Interesting facts about human speech. Interesting facts about the Russian language

Russian writers and scientists about the culture of speech

M. V. Lomonosov

The language that the Russian state commands over a great part of the world, due to its power, has natural abundance, beauty and strength, which is not inferior to any European language. And there is no doubt that the Russian word could not be brought to such perfection as we are surprised at in others...

Oratorio is dull, poetry is tongue-tied, philosophy is unfounded, history is unpleasant, jurisprudence without grammar is dubious. And although it comes from the general use of language, it nevertheless shows the way to the use itself through rules. So, when all sciences have such a need in grammar, for this reason, wanting it... to attract Russian youth to its instruction... so that the Russian word will also increase in serviceability in wealth, beauty and strength...

Decoration is an image invented by decent and chosen sayings. It consists in the purity of calm, in the flow of the word, in the splendor and power of it.

The first depends on a thorough knowledge of the language, on frequent reading of good books and on dealing with people who speak clearly. The first is facilitated by diligent study of grammatical rules, in the second - by choosing good sayings, sayings and proverbs from books, in the third - by trying to speak clearly in front of people who know and observe the beauty of the language... Whoever wants to speak eloquently must first speak clearly and be content with decent and selected speeches to depict your thoughts.

G. R. Derzhavin

Man is omnipotent through the word: language is the key to all knowledge and all nature...

Repeating the same thoughts, dressed only in different words without feelings, is not only unnecessary, but also unpleasant. In great secret so that the insightful, quick soul can always be occupied with new curiosity... However, brevity does not consist in this alone, so that the composition is not long, but in the close combination of thoughts, so that a lot is said in a little and there are no empty words.

A. S. Pushkin

Can written language be exactly like spoken language? No, just as spoken language can never be exactly like written language. Not only the pronouns this and that, but also participles in general and many necessary words are usually avoided in conversation. We do not say: a carriage galloping across a bridge, a servant sweeping a room; we say: which gallops, which sweeps, etc., replacing the expressive brevity of the participle with a sluggish phrase. It does not follow from this that the participle in the Russian language should be destroyed. The richer the language is in expressions and turns of phrase, the better for a skilled writer. The written language is enlivened every minute by expressions born in conversation, but it should not renounce what it has acquired over the centuries. To write only in spoken language means not to know the language.

N.V. Gogol

Poets do not come from somewhere overseas, but come from their own people. These are the lights that flew out of him, the advanced messengers of his powers. Moreover, our poets have done good by spreading euphony, hitherto unprecedented. I don’t know in what other literature poets have shown such an endless variety of shades of sound, which, of course, was partly facilitated by our poetic language itself. Each has its own verse and its own special ringing. This metallic, bronze verse of Derzhavin, which our ears still cannot forget; this thick verse of Pushkin, like resin or a stream of hundred-year-old current; this shining, festive verse of Yazykov, flying like a ray into the soul, all woven from light; this verse of Batyushkov, drenched in the aromas of midday, sweet like honey from a mountain gorge; this light, airy verse of Zhukovsky, fluttering like the unclear sound of an ash harp; this heavy verse of Vyazemsky, as if dragging along the earth, imbued at times with a caustic, aching Russian sadness - all of them, like ringing bells or countless keys of a magnificent organ, spread euphony across the Russian land.

V. G. Belinsky

Grammar is logic, the philosophy of language, and whoever knows the grammar of his language is at least able to know universal grammar - this applied philosophy of the human word. Moreover, people who, only by instinct, speak or write well in their language, of necessity often make mistakes against the spirit of the language, to the detriment of their success in the field of oral or written elegant speech. And there is no doubt that when theoretical knowledge of language is added to the instinctive ability to speak or write well, the power of the ability doubles, triples. Grammar does not give talent, but it gives talent great strength...Grammar does not give rules to language, but extracts rules from language. General ignorance of these rules, that is, ignorance of grammar, harms the language of the people, making it vague and subjecting it to the arbitrariness of individuals: here every good person speaks and writes according to his own example. There must be unity in the forms of language. And this unity can be achieved only by rigorous research into how this or that should be spoken or written more correctly. This search for correctness must be carried to the point of pedantry - for the success of the language itself.

