reason for the split of the church under Patriarch Nikon between opponents of the reform ("old believers") and its supporters ("new believers").

The correlation of the Church Slavonic language of South-Western Russia and the Church Slavonic language of Muscovite Rus directly determines the influence of the first on the second, which occurs in the process of Nikon's and post-Nikon's book references: the formal features of the Church Slavonic language of the South-Western Russian edition are transferred into the Church Slavonic language of the Great Russian version, as a result education a single all-Russian edition of the book-Slavic language.

2. Activation in use Church Slavonic language.

XVII century. - the time when the Russian literary language begins to take shape. This process is characterized

• 
  the emergence of the "learned" Church Slavonic language under the influence of the bookishness of South-Western Russia;
• 
  the democratization of literature and the literary language, the emergence of new genres, which is associated with the socio-economic shifts of the era. Southwest Russia

The new common Russian Church Slavonic language, in spite of the fact that in South-Western Russia the Church Slavonic language was largely supplanted by the “simple language”, continues to function actively under Great Russian conditions. From the second half of the 17th century. the activation of the use of the Church Slavonic language is due to the following facts: the Church Slavonic language is the language of the learned class (scientific disputes are held in it); the Church Slavonic language is actively taught (with the help of grammar); the functioning of the Church Slavonic language in other spheres (secular and legal) is increasing; both clergy and secular people write letters in Church Slavonic.

In the development of the literary language during this period, new trends are observed in Moscow: 1) rapprochement with the folk-spoken language; 2) modeling of the Slovenian language, which led to its isolation and the emergence of new phenomena - quasi-Slavisms. Simply put, new democratic tendencies are appearing in the Church Slavonic language system. Their vivid expression is the works of the preaching and polemical literature of the Old Believers (Deacon Fyodor, Epiphany, Archpriest Avvakum, etc.). "Vyakanye" ("vernacular" opposed to Church Slavonic eloquence) is the main style of the works of Archpriest Avvakum. Avvakum deliberately creates a stylistic dissonance that combines a reduced colloquial and Church Slavonic language. The main stylistic feature of his texts is the neutralization of Slavisms, within the framework of which vernacular expressions are built into church-biblical formulas; Church Slavicisms, in the vicinity of colloquial expressions, are assimilated ( the fish god is full of nets ...), i.e. quasi-Slavisms appear.

Similar tendencies are also manifested in literary genres that have little to do with the book-Slavic language - in secular stories of the 17th-18th centuries. ("The Tale of Frol Skobeev", "The Tale of the Shemyakin Court", "The Tale of the Woe-Evil Part", etc.), with the appearance of which begins fformation of democratic (posad, trade and craft) literature... The main characteristics of the works of this literature are the style-forming character of colloquial everyday life and emotionally expressive vocabulary, the absence of uniform norms of the grammatical system, the influence of oral folk art (techniques and formulas of the epic style, proverbial and proverbial structure, a kind of rhymed prose).

Another manifestation of the modeling of the book-Slavic language is its parodic use. Examples of the first half of the 17th century testify to the parodic use of the book-Slavic language. (a scribe from a handwritten collection of the 1st third of the 17th century). In the second half of the 17th century. the number of parodies of the book Slavonic language is increasing, which is associated with the fall of the authority of the church, church literature, and Church Slavonic. These are satirical works, where Church Slavicisms are often used to achieve a comic effect, where the use of outdated formulas was played up ("The Legend of the Peasant's Son", "The Service of the Tavern", "The Tale of Ruff Ershovich", etc.).

The possibility of a parodic use of the book-Slavic language is evidence of the beginning destruction of diglossia. In addition, the coexistence of parallel texts in Church Slavonic and Russian (for example, in the Code of 1649) is a clear sign of bilingualism and violation of the principle of diglossy. From ser. XVII century in Russia - a situation of bilingualism. A further trend is the pushing back of the Church Slavonic language by the Russian language to the periphery.

Lecture number 9

Preconditions for the formation of a literary language of a new type (I quarter of the 18th century): the cultural and linguistic policy of Peter I.

1. The goal of Peter's reforms.

The initial period of the formation of a new literary book language is associated with the Peter's era, which covers the last decade of the 17th century. - I quarter of the 18th century. The secularization of Russian culture was a radical achievement of the Petrine era. The main manifestations of this process can be considered the creation of new educational institutions, the establishment of the Academy of Sciences, the publication of the first Russian newspaper Vedomosti (1703), the introduction of the General Regulations (1720), the Table of Ranks (1722), an increase in the number of printed books and Russian-foreign dictionaries. Linguistic construction is an inalienable fact of Peter's reforms. V.M. Zhivov: "The opposition of the two languages ​​was conceived as the antagonism of two cultures: the old bookish language (traditional) is barbaric, clerical (church), ignorant in the ideas of the Petrine reformers, and the new bookish language was to become European, secular and enlightened."

2. Graphics reform as the first stage of Peter's transformations in the field of language.

The creation of the Russian civil printed type (1708 - 1710) was the initiative of Peter I. The work to create a new alphabet was carried out by Peter I together with the workers of the Moscow printing house (Musin-Pushkin, F. Polikarpov), starting from 1708, when the decree was issued Sovereign "to print a book of geometry in Russian with new alphabets, which was sent from a military campaign, and to print other civilian books with the same new alphabets." On January 29, 1710, Peter approved a new alphabet - a civilian printed letter, on the cover of which it was stated: “Images of ancient and new writing of Slavonic printed and handwritten ". On the back of the cover, Peter wrote: "These letters should be printed on historical and manufactory books, and those that are blackened should not be used in the above-described books." By May 1710, 15 editions were printed on the "newly invented" alphabet - citizen -, among them the first: "Geometria Slavonic Land"; "Techniques of a compass and a ruler"; "Compliments, or samples, how to write letters to different persons", etc. An example of the standard use of civil type and the spelling practice of newly printed books is the typesetting manuscript "Honest Mirror of Youth", or "Indications for everyday life, collected from authors of the early 18th century."

Parameters of the Peter's reform of the Cyrillic alphabet:

• 
  change in the alphabetic composition: initially Peter orders to exclude 9 (according to V.M. Zhivov) / 11 (according to A.M. Kamchatnov) Cyrillic letters: and (like); w (omega); z (ground); q (yk); f(Firth); i (Izhitsa); k (ksi); j (psi); ^ ("from" ligature); @ (yus big); # (yus small). But in the finally approved alphabet of 1710, the following were left: and (like); z (ground); q (yk); f(Firth); k (xi).
• 
  regulation of letters e, uh, i(introduced the letter e; instead of>, "- i; instead of ~ - e);
• 
  editing the shapes of the letters themselves (the rounded outline of the letters is legalized as opposed to the square Cyrillic alphabet);
• 
  the introduction of new designations for numbers (instead of letters, Arabic numbers);
• 
  elimination of titles and superscripts.

Peter I himself edited the books, requiring translators to write scientific treatises in plain language, the language of the Ambassador Prikaz, i.e. secular.

The newly introduced civil type and the church semi-ustav began to be functionally opposed: just as church books could not be printed by a citizen, so civil books could not be printed by church semi-ustav. The division of the alphabet into ecclesiastical and civil is evidence of bilingualism (the coexistence of two living book languages) and biculturalism (opposition of the secular and the spiritual in printed books).

3. The second aspect of the linguistic transformations of Peter I - language reform.

In 1697, Peter I discovered in Europe "what they write as they say." Therefore, the main principle of linguistic construction during this period was the formation of a new literary language on a folk basis. The main goal is the transition from a hybrid Church Slavonic language to a “simple” Russian language. The way to create a new literary language is a combination of Europeanized vocabulary and Russified morphology.

The main trends in the language construction of the Peter the Great era:

1. 
   Enrichment of the vocabulary of the native language with Europeanized vocabulary.
2. 
   Creation of a Russified morphology.
3. 
   Displacement of the command language of Muscovite Rus.

A striking difference between the literary language of this period is the increase in the number of borrowings, which reached its climax. "Europeanization" of the vocabulary of the language tied

• 
  with the emergence of a powerful translation activity, which also solved the problem of the state's personnel policy. The emergence of translation literature meant that not only foreign language lexicon fell into the Russian language, but also new content required the development of new forms of the native language, as indicated by the order of the sovereign: “... in order to translate more clearly, and it is not necessary to store speech from speech in translation, ... to write in your own language, how much more intelligibly ... ".
• 
  with the process of reorganization of the administrative system, the reorganization of naval affairs, the development of trade, factory enterprises, as a result of which the formation of a new terminology system of different thematic groups begins.

The borrowing process is due to two functions:

1) pragmatic: lexical borrowings are mostly motivated by borrowing new things and concepts that had to be mastered by speakers in order to be codified;

2) semiotic: the use of borrowings testified to the assimilation of a new system of values ​​and the rejection of traditional ideas.

At the same time, the latter function manifested itself in those cases when borrowings are accompanied in the text by a gloss (Greek "language, speech"), i.e. interpretation of an incomprehensible word through the equivalent of a given language familiar to the reader (for example, in the "General Regulations or Charter" (1720)).

In general, the process of borrowing during this period is characterized by

1) both redundancy (presence of glossing) and insufficiency (not always translators were able to identify new concepts and objects, choosing words from Russian usage);

2) successful tracing ( productus"work", Sonnestand"solstice", etc.);

3) temporary displacement from active use of Russian words ( Victoria instead of victory, battle instead of battle, surname instead of a family, fortecia instead of fortress and etc.);

4) a transition to a passive vocabulary of disappeared realities ( senate, footman, camisole, caftan and etc.).