L. N. Tolstoy

If I were the publisher of a people's magazine, I would tell my employees: write what you want... but only in such a way that every word is understandable to the dray driver who will carry copies from the printing house, and I am sure that, in addition to an honest, common-sense and there will be nothing good in the magazine. I’m not joking and I don’t want to say paradoxes, but I firmly know this from experience. Nothing bad can be written in completely understandable and simple language. Everything immoral will seem so ugly that it will be immediately discarded...

Turquoise and diamond eyes, gold and silver hair, coral lips, golden sun, silver moon, yacht sea, turquoise sky, etc. are common. Tell me the truth, does anything like this ever happen? Drops of water falling into the sea in the moonlight burn better than pearls falling into a basin, and are not a bit like pearls, nor the basin like the sea. I don't mind comparing with precious stones, but the comparison must be true, but the value of the object will not force me to imagine the object being compared either better or more clearly. I have never seen coral-colored lips, but I have seen brick ones; - the eye was turquoise, but saw the colors of loose blue and writing paper. Comparison is used either to show how good the thing being described is, by comparing a worse thing with a better one, or, by comparing an extraordinary thing with an ordinary one, to give a clear idea of ​​it.

A. P. Chekhov

Frequent likening to man (anthropomorphism), when the sea breathes, the sky looks, the steppe basks, nature whispers, speaks, is sad, etc. - such likenings make the descriptions somewhat monotonous, sometimes sugary, sometimes unclear; colorfulness and expressiveness in descriptions of nature are achieved only by simplicity, such simple phrases as “the sun went down,” “it became dark,” “it started to rain,” etc.

What disgusting bureaucratic language! Based on that situation... on the one hand... on the other hand - and all this without any need. “Nevertheless” and “to the extent that” the officials made it up, and I read it and spit it out. Young people write especially lousily. Vague, cold and ungraceful...

We need to throw out the unnecessary, clear the phrase of “to the extent”, “with the help”, we need to take care of its musicality and not allow “became” and “stopped” to be almost side by side in the same phrase...

A. M. Gorky

The struggle to cleanse books of “unsuccessful phrases” is just as necessary as the struggle against speech nonsense. It is with the greatest sadness that we have to point out that in a country that is so successfully - in general - ascending to the highest level of culture, the speech language has been enriched with such absurd words and sayings as, for example: “mura”, “buza”, “volynit”, “shamat” ", "high five", "on thumb with powder”, “on yat”, etc., etc.

Mura is stale bread, pounded in a mortar or grated, mixed with onions, sprinkled with hemp oil and diluted with kvass; buza - an intoxicating drink; bagpipes - musical instrument, which can be played at a fast pace; YAT, as you know, is a letter crossed out from the alphabet. Why are these words and sayings needed?

It must be remembered that words contain concepts organized by long-term labor experience, and that one thing is a critical verification of the meaning of a word, another is a distortion of the meaning caused by a conscious or unconscious desire to distort the meaning of an idea whose hostility is felt. The struggle for purity, for semantic precision, for the sharpness of language is a struggle for an instrument of culture. The sharper this weapon is, the more accurately it is aimed, the more victorious it is. That is why some always strive to dull the language, others - to sharpen it.

A. N. Tolstoy

With a wondrous script, he (the people) weaved an invisible network of the Russian language: bright, like a rainbow after a spring shower, accurate, like arrows, sincere, like a song over a cradle, melodious and poor. He called all things by names and sang everything he saw and thought about, and sang his work. And the dense world, over which he threw the magic net of the word, submitted to him like a bridled horse, and became his property and for his descendants became his homeland - the land of his father and father...

What arrangement of words gives the phrase the greatest emotional power? Let us assume that parsimony and precision have already been observed. The closest word (I count from left to right), placed under the main rhythmic stress of the phrase, should be exactly the concept in the name of which you are creating this phrase. It should give the first reflex. For example: “the distorted face was covered with pallor.” What is significant here is that it is a distorted face. “The distorted face was covered with pallor.” Pallor is essential here. The noun in this phrase does not carry any reflex, since it is implied by itself, therefore the “face” rhythmically itself jumps in the second version of the phrase to the last place... The place of the auxiliary verb “was” depends only on the rhythm...