Thus, the widespread use of borrowings did not solve the main linguistic problem of Peter. A stable feature of the language policy of this time was complaints about the incomprehensibility of legal documents (a number of borrowings first appear in legislative acts). So, in the "Military Regulations" (1716), in addition to those borrowings that are glossed, there are a number of similar lexical elements that the reader had to understand on his own ( patent, officer, article, execution). For the linguistic situation of Peter the Great's era, not only bilingualism is relevant as a sign of local significance, but also multilingualism associated with the emergence of foreign vocabulary.

Another striking sign of the language construction of this time is lack of uniform morphological norms: unsystematic use of Russian, colloquial and Church Slavonic elements (letters and papers of Peter I, stories of the early 18th century). On the one hand, the morphological features of the language being created reflected the influence of the previous book-Slavic tradition. On April 19, 1724, Peter I wrote a decree to Senod on the compilation of short teachings, where he ordered "just to write so that the peasant knows, or in two: the peasant is simple, but in the city it is more beautiful for the sweetness of the listeners ...". One gets the impression that the marked Church Slavonic elements are perceived as rhetorical decoration, or as a socio-cultural task in the activities of poets and writers, and not as generally culturally significant. Therefore, the Church Slavonic language is no longer a universal language. On the other hand, the creation of a Russified morphology is an attempt to edit the texts in accordance with the settings of the new language policy. The morphological editing includes the replacement of aorist and imperfect forms with l-forms without a ligament, infinitive forms for –t, forms of 2 y. units hours on –sh, dual forms to plural forms, coexistence in vocabulary and nominative forms. Syntactic editing was expressed in the replacement of the constructions "particle yes + form of the present tense" with synthetic forms of the imperative mood, single negation with double, constructions with nouns in the genus. item on agreed phrases.

Stylistic disorder of the literary language as a genetic heterogeneity of linguistic means of expression in its composition. The mixed nature of speech is a sign of the formation of a cultural dialect.

Two types of literary speech: the Slavic-Russian language and the civic mediocre dialect. The Slavonic Russian language is a "secularized" Church Slavonic: a combination of Church Slavonic grammar and a small number of vernaculars, borrowings (sermons by Feofan Prokopovich, Stefan Yavorsky, translated scientific works, a preface to the Trilingual Lexicon by Fedor Polpov). Creation of a civilian mediocre dialect as an accessible and understandable written literary language of a new type - the main linguistic attitude of Peter I. The complex composition of this literary language: Russian colloquial, vernacular, Church Slavonic elements, European borrowings, artificial formations, neologisms, tracing papers, individual author's lexemes (translations of technical books, translated stories , dramas, intimate poetry, letters, newspapers).

The role of the "command" language in the development of the literary language: earlier it was opposed to Church Slavonic, now it is moving to the periphery. Under the new conditions, literary texts cease to be associated with signs of bookishness and are determined by extralinguistic parameters. As a result, the possibility of the existence of non-literary texts in the literary language is created. The new language acquires the attribute of polyfunctionality: the inclusion in the linguistic culture of those spheres that were outside the limits of its functioning (spiritual literature, legislation, office work).

Thus, the cultural policy of Peter I led to a radical change in the language situation:

• 
  "Command" language of Muscovite Rus: out of use and in competition with the traditional book language.
• 
  Church Slavonic language loses its polyfunctionality: only the language of the cult.
• 
  a written literary language of a new type is formed - a civic mediocre dialect.
• 
  the new literary language is distinguished by stylistic disorder, a mixture of old and new, one's own and another's, bookish and vernacular.

How often do we, Russian speakers, think about such an important moment as the history of the emergence of the Russian language? After all, how many secrets are hidden in it, how many interesting things you can learn if you dig deeper. How did the Russian language develop? After all, our speech is not only everyday conversations, it is a rich history.

The history of the development of the Russian language: briefly about the main thing

Where did our native language come from? There are several theories. Some scholars consider (for example, linguist N. Guseva) the Sanskrit of the Russian language. However, Sanskrit was used by Indian scholars and priests. This was Latin for the inhabitants of ancient Europe - "something very clever and incomprehensible." But how did the speech used by Indian scholars suddenly end up on our side? Is it really with the Hindus that the formation of the Russian language began?

The Legend of the Seven White Teachers

Each scientist understands the stages of the history of the Russian language differently: this is the birth, development, alienation of the book language from the folk language, the development of syntax and punctuation, etc. All of them can differ in order (it is still unknown when exactly the book language separated from the folk language) or interpretation. But, according to the following legend, seven white teachers can be considered the “fathers” of the Russian language.

There is a legend in India, which is even studied in Indian universities. In ancient times, seven white teachers appeared from the cold North (the Himalayan region). It was they who gave people Sanskrit and laid the foundation for Brahmanism, from which Buddhism was later born. Many believe that this North was one of the regions of Russia, so modern Hindus often go there on pilgrimage.

Legend today

It turns out that many Sanskrit words completely coincide with - this is the theory of the famous ethnographer Natalia Guseva, who wrote more than 150 scientific works on the history and religion of India. Most of them, by the way, have been refuted by other scientists.

This theory was not taken "out of thin air" by her. An interesting case served as its appearance. Once Natalya accompanied a respected scientist from India, who decided to arrange a tourist trip along the northern rivers of Russia. Communicating with the inhabitants of local villages, the Hindu suddenly burst into tears and refused the services of an interpreter, saying that he was happy to hear his native Sanskrit. Then Guseva decided to devote her life to the study of the mysterious phenomenon, and at the same time to establish how the Russian language developed.

After all, this is truly amazing! According to this story, representatives of the Negroid race live beyond the Himalayas, speaking a language so similar to our own. Mysticism, and nothing more. Nevertheless, the hypothesis that our dialect originated from the Indian Sanskrit takes place. Here it is - the history of the Russian language in short.

Dragunkin's theory

And here is another scientist who decided that this story of the emergence of the Russian language is true. The famous philologist Alexander Dragunkin argued that a truly great language comes from a simpler one, in which there are fewer derivational forms, and the words are shorter. Sanskrit is supposedly much simpler than Russian. And the Sanskrit writing is nothing more than the Slavic runes slightly modified by the Hindus. But this theory is just where is the origin of the language?

Scientific version

And here is the version that most scientists approve and accept. She claims that 40,000 years ago (the time of the appearance of the first man), people had a need to express their thoughts in the process of collective activity. This is how the language appeared. But in those days the population was extremely small, and all people spoke the same language. After thousands of years, there was a migration of peoples. Human DNA changed, tribes became isolated from each other and began to speak in different ways.

Languages ​​differed from each other in form, in word formation. Each group of people developed their native language, supplemented it with new words, gave shape. Later, there was a need for science, which would be engaged in describing new achievements or things that a person came to.

As a result of this evolution, the so-called "matrices" arose in human heads. The well-known linguist Georgy Gachev studied these matrices in detail, having studied more than 30 matrices - linguistic pictures of the world. According to his theory, Germans are very attached to their home, and this served as the image of a typical German speaker. And the Russian language and mentality came from the concept or image of a road, a path. This matrix lies in our subconscious.

The birth and formation of the Russian language

About 3 thousand years BC, the Proto-Slavic dialect stood out among the Indo-European languages, which after a thousand years became the Proto-Slavic language. In the VI-VII centuries. n. NS. it was divided into several groups: east, west and south. It is customary to refer our language to the eastern group.

And the beginning of the path of the Old Russian language is called the formation of Kievan Rus (IX century). At the same time, Cyril and Methodius invent the first Slavic alphabet.

The Slavic language developed rapidly, and in terms of popularity it has already caught up with Greek and Latin. It was (the predecessor of the modern Russian) who managed to unite all the Slavs, it was in it that the most important documents and monuments of literature were written and published. For example, "The Lay of Igor's Regiment."

Normalization of writing

Then came the era of feudalism, and the Polish-Lithuanian conquests led in the XIII-XIV centuries to the fact that the language was divided into three groups of dialects: Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, as well as some intermediate dialects.

In the 16th century in Muscovite Russia, it was decided to normalize the writing of the Russian language (then it was called "Prosta Mova" and was influenced by the Belarusian and Ukrainian) - to introduce the predominance of a compositional connection in sentences and the frequent use of the conjunctions "yes", "and", "a". The dual number was lost, and the declension of nouns became very similar to the modern one. And the basis of the literary language was the characteristic features of the Moscow speech. For example, "akane", consonant "g", endings "ovo" and "evo", demonstrative pronouns (yourself, you, etc.). The beginning of book printing finally approved the literary Russian language.

Peter's era

Very much influenced the speech. After all, it was at this time that the Russian language was freed from the "tutelage" of the church, and in 1708 the alphabet was reformed so that it became closer to the European model.

In the second half of the 18th century, Lomonosov laid down new norms of the Russian language, combining everything that came before that: colloquial speech, folk poetry, and even the command language. After him, the language was transformed by Derzhavin, Radishchev, Fonvizin. It was they who increased the number of synonyms in the Russian language in order to properly reveal its wealth.

Pushkin made a huge contribution to the development of our speech, who rejected all restrictions on style and combined Russian words with some European ones to create a complete and colorful picture of the Russian language. Lermontov and Gogol supported him.

Development trends

How did the Russian language develop in the future? From the middle of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th centuries, the Russian language received several development trends:

1. Development of literary norms.
2. Rapprochement of the literary language and colloquial speech.
3. Expansion of the language through dialecticism and jargon.
4. Development of the "realism" genre in literature, philosophical issues.

Somewhat later, socialism changed the word formation of the Russian language, and in the twentieth century the media standardized oral speech.

It turns out that our modern Russian language, with all its lexical and grammatical rules, originated from the mixing of various East Slavic dialects that were common throughout Russia, and the Church Slavonic language. After all the metamorphoses, it became one of the most popular languages ​​in the world.

A little more about writing

Even Tatishchev himself (the author of the book "Russian History") was firmly convinced that Cyril and Methodius had not invented writing. It existed long before their birth. The Slavs not only knew how to write: they had many types of writing. For example, traits-cuts, runes or drop caps. And the brothers-scientists took this very initial letter as a basis and simply modified it. Perhaps they threw out about a dozen letters to make it easier to translate the Bible. Yes, Cyril and Methodius, but its basis was a drop cap. This is how writing appeared in Russia.

External threats

Unfortunately, our language has been repeatedly exposed to external danger. And then the future of the whole country was in question. For example, at the turn of the 19th century, all the “cream of society” spoke exclusively French, dressed in the appropriate style, and even the menu consisted only of French cuisine. The nobles gradually began to forget their native language, ceased to associate themselves with the Russian people, acquiring a new philosophy and traditions.

As a result of this introduction of the French speech, Russia could lose not only its language, but also its culture. Fortunately, the situation was saved by the geniuses of the 19th century: Pushkin, Turgenev, Karamzin, Dostoevsky. It was they who, being true patriots, did not allow the Russian language to perish. They showed how handsome he is.

Modernity

The history of the Russian language is complex and not fully understood. You cannot summarize it. It will take years to learn. The Russian language and the history of the people are truly amazing things. And how can you call yourself a patriot without knowing your native language, folklore, poetry and literature?

Unfortunately, today's youth has lost interest in books, and especially in classical literature. This trend is also observed in older people. Television, the Internet, nightclubs and restaurants, glossy magazines and blogs have all replaced our "paper friends". Many people have even ceased to have their own opinion, using the usual cliches imposed by society and the media. Despite the fact that the classics were and remain in the school curriculum, few people read them even in a brief summary, which "eats" all the beauty and uniqueness of the works of Russian writers.

But how rich is the history and culture of the Russian language! For example, literature can provide answers to many questions better than any forums on the Internet. Russian literature expresses all the power of the wisdom of the people, makes us imbued with love for our homeland and better understand it. Each person should understand that the native language, native culture and people are inseparable, they are one whole. And what does a modern citizen of Russia understand and think about? About leaving the country as soon as possible?

The main danger

And of course, the main threat to our language is foreign words. As mentioned above, this problem was relevant in the 18th century, but, unfortunately, it has remained unresolved until now and is slowly acquiring the features of a national catastrophe.

Not only does society get too carried away with various slang words, foul language, invented expressions, but it also constantly uses foreign borrowings in its speech, forgetting that there are much more beautiful synonyms in the Russian language. These words are: "stylist", "manager", "PR", "summit", "creative", "user", "blog", "internet" and many others. If this came only from certain groups of society, then the problem could be combated. But, unfortunately, foreign words are actively used by teachers, journalists, scientists and even officials. These people carry the word to people, which means they are introducing an addiction. And it happens that a foreign word settles so firmly in the Russian language that it begins to seem as if it is primordial.

What's the matter?

So what is it called? Ignorance? Fashion for everything foreign? Or a campaign against Russia? Perhaps all at once. And this problem must be solved as quickly as possible, otherwise it will be too late. For example, it is more often to use the word "manager" instead of "manager", "business lunch" instead of "business lunch", etc. After all, the extinction of a people begins precisely with the extinction of the language.

About dictionaries

Now you know how the Russian language developed. However, this is not all. The history of dictionaries of the Russian language deserves a separate mention. Modern dictionaries originated from ancient handwritten, and then printed books. At first they were very small and intended for a narrow circle of people.

The most ancient Russian dictionary is considered to be a short supplement to the Novgorod Book of Pilots (1282). It included 174 words from different dialects: Greek, Church Slavonic, Hebrew, and even biblical proper names.

After 400 years, much larger dictionaries began to appear. They already had a systematization and even an alphabet. The dictionaries of that time were mainly educational or encyclopedic in nature, so they were inaccessible to ordinary peasants.

First printed dictionary

The first printed dictionary appeared in 1596. This was another supplement to the grammar textbook by the priest Lawrence Zizania. It contained over a thousand words, which were sorted alphabetically. The dictionary was descriptive and explained the origin of many Old Church Slavonic and was published in Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian languages.

Further development of dictionaries

The 18th century was a century of great discoveries. They also did not pass the explanatory dictionaries. Great scientists (Tatishchev, Lomonosov) unexpectedly showed an increased interest in the origin of many words. Trediakovsky began to write notes. In the end, a number of dictionaries were created, but the largest turned out to be the "Church Dictionary" and its supplement. More than 20,000 words have been interpreted in the Church Dictionary. Such a book laid the foundation for the normative dictionary of the Russian language, and Lomonosov, along with other researchers, began to create it.

Most significant vocabulary

The history of the development of the Russian language remembers a date so significant for all of us - the creation of the Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by V. I. Dal (1866). This four-volume edition has received dozens of reprints and is still relevant today. 200,000 words and more than 30,000 sayings and phraseological units can be safely considered a real treasure.

Our days

Unfortunately, the world community is not interested in the history of the emergence of the Russian language. His current situation can be compared with one incident that once happened to the extraordinarily talented scientist Dmitry Mendeleev. After all, Mendeleev was never able to become an honorary academician of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (the current Russian Academy of Sciences). There was a huge scandal, and still: such a scientist cannot be accepted into the academy! But the Russian Empire and its world were unshakable: they declared that Russians since the times of Lomonosov and Tatishchev were in the minority, and one good Russian scientist, Lomonosov, was enough.

This story of the modern Russian language makes us think: what if someday English (or any other) will supplant such a unique Russian? Pay attention to how many foreign words are present in our jargon! Yes, the mixing of languages ​​and friendly exchange is great, but the amazing story of our speech should not be allowed to disappear from the planet. Take care of your native language!

“The history of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline grows out of the living experience of the cultural development of Russian society. Initially, it is a set of observations on the changing norms of literary spelling, literary word combinations and word usage, ”wrote V.V. Vinogradov 1. Of course, such a course of research in the field of the history of the Russian literary language can be explained, first of all, by the essence of the literary language with its defining property of normalization. In the review "Russian Science of the Russian Literary Language" Vinogradov, highlighting the history of the Russian literary language as an independent scientific discipline, reveals the relationship between various theories that offered an understanding of the literary-linguistic process, trends and patterns of development of styles, with the evolution of the Russian literary language itself. He described in great detail the peculiarities of scientific observations of the Russian literary language in various cultural and historical periods.

V.V. Vinogradov noted the importance of dictionaries and grammars (for example, Lavrenty Zizania, Pamva Berynda) for understanding the role of the Church Slavonic language and reforming old grammatical constructions (the works of Melety Smotritsky) until the 18th century. He reflected the content of the scientific activity of V.K.Trediakovsky, A.P. Sumarokov and especially M.V. up to 20-30-ies of the XIX century. " and influenced the nature of morphological studies in later periods. The role of A. A. Barsov's grammatical research, the achievements of lexicographers of the second half of the 18th - first quarter of the 19th centuries, especially those of the compilers of the Dictionary of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1789-1794) is recognized. An assessment is given to the concepts of the influence of the Old Slavonic language of A. S. Shishkov and A. Kh. Vostokov, Vostokov's research in the field of interaction of the Russian literary and Old Slavonic languages. The principles of studying the Russian literary language in relation to folk dialects and social-group dialects of the founder of Russian scientific ethnography NI Nadezhdin are characterized. Vinogradov claims that "it was during this period that the scientific foundations of the history of the Old Russian literary language were laid."

Period 40-70s of the XIX century. Vinogradov regards it as a time of national-historical and philosophical quests, when among the main scientific trends were “the search for general historical patterns of the Russian literary-linguistic process; the advancement of the problem of personality, the problem of individual creativity and its significance in the history of the literary language, the problem of the “language of the writer” (especially in relation to language reformers) ”1. In this regard, the dissertation of KS Aksakov "Lomonosov in the history of Russian literature and the Russian language" (1846) was noted.

Philological views and the Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language (1863-1866) by V. I. Dal are assessed as polemical in spirit and opposed to the works of Western philologists. It is known that this lexicographer decisively declared that “the time has come to raise the value of the national language and develop an educated language from it”. Highly appreciating the means of the folk language as a source of renewal of literary speech, Dahl spoke of the need to free it from borrowing.

Among Westerners, Vinogradov singles out Ya. K. Grot, whose achievements in the study of the history of the Russian literary language include the study of the language of writers (G.R.Derzhavina, N.M. Karamzina), the development of historical-stylistic and normative-grammatical directions. Groth is the author of the first experience of a dictionary of the writer's language. "Grot's literary and aesthetic principle is combined with the principles of cultural and historical parallelism between the development of the Russian language and the ideological development of the upper classes of Russian society."

It should be noted that in the middle of the XIX century. Russian linguists knew the concepts of Western European scientists, for example J. Grimm, who argued that "our language is also our history." F.I.Buslaev emphasized the inseparability of the history of the people and the history of the language, which in his works received a cultural and historical interpretation with the involvement of the facts of folklore, regional dialects and ancient literary monuments. In the "Historical Reader" compiled by Buslaev, numerous examples of various styles were collected and commented on in the notes.

The works of II Sreznevsky, according to Vinogradov, refer to the "transition from the romantic-historical to the positive-historical" period, which manifested itself in the evolution of Sreznevsky's scientific views. Some views of the scientist Vinogradov considered outdated, but emphasized that his most important work "Thoughts on the history of the Russian language" determined the theme of the works of many generations of linguists. The merits of the linguist include the creation of a periodization of the history of the Russian language, the definition of its tasks, including “detailed lexical and grammatical descriptions of the ancient monuments of the Russian language. Dictionaries should be compiled for them with an explanation of all meanings and shades of words, with an indication of borrowings "1.