K. A. Fedin

The most difficult thing for me is working on the word. What guides me when I prefer one word to another? Firstly, the word must define the thought with the greatest accuracy. Secondly, it must be musically expressive. Thirdly, it must have the size required by the rhythmic structure of the phrase. The difficulty lies in simultaneously taking into account these three basic requirements. To them we must add two others, no less complex... ...We must avoid frequent repetitions of the same word and we must not use worn-out, vulgar, supposedly beautiful words...

The fight against all kinds of verbal beauty is extremely difficult...

First of all, I hear what I write. Therefore, I am not able to move on to the next phrase without finishing the previous one so that it does not irritate me with its lack of coherence. Having written a page or two, I re-read them again, removing unnecessary phrases and words, replacing one with another. Sometimes this happens dozens of times, so eventually I memorize the text. Before starting work, I read what I wrote earlier, introduce myself to the rhythmic structure of the story and obediently follow it. Upon completion of the work, or, if it is extensive, part of it, I always read what I have written several times to the audience and make final corrections. Then the only copy of my draft is ready...

For a writer, no achievements are unthinkable without constant, I would say without lifelong work on the word.

V. V. Vinogradov

Each of us, of those who treat the Russian language as their native language and freely use it in their social and speech practice, is at the same time a participant in the grandiose process of folk “language creation,” as Mayakovsky put it, and we all must carefully observe and observe laws and rules of your native language...

High culture colloquial speech and written speech, good knowledge and development of a sense of the native language, the ability to use it expressive means, its stylistic diversity is the best support, the surest help and the most reliable recommendation for every person in his public life and creative activity.

B.V. Tomashevsky

It is impossible to indiscriminately, uncritically accept all the facts of language that we hear and which are spreading,

Then the question arises, “right” or “wrong.” Normative stylistics deals with the problem of “right” and “wrong”.

What are the norms of this style?

These norms are as follows: firstly, purity. It is necessary to speak purely Russian, without mixing in anything spoiling general norm. Secondly, brevity presentation. Verbosity wastes time from both the speaker and the listener. Third, clarity expressions, i.e. the requirement that thoughts exactly correspond to the spoken words. And finally, lack of ambiguity...

Requirement clarity says that our thought should receive the most appropriate expression. Absence requirement ambiguity means that from this expression it is possible exactly restore our thoughts and only our thought.

In practice, there are so-called puns, i.e. expressions that can be assigned different meanings. Typically, puns are used for entertainment and the listener is expected to understand that there are two different meanings to what is being said.

The collision of these meanings causes a comic effect. But unconscious, involuntary puns are very common and must be strictly monitored. It is not enough to choose words so that they correspond to what the speaker wants to say. We need to think about the question: whether only what is intended can be expressed in these words. The phrase should be constructed in such a way that it does not allow any other interpretation than the one that is necessary. This is the requirement for unambiguous expression, the requirement for the absence of ambiguity.

B.V. Kazansky

We learn to think by acquiring language; we think primarily with the help of words, and our very consciousness is built through the means of language. Thanks to this, our feelings and thoughts appear to us in the forms of thoughts and feelings of the environment that raised us, the society in which we live, the people to which we belong. Whatever I say, whatever I think, it will always inevitably be Russian speech - because both speech and thought are built in my system of the Russian language. Turgenev most lived his life in France. But he wrote his works in Russian and objected indignantly to comments that he even composed in French: “I can only create in Russian.”

And the consciousness of the simplest man, and a genius greatest poet, expressed in the same language, are deeply united with each other, because they were born in the same womb of their native language and are nourished by its common roots. They, one might say, embroider patterns that are very different in value and skill, but on the same canvas of a special weave and with the same special set of threads. This unity is the basis and mainly creates national unity. Language is one of the main, characteristic features of a nationality. This is, as it were, the very fabric of nationality, the second, inner homeland, the womb of the soul, in which our consciousness and our personality are born, nurtured and formed...

The attitude of the Russian person, and the Slav in general, to native language, perhaps, is distinguished by its particular completeness and strength of feelings. Slavic languages ​​have still retained great clarity in the structure of words and the transparency of their original, visual meanings - in French or English languages this external and internal thread already very worn out. This makes the Russian language closer and deeper, understandable, awakening a more complete and lively response in the Russian soul. It is not for nothing that the basis of Slavic tribal names is word: Slovenians, Slovins, Slovaks, Slovinians, A language, among the Slavs also meant “people”. Even in Pushkin’s “Monument” this word has the meaning of “nationality”:

Rumors about me will spread throughout Great Rus',

And every tongue that is in it will call me,

And the proud grandson of the Slavs, and the Finn, and now wild

Tungus, and friend of the steppes Kalmyk.

S. I. Ozhegov

A linguistic norm is not an eternal, immobile, frozen category. A linguistic norm is a historically conditioned fact, a manifestation of historical patterns of language development and development trends typical for each era, supported and approved by society in its language practice. It follows that a norm is a set of language means that are most suitable (“correct”, “preferred”) for serving society, emerging as a result of the selection of linguistic elements (lexical, pronunciation, morphological, syntactic) from among coexisting, existing, newly formed or extracted from the passive stock of the past in the process of social, in a broad sense, assessment of these elements.

K. I. Chukovsky

The first and almost the most important ailment of the modern Russian language is currently considered to be its attraction to foreign words.

Indeed, these words can cause an annoying feeling when they are used in vain, stupidly, without any reason for it.

And may Lomonosov be blessed, thanks to whom foreign perpendicular has become pendulum, from outline became drawing, from oxygenium - oxygen, from hydrogenium - hydrogen, A bergwerk turned into mine... And, of course, it’s excellent that such a Russification of words is happening in our days, that airplane replaced with us by plane, helicopter - by helicopter...

But does this mean that foreign terms that have entered Russian speech are always bad in all cases? What and apogee And fiasco, since they are not understood in the village of Akulovka, should they be expelled from our books and articles forever? And along with them an innumerable number of foreign language phrases and words that have long been adopted by our ancestors?.. As soon as we step on this road, we will have to throw overboard such words inherited by Russian culture from ancient Rome and Greece, as republic, dictatorship, amnesty, police, hero, adversary, propaganda, space, atom, grammar, mechanics, notebook, lantern, laboratory etc., etc. And also words formed at a later time from Greek and Latin roots: geometry, physics, zoology, international, industrialization, politics, economics, stratosphere, thermometer, telephone, telegraph, TV...

I don’t think there is an eccentric who would demand that we abandon these most necessary and useful words, which we have long felt as Russians...

A. K. Yugov

“Artistic quality is inherent in the very language of the people. But each of us, a person of any vocation, any career path, is a born, so to speak, “shareholder” of this inexhaustible treasury folk speech. A writer, a poet - they, due to their special talent, which they further improve by tireless work in words, have the subtlest sensitivity to this folk word, the ability to select and purposefully combine. But, I repeat, artistry the very language of the many millions of working masses is filled. Language was created by the people. The writer draws his word from this eternal source. But it also enriches him.

Not only the language of so-called oral literature, that is, legends and fairy tales, songs and proverbs, is saturated with artistry. Everyone knows this! But far from being familiar is the indisputable truth that the production language of millions of people of absolutely all callings, in any field of production, has this artistic quality. material labor...

The language of labor: the language of agriculture, crafts and industry - gives us examples of a wise, artistic combination of precision, materiality, and semantic capacity.

B. N. Timofeev

It is worth talking in more detail about unacceptable ignorance when it comes to nature...

But I want to be understood correctly. Knowledge of words-concepts denoting objects and phenomena, and exact knowledge of the objects themselves and the phenomena that are hidden behind them - this, of course, is not the same thing.

However, when a Russian boy or a Russian girl does not know and, worst of all, does not want to know, the names of, for example, many Russian trees, this is already a deeply distressing phenomenon. And the fact that these same boys and girls know, perhaps, dozens of names of cars or parts of motorcycles and cars, does not in the least “compensate” for their “militant ignorance” regarding their native nature.

And one more note.

No one demands from every person universal knowledge, including knowledge of endless professionalism...

Turgenev, for example, knew the names of all the “knees” of the nightingale’s singing and could by ear distinguish “initiation” from “rolling”, “pulking” from “fanging”, “gander” from “fraction” and “Lesheva’s pipe” from “Yulina’s chirping” . This does honor to Turgenev, but does not in any way detract from the knowledge of, say, Fedin or Sholokhov, if they do not know the names individual parts nightingale song.