In his review of the stages in the development of the history of the Russian literary language as a science and the contribution of prominent scientists to its formation, Vinogradov writes about A.A. creativity of the Russian people.<...>In his understanding, the history of the Russian literary language is closely intertwined with the history of Russian thought. "

Many of Vinogradov's works are devoted to the consideration of A. A. Shakhmatov's concept: the work "History of the Russian literary language in the image of academician A. A. Shakhmatov", a section in the article "The problem of the literary language and the study of its history in the Russian linguistic tradition of the pre-Soviet period" and others. Shakhmatov created the concept of the evolution of the Russian literary language, supported by cultural-historical, literary research, and offered a new understanding of the processes of its development. Vinogradov highlighted the content of Shakhmatov's historical-linguistic concept, showed the transformation of the scientist's views: from recognizing the Church Slavonic language as the basis of the written Russian language and pointing out the connection between the spread of Christian culture and the emergence of East Slavic writing - to the assertion that in Ancient Russia the language of the educated classes was Russified Church Slavonic. Valuable was Shakhmatov's recognition of the enormous importance for the development of the Russian literary language of the business written language and the “Moscow dialect”.

Considering Shakhmatov an encyclopedic scientist, recognizing the novelty and breadth of the tasks put forward by the scientist, Vinogradov, however, emphasized the inconsistency of chess theory, which was reflected in its terminology. “So, in the view of Shakhmatov, the Russian literary language is a written language, but initially it differed sharply from the“ writing-business ”language, it is a book language, already from the 11th century. which became the spoken language of the book-educated strata of society, and in the 19th century. it is a spoken language that “acquired the rights of a book language,” and, finally, it is one of the Great Russian dialects, namely the Moscow dialect. At the same time, according to Shakhmatov's definition, “the book language of the 11th century. - this is the direct ancestor of our modern Great Russian book language ””.

Shakhmatov himself saw the weaknesses of his scientific constructions, which Vinogradov nevertheless called majestic, although he concluded that the scientist “did not reproduce in all the breadth and completeness of the processes of interaction and crossing of the church-book and folk-literary languages ​​in the sphere of state-business , journalistic and literary-artistic in relation to the structure of the literary speech of the Moscow state of the XV-XVII centuries. " 1 . The influence of chess theories was felt in the works of many Russian linguists.

Vinogradov compared Shakhmatov's understanding of the development of the Russian literary language with the vision of EF Buddha, with his historical-dialectological approach to the phenomena of language. According to the concept of Buddha, reflected in the "Outline of the history of the modern literary Russian language (XVII-XIX centuries)" (1908), the literary language merges in the XVIII century. with the language of fiction. That is why the stages of the history of the Russian literary language are described by the scientist mainly on the material of the language of fiction, the language of individual authors, so that "the language of the writer is mechanically mixed with the literary language of a particular era."

At the end of the XIX - beginning of the XX century. issues of historical grammar, included in the general history of the Russian literary language, historical lexicology, are being actively developed, dictionaries are published that reflect the wealth of the collected material, including the Old Church Slavonic fund. These are “Materials for the Dictionary of the Old Russian Language” by A. L. Duvernoy (1894), and “Materials and Research in the Field of Slavic Philology and Archeology” by A. I. Sobolevsky (1910), who considered the language of writing to be a literary language, insisting on studying not only chronicles and novels, but also documents - merchants, mortgages.

In the middle of the XX century. the nature of the Russian literary language was investigated by S.P. Obnorsky. Opposing traditional views, he defended in his articles, among which of fundamental importance is "Russkaya Pravda" as a monument of the Russian literary language "(1934), and in the monograph" Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the older period "(1946) the hypothesis of the East Slavic the speech basis of the Russian literary language.

"Essays on the History of the Russian Literary Language" by V.V. Vinogradov (1934) was the first attempt to present a systematic and multilevel description of a huge amount of material reflecting the period of the 17th-19th centuries. The name of Vinogradov is associated with the active and systematic development of various issues in the history of the Russian literary language, including the description of the language of fiction as a special phenomenon, and not "an equivalent and not a synonym for language in a poetic function" literature as a special area of ​​linguistic research.

In the XX century. significant success was achieved in the study of the language and style of individual authors, in determining the role of prose writers, poets, publicists in reflecting (even shaping) the trends in the development of the Russian literary language. In 1958, at the IV International Congress of Slavists, V.V. Vinogradov presented the theory of the existence of two types of Old Russian literary language - book-Slavonic and folk-literary and substantiated the need to distinguish between the literary language of the pre-national period and the national literary language in terms of their structure and functioning. Vinogradov's ideas and his conclusions, based on the wide use of the facts of writing, received deserved recognition.

Of great importance for Russian linguistics was the publication of the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by D. N. Ushakov (1935-1940), in the compilation of which V. V. Vinogradov, G. O. Vinokur, B. A. Larin participated, S. I. Ozhegov and B. V. Tomashevsky. The dictionary reflected the vocabulary of fiction (from A. Pushkin to M. Gorky) and socio-political texts of the 30s of the XX century. The rich illustrative material used in the dictionary entries made it possible to show the specifics of the normative-stylistic system of the Russian literary language. This dictionary also reflects the system of grammatical, spelling and (which is very valuable) orthoepic norms - the so-called old Moscow pronunciation.

In his article "On the Tasks of the History of Language" (1941), GO Vinokur clarified a number of tasks facing the history of the Russian literary language as a science. In his work "Word and Verse in Pushkin's Eugene Onegin" (1940), he investigated the lexical and semantic features of the "verse word". Thus, linguists are increasingly attracted to “the different manners of speaking and writing that are born of the collective habit of using the language,” that is, the language and style of individual authors with their own history. The study of their evolution is one of the tasks of the history of the Russian literary language as a science.

In the book "Russian literary language of the first half of the 19th century." (1952) L. A. Bulakhovsky highlights the period in the history of the language, important for the formation of the main trends in the functioning and development of the modern Russian literary language, especially its vocabulary.

The "stylistic" view of the problems that involves the study of the history of the Russian literary language is reflected in his works "On the study of the language of works of art" (1952), "Stylistics of artistic speech" (1961) and "Stylistics of the Russian language" (1969) A. I. Efimov. He sees in style a historically developed variety of language, which has certain features of the unification and use of linguistic units. The scientist shows a deep understanding of the important role played by the language of fiction (artistic and fictional style) in the development of the Russian literary language. Stylistics in his works appears as the science of verbal mastery, the aesthetics of the word, and the expressive means of language as a whole.

A supporter of the inductive method, B.A. Larin, in his study of the problems of the history of the Russian literary language, proceeded from private observations, from facts, and demanded evidence in solving each issue, when putting forward any concept 1. His most famous works on the language and style of N.A.Nekrasov, A.P. Chekhov, M. Gorky, M. A. Sholokhov. Larin investigated the state of the literary language reflected in the works of writers, advocated the study of the language of the city. In addition, "being an ardent defender of the study of living dialectal speech, he simultaneously ... demanded to investigate it in connection with the literary language and to study mixed forms of speech in songs, fairy tales, proverbs and riddles." "An extremely valuable recommendation" Vinogradov called Larin's idea that the colloquial speech of Muscovite Rus "in its complex diversity and development from the 15th to the end of the 17th century. should be studied as a prerequisite and a deep foundation of the national language - more essential and defining than the traditions of the book-Slavic language ”.

Institute of the Russian Language of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in the 50s of the XX century. begins publishing "Materials and Research on the History of the Russian Literary Language". Each volume contains research on the language and style of Russian writers: the pre-Pushkin era, N. M. Karamzin (1st volume); M. V. Lomonosov, A. N. Radishchev, A. S. Pushkin, early N. V. Gogol (2nd volume); writers of the Pushkin era, M. Yu. Lermontov, V. G. Belinsky (3rd volume); writers of the second half of the 19th century. (4th volume).

It should be noted the merits of SA Koporsky, who in the work “From the history of the development of the vocabulary of Russian fiction in the 60-70s. XIX century. (Vocabulary of the writings of Uspensky, Sleptsov, Reshetnikov) ”studied vocabulary and its stylistic use in the works of Russian writers - democrats and populists.

Linguists have never lost interest in the most ancient period in the history of the Russian literary language. The meaning of the ancient Slavic language is devoted to the article by N.I. Tolstoy "On the question of the ancient Slavic language as a common literary language of the southern and eastern Slavs" (1961), the study of the sources of the monuments - the article "On some sources of the" Izbornik 1076 "in connection with the question of their origin translations "(1976) N. A. Meshchersky. One of the main tasks facing science, Meshchersky considers the demonstration of how the masters of the word "processed" the common language; this he was able to convincingly show in the book "History of the Russian literary language" (1981). This point of view remains relevant for language historians who worked in the 80-90s of the XX century.

Many important conditions for enrichment, qualitative renewal of the lexical and semantic system of the Russian language are considered by Yu. S. Sorokin in his fundamental work “Development of the vocabulary of the Russian literary language. 30-90 years of the XIX century. " (1965). First of all, he notes the development of polysemy in actively used primordial and borrowed words, including scientific terms, nomenclature belonging to the field of art, etc. units of which more often acquired non-terminological, figurative meanings, replenished the composition of common linguistic means, were used in the language of fiction. In addition, Sorokin noted the process of terminology of vocabulary, due to such an extralinguistic factor as the intensive development of science, the strengthening of the political activity of society in the period under study and the process of "movement" of words of colloquial, vernacular, professional vocabulary in the direction from the periphery to the center.

These tendencies in the development of vocabulary are also investigated in the works of Yu. A. Belchikov "Questions of the correlation of colloquial and book vocabulary in the Russian literary language of the second half of the 19th century" (1974) and "Russian literary language in the second half of the 19th century" (1974).

The collective monograph "Vocabulary of the Russian literary language of the 19th - early 20th centuries" (1981), edited by F.P. Filin, became another evidence of the close attention of scientists to the history of the Russian literary language.

DS Likhachev is known as an outstanding researcher of Old Russian literature, cultural historian, textual critic. His works are devoted to poetics, the study of the genre, style of Russian writers: "The Lay of Igor's Campaign", "Textology. On the material of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries "," Poetics of Old Russian literature "," Neglect of the word "by Dostoevsky", "Features of the poetics of the works of N. S. Leskov", etc. In the monograph "Man in the Literature of Ancient Rus" Likhachev showed how styles changed in ancient Russian literature. Historian and philologist, he could not help but touch upon the important question of the origin of the Russian literary language.

Many questions of the history of the Russian literary language are elucidated by A. N. Kozhin, a follower of V. V. Vinogradov. His contribution to the study of the role of folk speech for the formation and development of the literary language in different periods is significant, to the description of the features of the language of fiction and specific idiostyles (primarily N.V. Gogol and L.N. means as a centripetal movement that led to the democratization and enrichment of the literary language in different periods, in particular in the XIX-XX centuries. He tries to comprehend the complex processes that determine the "blurring of the boundaries" of the style profile of a literary text, the socially and aesthetically stimulated influence of colloquial speech on the language of poetry and prose. Kozhin studied in detail the development of the Russian literary language during the Great Patriotic War.

The works of A.I. Gorshkov remain valuable for science. The scientist researched numerous written sources, considered the role of Russian writers, primarily A.S. Pushkin, in the formation of the stylistic system of the language, concretized the idea of ​​the subject of the history of the Russian literary language as a science. The books History of the Russian Literary Language (1969) and Theory and History of the Russian Literary Language (1984) systematize the theoretical provisions on which modern science about the literary language (including the language of fiction), stylistics, and culture of speech is based. Gorshkov demonstrates a philological approach as synthesizing, methodologically necessary for describing language in diachrony on the basis of written records. In his opinion, "the specificity of language as a really existing phenomenon, as a phenomenon of national culture, manifests itself primarily in the study of its use, that is, in the study of language at the levels of the text and the system of subsystems." It is obvious to the scientist that the history of the Russian literary language uses the conclusions of all disciplines that study both the use of the language and its system.

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

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

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

FSBEI HPE "Siberian State Geodetic Academy"

Department of Foreign Languages ​​and Intercultural Communication

abstract

History becoming Russian literary language

Completed by: student of group PG-12

Yuneeva T.A.

Checked: Art. teacher

Shabalina L.A.

Novosibirsk 2014

Introduction

1.The origin and reasons for the collapse of the Old Russian language

1.1 The place of the Russian language among other languages

1.2 Proto-Slavic language - the ancestor language of all Slavic languages

1.3 The emergence of a written (literary) language among the Eastern Slavs, its trends and styles

2.Education of the Russian national language

3. Development of the Russian language in the XVIII-XIX centuries

3.1 Russian language in Peter's era

3.2 Development of the Russian language in the Soviet era

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

I.S. Turgenev belongs, perhaps, one of the most famous definitions of the Russian language as "great and mighty":

In days doubt in days painful contemplation O destinies my homeland, -- you one to me support and support, O great, mighty, truthful and free Russian language! Not be you -- how not fall v despair at the form Total, what occurs at home? But it is forbidden believe, to such language not was Dan great people!

The people express themselves most fully and faithfully in their language. The people and the language, one without the other, cannot be represented. Both together sometimes determine their indivisibility in thought by one name: so we, Russians, together with other Slavs from time immemorial combined in one word "language" the concept of a popular dialect with the concept of the people themselves. Thus, in that part of science that we can call our Russian science, research on the Russian language must also take place.

The relevance of the chosen topic lies in the fact that today the Russian language is undoubtedly activating its dynamic tendencies and entering a new period of its historical development. That is why our language requires constant close attention, careful care - especially at that critical stage of social development that it is going through. The whole world must help the language to discover its original essence of concreteness, definiteness of the formulation and transmission of thought. After all, it is well known that any sign is not only an instrument of communication and thinking, but also a practical consciousness.

Important "external" stimuli in these processes will be such phenomena as scientific and technological progress, the transformation of the Russian language into the world language of our time, which has become one of the global realities of our time.

New political thinking also requires new speech means, their precise use. Indeed, without linguistic precision and concreteness, there can be neither true democracy, nor stabilization of the economy, nor progress in general. M.V. Lomonosov expressed the idea that the development of the national consciousness of the people is directly related to the ordering of means of communication.

1 . InceptionandcausesdecayOld Russianlanguage

1.1 A placeRussianlanguageva number ofotherslanguages

The Russian language belongs to the eastern group of Slavic languages ​​(languages ​​Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian) and is included in the system of Slavic languages. The historical and comparative study of the Slavic languages ​​provides material for determining those general processes that were experienced by the East Slavic languages ​​in the most ancient (pre-feudal) era and which distinguish this group of languages ​​in the circle of closely related (Slavic) languages. It should be noted right away that the recognition of the commonality of linguistic processes in the East Slavic languages ​​of the pre-feudal era does not imply an indispensable idea of ​​perfect unity, indivisibility, and identity of languages ​​throughout the territory. In connection with the economy of the pre-feudal system and tribal life, the common language should be understood not as an undivided unity, but as the sum of slightly varying dialects. On the other hand, it should be emphasized that the commonality of the linguistic processes of the Eastern Slavs is not limited to the pre-feudal era, this commonality extends to the subsequent epochs of the life of the East Slavic languages, partly as a further development of common features, partly as a result of the closest economic, political and cultural ties between the peoples of the East Slavic group - common phenomena in the grammatical structure and vocabulary of the East Slavic languages.

However, the language of the Eastern Slavs differed from the languages ​​of other branches of the Slavs in a number of features.

1) phonetic (such are, for example, full accord: milk, beard, shore, etc.; sounds h in the place of more ancient tj, w - in place of dj: candle, border, etc.);

2) grammatical (for example, in the formation of separate cases of nouns: iь - originally nasal - in the forms of genus pad. noun plural nouns, masculine gender such as horse, etc.; in the formation of different singular cases of the pronominal or member declension of adjectives; in the formation of the bases of different verb forms, for example, the imperfect, in the formation of the participle form present time, etc.);

3) lexical (compare, for example, the use of such words as eye, carpet, plow, vologa "fat", pavolok, hook "cunning", ham, sometimes, hoof "shoes", pot, heavy, good "dignified", etc.)

1.2 Proto-Slaviclanguage-ancestor languageof allSlaviclanguages

All Slavic languages ​​are very similar to each other, but the closest to the Russian language are Belarusian and Ukrainian. Together, these languages ​​form the East Slavic subgroup, which is part of the Slavic group of the Indo-European family.

Slavic branches grow from a powerful trunk - the Indo-European language family. This family also includes Indian (or Indo-Aryan), Iranian Greek, Italic, Romance, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic language groups, Armenian, Albanian and other languages. The disintegration of Indo-European linguistic unity is usually attributed to the end of the 3rd - the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. Apparently, at the same time, the processes were taking place that led to the emergence of the Proto-Slavic language, to its separation from the Indo-European.

The Proto-Slavic language is the ancestor language of all Slavic languages. He had no written language and was not recorded in writing. However, it can be restored by comparing the Slavic languages ​​among themselves, as well as by comparing them with other related Indo-European languages. Sometimes the less successful term common Slavic is used to denote Proto-Slavic: it seems that it is better to call common Slavic linguistic features or processes inherent in all Slavic languages ​​even after the collapse of Proto-Slavic.

The ancestral home of the Slavs, that is, the territory where they developed as a special people with their own language and where they lived until their division and resettlement to new lands, has not yet been precisely determined - due to the lack of reliable data. And yet, with relative certainty, it can be argued that it was located in the east of Central Europe, north of the foothills of the Carpathians. Many scientists believe that the northern border of the ancestral home of the Slavs ran along the Pripyat River (the right tributary of the Dnieper), the western border along the middle course of the Vistula River, and in the east, the Slavs inhabited Ukrainian Polesie all the way to the Dnieper.

The Slavs constantly expanded the lands they occupied. They also took part in the great migration of peoples in the IV-VII centuries. By the end of the Proto-Slavic period, the Slavs occupied vast lands in Central and Eastern Europe, stretching from the coast of the Baltic Sea in the north to the Mediterranean in the south, from the Elbe River in the west to the upper reaches of the Dnieper, Volga and Oka in the east.

Years passed, centuries slowly replaced centuries. And after changes in interests, habits, manners of a person, following the evolution of his spiritual world, his speech, his language certainly changed. During its long history, the Proto-Slavic language has gone through many changes. In the early period of its existence, it developed relatively slowly, was highly uniform, although even then there were dialectal differences, dialect, in other words, dialect - the smallest territorial variety of the language. In the late period, approximately from the 4th to the 6th century AD, diverse and intensive changes took place in the Proto-Slavic language, which led to its disintegration around the 6th century AD and the emergence of separate Slavic languages.

According to the degree of their proximity to each other, Slavic languages ​​are usually divided into three groups:

East Slavic - Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian;

West Slavic - Polish with the Kashubian dialect, which retained a certain genetic independence, Serbolic languages ​​(Upper and Lower Sorbian languages), Czech, Slovak and the dead Polabian language, which completely disappeared by the end of the 18th century;

South Slavic - Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian. The Old Slavic language is also South Slavic in origin - the first common Slavic literary language.

The ancestor of the modern Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian languages ​​was the Old Russian (or East Slavic) language. In its history, two main eras can be distinguished: before the written one - from the disintegration of the Proto-Slavic language to the end of the 10th century, and the written one. What this language was before the emergence of writing can be found only through a comparative historical study of the Slavic and Indo-European languages, since no ancient Russian writing existed at that time.

The collapse of the Old Russian language led to the emergence of the Russian or Great Russian language, different from the Ukrainian and Belarusian. This happened in the XIV century, although already in the XII-XIII centuries in the Old Russian language there were phenomena that distinguished the dialects of the ancestors of the Great Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians from each other. The modern Russian language is based on the northern and northeastern dialects of Ancient Russia, by the way, the Russian literary language also has a dialectal basis: it was made up of the central Middle Russian dialects of Moscow and the villages surrounding the capital.