But basic knowledge of nature is mandatory for every person...

I write about love for native nature in a book about love for one’s native language. And this is no coincidence: love for native trees, flowers and herbs is inseparable from love for their names, for native speech, for folk proverbs and sayings, to everything that is included in the great concept: Motherland...

D. E. Rosenthal

B. N. Golovin

The linguistic means used in speech must correspond to the style of speech...

You cannot speak in the same words, in the same sentences, with a five-year-old child and with an adult: it is necessary to select linguistic means that correspond to the child’s capabilities and the adult’s level of development; it is impossible to get by with the same set of linguistic means when creating lyric poem and a prose novel. Thus, Pushkin in all his artistic works used the realistic style of Russian artistic speech created and developed by him...

A comparison, albeit incomplete, of the linguistic means used by Pushkin in “The Fairy Tale” and “The Bronze Horseman” convinces us of their noticeable difference. In the “Fairy Tale” the words are very simple, everyday, ordinary, colloquial: old man, old woman, dugout, seine, yarn, mud, thrown and so on.; the definitions here are folk-poetic: blue ocean, gold fish, sweet Nothing etc.; repetition of individual words and entire turns of speech is constantly used; the sentences are constructed very simply, they have no participles and participial phrases, they are very reminiscent of spoken language. In “The Bronze Horseman” other features of speech and other characteristic features appear. The words here are not colloquial, but, as a rule, literary and bookish: thoughts, towered, darkness, head, will, fatal, founded, brow, hidden, this, horse, proud, powerful, ruler etc. Definitions are also literary and bookish: predatory waves, fatal will, proud horse, powerful lord, shocked pavement; the construction of sentences here is much more difficult than in the “Fairy Tale”...

Only a very good knowledge of the language, very great sensitivity and exactingness to the word can save speech from “stylistic” errors, that is, from the use of words, grammatical phrases, intonations in a style where for some reason they turn out to be inappropriate.

L. V. Uspensky

All major languages ​​of the world are divided into local and regional dialects, dialects, and dialects. It is absurd to look down on them, to consider them “ugly” languages, ignorant speech: other “defects” are older and more deserved than many sonorous words modern language. It is from such dialects that it grew in a centuries-long process, this great all-Russian language is our pride and our glory... Have you noticed that almost every profession has a dictionary that is different from the all-Russian one? We know the word “kompas”, and the sailors angrily correct: “kompas”. We know “doby”cha”, and any miner pronounces “dobycha”. You are unlikely to know such words as “oxymoron” or “anacoluth”, which are used by literary scholars. Professionals manage to change even generally accepted grammar: pilots call airplane wings “planes” " Metalworkers, textile workers, transport workers, river workers, all specialties - from handicraftsmen to academicians - add to the all-Russian vocabulary their own special “stash”. Combining with those contained in local dialects, this contribution forms a powerful foundation underlying the literary language, what is called “folk Russian” speech. What is the main difference between a single literary language and all other “languages” (I call them so conventionally)? It is enough for “them” to be a means of communication between fellow countrymen or colleagues, and “his” great task is to unite everyone Russian people, any professions, any parts of the country. “Their” business is local and temporary, “his” task is universal and eternal. It is his life and qualities that we are all concerned about. We always strive to develop for literary language some non-violent “norm” that does not constrain him, which would still govern him. Such a norm, which every Russian should obey with pleasure - after all, it reflects the spirit of his language.

I. L. Andronikov

A bad lecturer is considered to be one who reads with his nose buried in the manuscript he brought from home. But if you print the text of this lecture, it may turn out to be interesting. And it turns out that it is boring not because it is meaningless, but because written speech has replaced live oral speech in the department.

What's the matter? The point, it seems to me, is that a written text acts as a mediator between people when live communication between them is impossible. In such cases, the text acts as a representative of the author. But even if the author here can speak himself, the written text becomes a hindrance in communication...