1.3 Emergencewritten(literary)languageateasternSlavs,hiscurrentsandstyles

With the emergence of the feudal system in the XI century, the Eastern Slavs strengthened their economic ties with Byzantium. The feudal elite is looking for political and ecclesiastical alliance with Byzantium for support in strengthening its dominant position in the newly emerged feudal state associations. Hence the adoption of the Christian church organization on the model of Byzantine and the "baptism of Rus", carried out first by the Kiev prince, and then in other feudal centers of ancient Rus. Together with the organization of the Christian church, the Eastern Slavs also come to the liturgical (church-cult) language and writing, which was developed earlier on the basis of the Old Bulgarian dialects by the Byzantine noblemen-brothers Cyril and Methodius, carrying out the diplomatic missionary orders of the Byzantine emperor in the Western South Slavic countries. The feudal elite of ancient Russia adopted this language as an official-administrative language. Thus, the language and writing that arose on the basis of the Old Bulgarian dialects became the literary language and writing on the territory of the Eastern Slavs in the use of the feudal elite and the highest church nobility. In its linguistic composition, this language was not identical with the colloquial speech of the rest of the population and even the less educated circles of the feudal nobility.

The further development of this written language is usually presented by historians of the Russian language as a process of its gradual approximation to colloquial speech and to the living dialects of Eastern Slavs. This evolutionary idealistic view distorts the actual picture of the development of the literary (written) language in Russia. First, consideration of the facts confirms the presence of periods of a particularly intense struggle with the "folk" deposits in the Church Slavonic writing and an intensified orientation towards the Old Bulgarian norms. Secondly, the introduction of "folk" elements, features from the surrounding dialects and vernaculars into written monuments does not represent a straightforward process outside the social division and groupings of representatives of ancient Russian book-writing: the nature, ways and intensity of penetration of these elements depended on various social forces that appeared on the historical stage , their clashes and struggles, reflected in ideological products.

Indicative is the fact that even those close to the ecclesiastical and secular nobility did not understand or could hardly understand the literature in the Church Slavonic language. We have documented complaints from readers, eg. to Kirill Turovsky.

It should be noted one more characteristic feature from the initial history of the use of the Church Slavonic language as the written speech of Russian feudal lords. Lexical "Russisms", which nevertheless penetrated into the monuments of Church Slavonic writing on Russian soil, by the end of the pre-Mongol period are expelled by Old Russian scribes and are replaced by "high" words from the Old Bulgarian originals, to a large extent these were lexical Greekisms.

A new strengthening of Church Slavic influence falls on the line. XIV-XV centuries, when in connection with the transfer of the church center to Moscow, Bulgarian and Serbian immigrants were drawn there, occupying a prominent position in Russia as church and political leaders. But depending on the different groups and strata of the ruling class that came out on the stage of history and fought for the approval of their ideology, it is possible to note different directions in the development of literary speech and the corresponding styles and structure of the written language.

Other features in the process of the formation of the literary and written speech of feudal Russia have already been introduced by literature built on Western European models. In Moscow XIV-XV centuries. there were economic prerequisites for intensive foreign relations. Moscow becomes the focal point of trade routes from the western regions (Smolensk) to the Volga region and the Russian-Genoese trade ("guests-surozhan"), which went along the Don through the Crimea. These were the paths and cultural influences from the West. The literary reflection of Moscow's foreign relations of this era are the translations of the novels of chivalry ("Alexandrida"), as well as the cosmographic and geographical works of the Western Middle Ages. The cycle of knightly novels brings with it feudal-knightly phraseology, a secular rethinking of the old Church Slavonic vocabulary and a well-known stream of Czech and Polish borrowings, since the translations were made largely from Czech, Polish and partly Serbian revisions. It should be noted that Czech influences brought with them the ideas of Protestantism to Moscow. The prevalence of Czech Protestant ideas is also evidenced by the fact that the Moscow tsar (the Terrible) himself came out with a polemical composition against the Czech Jan Rokita (1570), where he argued with temperament: "it is true that Luthor is fiercely verbalized." It is clear that this Protestant literature, which passed through the Belarusian mediation, deposited in the vocabulary of its Moscow readers a certain number of Western Russisms (Belorussisms), Czechs and Polonisms.

Two more directions of church moralistic writing of the 15th-16th centuries require separate characteristics. These directions are represented by the official church party "Josephites" and the hostile group of the so-called "Trans-Volga elders". The "Trans-Volga elders" were educated people in their time, well-read in the Byzantine-Bulgarian "high" church literature. Hence, in the language of their works, floridness, "weaving of words", alignment with the norms of the Old Bulgarian bookishness. Thus, in terms of language and style, the Zavolzhtsy are the successors of the Cyprian school.

The opposite camp of the "Josephites" (named after Bishop Joseph Volotsky, who headed them) fought against both the "Zavolzhtsy" and the Jews. In this regard, in the language of the works of "Joseph" we notice a repulsion from the elements of colloquial speech as from innovations and alignment with the norms of the Old Bulgarian writing, but the style is reduced in comparison with the works of the Zavolzhtsy; they also have an administrative-command vocabulary and some everyday expressions.

The "correction" of church books by Maxim the Greek also dates back to this time. The "correction" of church books, undertaken on the initiative of the official church and the Moscow grand dukes, was based on concern for the "purity of Orthodoxy" as the ideological banner of Moscow Caesarism ("Moscow is the third Rome"). The role of Maxim the Greek in the "correction" was ambiguous. A foreigner - a Greek, in his literary tastes adhered to the "Zavolzhtsy", he had to act as an agent of the government party. Therefore, in the books corrected by him and his colleagues from the Russian scribes, the deposition of Russian norms is observed. Basically, however, the literary language in the XVI century. remains the Church Slavonic language.

The development of the Russian written language has taken a special direction since the middle of the 17th century, when, with the annexation of Ukraine and the attraction of Kiev scholars famous for their education to Moscow, the Russian written language is saturated with Ukrainianisms. The significant contribution of Ukrainianism, and at the same time of Plainism and Latinism, characterizes the Russian language of secular, partly church literature up to the beginning of the 18th century. A parallel intensification of the struggle for the "purity" of the written language and high genres of literature can no longer stop the process of the disintegration of the Church Slavonic language and its saturation with elements of oral speech

For the era of the XV-XVII centuries. we also have to formalize the administrative-order, business language - letters, state acts, judicial codes, etc. In terms of its linguistic composition, this language is a mixture of Russians and foreign languages ​​learned by the Russian language - Greek, Tatar, etc. - roots (everyday and official vocabulary) and Church Slavonic phonetic and morphological design, i.e. when constructing the official state Russian language, a conscious orientation towards Church Slavonic norms was carried out.

2.EducationRussiannationallanguage

In the XVII century. Russian literary language is entering a new phase of its development. It intensifies the process of concentration of national elements. In the 17th century, the question of the redistribution of the functions of both written languages ​​arises with all decisiveness: the book Russian-Slavic and closer to the lively, colloquial speech of Russian - business, administrative. By this time, sharp dialectal differences between Novgorod and Moscow had been eliminated in the state written - business language.

In the 17th century, phonological norms of the common Russian state language were established (akane on a Central Russian basis, the distinction between the sounds i and e under stress, the North Russian system of consonantism, freed, however, from sharp regional deviations like the Novgorod mixture of ch and c, etc.).

A whole series of grammatical phenomena are finally rooted, which are widespread in living folk speech of both the north and the south, for example, the endings - am (-yam), - ami (-yami), - ah (-yah) in the declension forms of masculine and middle nouns genus, as well as the feminine gender such as bone, forms of nya such as friends, princes, sons, etc., trees, stones, etc.

In the 17th century, in the Russian literary language, the category of animation was formed, including both the names of males and females, and the names of animals (before that, only words denoting males were allocated in a special grammatical category of nouns). The semantic growth of the nationalizing language is proceeding rapidly.

It is not without significance that in the 17th century the system of connecting counting in the notation of composite numbers, characteristic of the Russian language until the 17th century, disappears.

The Moscow business language, having undergone phonetic and even more grammatical regulation, decisively acts as a Russian nationwide form of social and everyday expression. For example, in the business language of the 17th century. the alternation of r || s, x || s (as well as those already extinct to || c) in declination forms is eliminated; the enclitic forms of personal pronouns are leaving the living written everyday use: mi, ti, mea, cha, etc. Proto-Slavic Russian literary language

Thus, by the end of the 17th century. many of the phenomena that characterize the grammatical system of the Russian literary language of the 18th-19th centuries are established.

The expansion of the lively popular stream in the literary language system was facilitated by the new democratic styles of literature that arose among the literate townspeople.

In the 17th century, on the basis of the dialects of the merchants, the petty service nobility, the townspeople and the peasantry, new types of literary language, new types of writing were created. Craftsmen, merchants, the lower stratum of service people - the townspeople until the 17th century, in fact, did not have their own literature.

In the middle of the 17th century. the middle and lower strata of society are trying to establish their forms of the literary language, far from the religious, teacher's and scientific literature, their own stylistics, on the basis of which they realistically rework the plots of old literature. The syntax is characteristic, almost completely free from the subordination of sentences.

The struggle against the traditions of the old book language is most clearly revealed in the parody, which was widespread in Russian manuscript literature of the late 17th century. Literary genres, various types of Church Slavonic and business language were parodied. In this way, the semantic renewal of the old linguistic forms took place and the ways of the democratic reform of literary speech were outlined. In this respect, for example, the language of parody-medical books of the late 17th - early 18th centuries, reflecting the manner of folk tales-fables, is characteristic.

Parodies also appear on different genres and styles of high church-book writing. Such is, for example: "The feast of tavern yaryzhek".

The old forms of not only the literary Slavic-Russian, but also the business language are parodied. And here the language of folk poetry is a help, for example, the style of fables, jokes, proverbs, etc. Forms of oral buffoonery, persecuted by the church, make their way into literature.

The genres of old literature are transformed, filling with realistic everyday content and putting on stylistic forms of living folk speech. So, "The ABC of a Naked and Poor Man", written in proverbial rhymed prose, is extremely interesting for characterizing the literary styles of the townspeople and junior servicemen with their dialectisms, with their decorated but figurative vernacular, with their rare Slavisms and frequent vulgarisms.

Thus, in the second half of the 17th century, when the role of the city becomes especially noticeable, a strong and wide stream of lively oral speech and folk-poetic creativity bursts into the traditional book culture of speech, moving from the depths of the social "lower classes". There is a sharp confusion and collision of styles and dialects in the circle of literary expression. The outlook on the literary language begins to change radically. The democratic strata of society bring their living language with its dialectisms, their vocabulary, phraseology, their own proverbs and sayings into literature. Thus, old collections of oral proverbs are compiled among the townspeople, small service people, urban artisans, among the petty bourgeoisie, close to the peasant masses.

Only an insignificant part of the proverbs included in the collections of the 17th - early 18th centuries bear traces of church-book origin in their language. For example, "Adam was created and hell is naked"; “The wife is evil to her husband's death”, etc. The vast majority of proverbs, even those expressing general moral observations, use entirely lively colloquial speech, which erases all traces of book sources, if there were any in the past.

The language of the townspeople intelligentsia - the bureaucratic officials, the plebeian, democratic part of the clergy - asserts its rights to literature. But living folk speech by itself could not yet become the basis of the all-Russian national language. It was full of dialecticisms that reflected the old feudal-regional fragmentation of the country. It was divorced from the language of science, which has been formed until now on the basis of the Slavic-Russian language. She was syntactically monotonous and had not yet mastered the complex logical system of book syntax. Hence it is clear that the Russian national language in the 17th and 18th centuries. is formed on the basis of the synthesis of all elements of Russian speech culture that are viable and valuable in an ideological or expressive respect, i.e. living folk speech with its regional dialects of oral folk poetry, the state written language and the language of Old Church Slavonic with their different styles.

But in the 17th and even at the beginning of the 18th century. medieval multilingualism has not yet been overcome, the contours of the national Russian language have only emerged.

During that period, the influence on the Slavic language of the Ukrainian literary language, which was influenced by Western European culture and dazzled with Latinisms and Polonisms, sharply increased. Southwestern Russia becomes in the second half of the 17th century. mediator between Moscow Russia and Western Europe.

The influence of Western European culture was also reflected in the spread of knowledge of the Polish language among the upper strata of the nobility. The Polish language acts as a supplier of European scientific, legal, administrative, technical and secular words and concepts. Through his mediation, the secularization, "secularization" of the scientific and technical language takes place, and in the court and aristocratic life, "politess with the style of Polish" develops. Entertaining secular literature penetrates through Poland.

Thus, the Russian language begins to enrich itself with the stock of Europeanisms necessary for the people who entered the European field, but adapting them to the traditions and semantic system of national expression. Europeanisms act as allies of the national language in its struggle with the church-book ideology of the Middle Ages. They are necessary to expand the semantic base of the emerging national language. The process of sifting and selection of other people's words accompanying the phenomena of borrowing is curious. The Russian literary language is expanding its limits extensively. Combining feudal dialects and developing from them the common Russian spoken language of the intelligentsia on the basis of the metropolitan dialect, the literary language at the same time masters the material of Western European linguistic culture.

The old culture of the Middle Ages was exposed and fell. It was replaced by the national culture of the new Russia.

3. DevelopmentRussianlanguagevXVIII-XIXcenturies

3.1 RussianlanguagevPetrovskayaera

The process of developing new forms of national Russian expression takes place on the basis of mixing the Slavic-Russian language with Russian folk speech, with the Moscow state language and with Western European languages. Acquaintance with international scientific terminology and the development of Russian scientific-political, civil, philosophical and generally abstract terminology of the 18th century. promotes the growing importance of the Latin language

Linguistic innovations of a secular-cultural type could more easily enter the command language than into Slavic-Russian. Western European words and expressions related to various areas of social and political life, administrative affairs, science, technology and professional life were freely combined with the system of the state-business language.

The language of the Petrine era is characterized by the strengthening of the meaning of the state, command language, and the expansion of its sphere of influence. This process is a symptom of the growing nationalization of the Russian literary language, its separation from the church-book dialects of the Slavonic Russian language and rapprochement with living oral speech. In translated literature, which constituted the main fund of book production in the first half of the 18th century, the clerical language dominates. The government's concerns about the "intelligible" and "good style" of translations, about bringing them closer to the "courteous Russian language", with the "civic mediocre dialect", with the "simple Russian language" reflected this process of the formation of a common Russian national language. The Slavic-Russian language is supplanted by the command language from the field of science.

In Peter's time, the process of mixing and unification - somewhat mechanical - of lively colloquial speech, Slavism and Europeanism, based on the state-business language, proceeded rapidly. In this circle of expression, new styles of "civil mediocre dialect" are formed, literary styles that occupy an intermediate position between the sublime Slavic syllable and simple colloquial speech.

The degree of admixture of Slavic-Russian floridism was assessed as a sign of the beauty or simplicity of the styles of the Russian literary language. The order of Peter to the Synod is characteristic: "... write ... in two: a settlement simple, but in cities it is more beautiful for the sweetness of those who hear." The Slavic-Russian language itself is deeply influenced by business, commanding speech. It is democratizing and at the same time Europeanizing. According to K.S. Aksakov, in the language of Stefan Yavorsky and Feofan Prokopovich "the character of the then syllable is vividly manifested - this mixture of Church Slavonic, common and trivial words, trivial expressions and phrases of Russian and foreign words." In the construction of speech, of course, not always, but Latinism is noticeable. Thus, the commanding business language becomes the center of the system of the emerging new national literary language, its "mediocre" style.

However, this very command language, reflecting the construction of a new culture and old traditions in the time of Peter the Great, presents a rather variegated picture. On one side it is deeply embedded in the lofty rhetorical styles of the Slavic-Russian language, on the other - in the motley and boiling element of folk speech with its regional dialectisms. Feudal regional dialects, deeply infiltrated into the clerical language, form a rich inventory of everyday synonyms and synonymous expressions.

There is a violent confusion and stylistically disordered collision of heterogeneous verbal elements within the literary language, the limits of which are immensely expanding. The process of restructuring the administrative system, reorganization of naval affairs, the development of trade, factory enterprises, the development of various branches of technology, the growth of scientific education - all these historical phenomena are accompanied by the creation or borrowing of new terminology, the invasion of a stream of words coming from Western European languages: Dutch, English, German, French, Polish and Italian. Scientific and technical styles of business speech at this time move from the periphery closer to the center of the literary language. The polytechnization of the language complicated and deepened the system of the command language. The political and technical reconstruction of the state is reflected in the reorganization of the literary language. Professional and guild dialects of everyday Russian speech are attracted to help and merge into the system of written business language. On the other hand, the living oral speech of the city, the language of the community - in connection with the Europeanization of everyday life - is filled with borrowings, replete with foreign words. A fashion for Europeanism arises, superficial panache of foreign words spreads among the upper classes.

Withdrawal from the culture of the Middle Ages, there was naturally an excessive enthusiasm for Europeanism. Polish, French, German, Dutch, Italian words seemed at that time to be a much more appropriate means of expressing a new European mindset, ideas and social relations. Peter I was forced to give an order that the reports “write everything in Russian, without using foreign words and terms,” since “it is impossible to understand the matter itself from the abuse of other people's words”.

Thus, new styles of scientific and technical language, new styles of journalistic and narrative literature, are gradually growing out of the command language, much closer to oral speech and more understandable than the old styles of the Slavic-Russian language. But the cultural heritage of the Slavic-Russian language, the abstract terminology and phraseology that arose on its soil, its rich semantics and its constructive means served as a powerful source of enrichment of the national Russian literary language throughout the entire 18th century. The alphabet reform of 1708 was a symbol of the secularization of the civil language, a symbol of the liberation of the Russian literary language from the ideological tutelage of the church. The new civil alphabet approached the printing patterns of European books. This was a major step towards the creation of a national Russian book language. The significance of this reform was very great. The Slavic-Russian language lost its literary privileges. It was relegated to the role of the professional language of a religious cult. Some of its elements poured into the system of the national Russian language. There was a growing need for a clearer distinction between Church Slavonic and national forms and categories of Russian book speech. V.K. Trediakovsky, who deeply criticized the phonetic and morphological foundations of Slavic-Russian speech, pointing out the differences between the folk Russian language. Trediakovsky developed the idea of ​​the need to write and print books "on the bells", ie. in accordance with the phonetics of the living spoken language of the educated circles of Russian society.

3.2 DevelopmentRussianlanguagevSovietera

A sharp shift in the Russian language took place during the era of the socialist revolution. The elimination of classes leads to the gradual withering away of class and estate dialects. Words, expressions and concepts organically connected with the old regime go into the archive of history. Striking changes in the expressive coloring accompanying words related to class or class-colored social concepts of the past, pre-revolutionary life, for example: master (now - outside the diplomatic language - always with the emotion of hostility and irony), master, charity, rabble, salary, etc. ...

The socialist reconstruction of the state, the growth of Marxist-Leninist ideas, the creation of a unified Soviet culture - all this is reflected in the language, in the change in its semantic system, in the rapid birth of Soviet neologisms.

The new, socialist culture is changing the structure of the Russian language in those areas that more than others allow the influx of new elements - in word formation, vocabulary and phraseology. A fundamental ideological restructuring of the national Russian language is being carried out on a socialist basis. His vocabulary grew and changed, new pronunciation norms arose, new syntactic constructions became active.