I do not want to say that living speech cancels written speech. There is no need to recite a diplomatic note, telegram or report, rich in numbers. If an author comes on stage to read a novel, no one expects him to tell it. And it is natural that he will sit down and begin to read it. Both in front of a live audience and in front of an imaginary one - on radio, on television. But the whole point is that a text read or memorized and then pronounced by heart is not the same text, not the same words, not the same structure of speech that is born in direct living speech simultaneously with thought. For writing does not mean “speaking with paper.” And speaking is not the same as saying something written out loud. These are deeply different processes.

You can write an article, a novel, a play while locking yourself away from everyone. But a conversation without an interlocutor will not work. And you can’t give a speech in an empty room. And if you rehearse it, then at the same time imagining the listeners, the specific audience to whom you are going to speak. And yet, at the moment of performance, other colors, other words will appear, phrases will be constructed differently - improvisation will begin, without which live speech is impossible and what distinguishes it so much from written speech.

But what still distinguishes this oral improvisation, in which your thoughts are embodied, from a speech written by you, expressing these same thoughts?

First of all, intonation, which not only clearly expresses the speaker’s attitude to what is being discussed, but can give completely different shades to the same words and endlessly expand their semantic capacity. To the point where the word takes on the exact opposite meaning...

What else distinguishes oral speech? It is always addressed - addressed to a specific audience. And therefore, in principle, it represents the best and shortest way of expressing thoughts in a given specific situation.

The writer imagines the reader. Even if he writes a letter addressed to a specific person. During live communication, you don’t have to imagine the interlocutor or the listener. Even if you are talking on the phone, it is involved in the process of birth of your word. The nature of your conversation depends on his receptivity, preparedness, and interest. If the audience is in front of you, it is easier for you to construct a speech, lesson, lecture. Because you understand who is sitting in front of you: the nature and structure of speech, its “tone” depend on this. It is clear to you how and what to say to this audience. And it’s easy for her to follow your thoughts, because you adapt to her, to the audience, and not she to you.

In oral speech, we can emphasize any word with intonation. And, without changing the order of words, put emphasis on any word, while changing the meaning of the phrase...

This is not enough: oral speech is accompanied by an expressive gesture. When we say “yes,” we nod our heads affirmatively. “No” is accompanied by a negative “shaking” of the head. But other words cannot be said without the help of a gesture. Try saying, “Go there,” without indicating with your finger or movement of your head exactly where you should go. I have not yet spoken about facial expressions, which emphasize and enhance the effect of the spoken word. All the behavior of a speaking person - pauses in speech, carelessly dropped phrases, smiles, laughter, surprised gestures, frowning eyebrows - all this expands the capacity sounding word, reveals more and more new semantic reserves, makes speech unusually accessible, visual, expressive, and emotional.

A. F. Koni

But try to speak well, love and study the greatest shrine of your people - their language. Let it not be your thought that searches for words and, in this search, loses and tires the listeners; let, on the contrary, let the words obediently and obligingly present themselves before your thought at its complete disposal. Come fully armed with the knowledge of what relates to your specialty and what you are called to serve, and then do not lie, that is, be sincere, and you will speak well, or, as the French judicial proverb says “Vous aurez l"oreille du tribunal "Now, after a long life experience, I would add to these words an indication that oratorical techniques are completely different for everyone in general public speeches and that, for example, a judicial orator and a political orator have to act completely differently. Speeches of a political nature cannot serve as models for a judicial orator, for political eloquence is not at all the same as judicial eloquence. Relevant and clever quotes, well-thought-out examples, subtle and witty comparisons, arrows of irony and even the rise to the heights of universal human principles do not always achieve their goal in court. The basis of judicial eloquence lies in the necessity prove And convince, that is, in other words, the need to persuade listeners to join their opinion... The political speaker has the same task as the minister of the arts, although in different forms. He must, in the words of George Sand, “montrer et emouvoir,” that is, illuminate a well-known phenomenon with all the power of his word and, being able to grasp the attitude that is being created among the majority towards this phenomenon, give this attitude an expression that affects the feeling. Number, quantity, space and time, which play such a role in the critical assessment of evidence in a criminal case, only fruitlessly burden the speech of a political speaker. The latter’s speech should not represent a mosaic, not a carefully drawn out picture in all details, but sharp general contours and Rembrandtian chiaroscuro. She must connect together the feelings aroused by a vivid image and give them embodiment in a word that is easy to assimilate and full of content.