After the October Revolution, an active replenishment of the literary language began with words brought to life by the new conditions of Soviet reality, the formation of new concepts.

This process is widely reflected in dictionaries. Published in 1935, "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language", ed. D.N. Ushakov in 4 volumes includes many new words generated by Soviet reality. The dictionary already contains words such as agitation, agitprop, agromaximum and agrominimum, activist and activist, brigade (meaning “a team performing a certain production task”), foreman (team leader), poor people (meaning “social group of low-powered owners - peasants "), party member, party party, party collective, party committee, party load, party worker, drummer, shock, shock worker, Stakhanovite, stakhanovka and many others. It is characteristic that almost all of these and similar words are given with the mark "new." In the later dictionaries of the Soviet era: "The Dictionary of the Modern Russian Literary Language" of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 17 volumes and the 4-volume "Dictionary of the Russian Language" these marks are no longer there, and the number of new, previously unmarked words has increased significantly. But soon after the publication of the 17-volume dictionary, including 120 thousand words, there was a need to publish an additional dictionary, which came out in 1971 and was called "New words and meanings." It includes many new words that have now become common. A number of well-known words have new additional meanings: machine in the meaning of "a booth in which a pay phone is located", velvet (path) - "continuous path", bronze - "bronze medal in a competition" (compare gold, silver in the same meaning), head - "leading in a group of enterprises", vote - "raise your hand as a sign of a request to stop passing cars", fungus - "light structure for shelter from rain or sun", sunbathe - "be in a forced inactivity", groovy - "easily excitable, addicted."

But changes are taking place not only in vocabulary, they also take over other levels of the language system.

Complex and interesting processes take place in the syntax of the modern Russian language both at the level of phrases and at the level of sentences. “The system of phrases of the modern Russian language, - writes N.Yu. Shvedova, becomes more flexible and more complex in comparison with its previous state. The structure of sentences is also changing significantly. The cumbersome, multicomponent sentences are disappearing, complicated by numerous isolated turns, characteristic of the Russian literary language of the 19th century, when sentences like the following were possible: “One fine May evening, - excuse me, in June, - when our whitewashed and reddened islands notify St. Petersburg residents that summer has come. "

Such proposals, of course, were absolutely inconceivable in the literary Russian language. But it's not just the volume of offers. In the Soviet period, an activation of nominative constructions is observed: their use is increasing, the spread of dependent words of a noun in the nominative case as the main member of nominative sentences is developing, which leads to an increase in the informative possibilities of such sentences

There were also some changes in the pronunciation system. The expansion of the circle of native speakers of the literary language contributed to the shattering of the old "Moscow" orthoepic norms. The pronunciation of the type soft [ky], crepe [ky], moskovs [ky] and so on has ceased to be obligatory. (with hard back-lingual consonants) and became normatively permissible soft [k "s], crepe [k" s], moskovs [k "s]. The pronunciation is spreading more and more widely without softening the preceding consonant, ie [cn "inka, in" etv "and, z" er ", raz" b], and not [with "n" inca, in "et There was a further weakening of the informative role of vowels, which manifested itself, for example, in the spread of hiccuping pronunciation in the literary language due to the previous ekat, in which in pre-stressed syllables after soft consonants [and] and [e] were different, ie [l "isa] were pronounced, but [l" esa], [in "isok], but [in" esnoy], etc., while now the pre-stressed vowel in the words fox, temple and forest, in the spring it is pronounced the same way.

For the first time, socialism creates the preconditions for the true universality of the national language as a national form of socialist culture. The lines between social dialects are gradually blurring. The lively oral speech of the broad masses rises to a higher cultural level, drawing closer to the language of the Soviet intelligentsia.

In the Russian language after the revolution, in contrast to the previous stages of history, there is no disintegration, its socio-dialectal differentiation does not become more complicated, and dialects do not multiply. On the contrary, unifying tendencies are clearly visible, there is a nationwide concentration of the Russian language.

Conclusion

The Russian language, along with the Ukrainian and Belarusian languages, belongs to the East Slavic subgroup of the Slavic group of the Indo-European family of languages. The Russian language is the language of the Russian nation and a means of interethnic communication for many peoples living in the CIS and other states. Russian is one of the official and working languages ​​of the United Nations, UNESCO and other international organizations; is one of the "world languages".

As the state language of the Russian Federation, the Russian language actively functions in all spheres of public life of national importance. The central offices of the Russian Federation work in Russian, official communication is carried out between the constituent entities of the Federation, as well as in the army, central Russian newspapers and magazines are published.

The modern national Russian language exists in several forms, among which the literary language plays the leading role. Outside the literary language are territorial and social dialects (dialects, jargons) and, in part, vernacular.

Listliterature

Baziev A.G., Isaev M.I. Language and nation. - M .: Education, 1973.

Barannikova L.I. Russian language and Soviet society. Phonetics of the modern Russian literary language. - M .: Education, 1968.

Barannikova L.I. Fundamentals of Language: A Guide for Teachers. - M .: Education, 1982.

Beloshapkova V.A. Modern Russian language. - M .: Education, 1981.

Boriskovsky P.I. The most ancient past of mankind. L., 1979.

Budagov R.A. History of words in the history of society. - M .: Education, 1971.

Budagov R.A. Problems of language development. - M .: Education., 1965.

Zemskaya E.A. Modern Russian language. Word formation. - M .: Education, 1973.

Istrin V.A. The emergence and development of writing. - M .: Education, 1965.

Krysin L.P. Foreign words in modern Russian. - M .: Education, 1968.

Leninism and theoretical problems of linguistics. - M .: Education, 1970.

A.A. Leontiev The emergence and initial development of the language. - M .: Education, 1963.

Lykov A.G. Modern Russian lexicology (Russian occasional word). - M .: Education, 1976.

Protchenko I.F. Lexicon and word formation of the Russian language of the Soviet era. - M .: Education, 1975, p. eighteen.

Russian colloquial speech / Ed. with. A. Zemskoy. - M .: Education, 1973.

Russian language in the modern world / Ed. F.P. Filina, V.G. Kostomarova, L.I. Skvortsova. - M .: Education, 1974.

Russian language as a means of interethnic communication. M., 1977.

Serebrennikov B.A. The development of human thinking and the structure of language. - In the book: Leninism and theoretical problems of linguistics. - M .: Education, 1970.

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

Shansky N.M. In the world of words. - M .: Education, 1978.

Shvedova N.Yu. Active processes in modern Russian syntax. - M .: Education, 1966.

L.I. Skvortsov. Ecology of the word, or Let's talk about the culture of Russian speech, 1996

M. Ya. Speransky. The evolution of the Russian story in the 17th century. "Proceedings of the Department of Old Russian Literature", I. L., 1934, p. 138.

K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, vol. V, p. 487.

Protchenko I.F. Lexicon and word formation of the Russian language of the Soviet era. - M .: Education, 1975, p. 18.

Shvedova N.Yu. Active processes in modern Russian syntax. - M .: Education, 1966, p. 9 and onwards.

Odoevsky V.F. Op. In 2 volumes, v. 2 - M .: Fiction, 1981, p. 43.

Barannikova L.I. Russian language and Soviet society. Morphology and syntax of the modern Russian literary language. - M .: Education, 1968, p. 322-342.

Barannikova L.I. Russian language and Soviet society. Morphology and syntax of the modern Russian literary language. - M .: Education, 1968, p. 328.

Barannikova L.I. Russian language and Soviet society. Morphology and syntax of the modern Russian literary language. - M .: Education, 1968, p. 328-329.

Barannikova L.I. Russian language and Soviet society. Phonetics of the modern Russian literary language. - M .: Education, 1968, p. 340.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar documents

History and main reasons for the formation and disintegration of the Old Russian language, its lexical and grammatical features. Place and assessment of the importance of the Russian language among other languages. The emergence of the written language among the Eastern Slavs, its trends and styles.

term paper, added 07/15/2009


The process of the formation of the national literary language. The role of A.S. Pushkin in the formation of the Russian literary language, the influence of poetry on its development. The emergence of a "new style", the inexhaustible wealth of idioms and Russianisms in the works of A.S. Pushkin.

presentation added 09/26/2014


Development of the Russian literary language. Varieties and offshoots of the national language. The function of the literary language. Folk-colloquial speech. Oral and written form. Territorial and social dialects. Jargon and slang.

report added on 11/21/2006


Classification of the styles of the modern Russian literary language. Functional varieties of language: book and colloquial, their division into functional styles. Book and colloquial speech. The main features of the newspaper language. Varieties of conversational style.

test, added 08/18/2009


The subject and objectives of the culture of speech. Linguistic norm, its role in the formation and functioning of the literary language. Norms of the modern Russian literary language, speech errors. Functional styles of modern Russian literary language. Foundations of rhetoric.

lecture course, added 12/21/2009


essay, added 11/16/2013


Word-formation system of the Russian language of the XX century. Modern word production (late twentieth century). Vocabulary of the Russian literary language. Intensive formation of new words. Changes in the semantic structure of words.

abstract added on 11/18/2006


Proto-Slavic language, its linguistic branches. Education of the southern and northern languages ​​of the Russian language, their main dialectical phenomena. Creation of the Old Slavonic language by Kirill and Metody. History of the Russian national language, Pushkin's contribution to its development.

abstract, added 06/18/2009


Study of the history of the emergence of languages. General characteristics of the group of Indo-European languages. Slavic languages, their similarities and differences from the Russian language. Determination of the place of the Russian language in the world and the spread of the Russian language in the countries of the former USSR.

abstract added on 10/14/2014


Study of the features of the literary language, the history of its formation and development, the role in the life of society. The use of the Russian language in oral and written speech. Development of literary and linguistic norms. Assessment of the influence of the reader's emotions and feelings on speech and writing.