quantitative data

Lexical

9 (0,4)

Stylistic

6 (0,3)

Synthetic

5 (0,2)

word-building

2(0,1)

Total

22(1,0)

As the table shows, in which quantitative data are presented in descending order, the most common means of creating a language joke in epigrams

A. S. Pushkin are lexical and stylistic (0.4 and 0.3). In addition, the author often uses a combination of lexical and stylistic means (0.2). The smallest share in our material was formed by word-building means of creating a comic effect (0.1).

list of used literature

1. Bali, Sh. French style / S. Bally. - M, 1961.

Budagov, R. A. Introduction to the science of language / R. A. Budagov. -M, 1965.

Bulakhovsky, L. A. Introduction to linguistics / L. A. Bulakhovsky. - M., 1953.

Vinogradov, V.V. Poetics of Russian literature / VV Vinogradov // Selected works. - M., 1976.

Vinokur, G. O. On the language of fiction / G. O. Vinokur. - M., 1991.

Volskaya, N. N. Language game in the autobiographical prose of M. Tsvetaeva / N. N. Volskaya // Russian speech. - 2006. - No. 4. -S. 30-33.

Gridina, T. A. Language game: stereotype and creativity / T. A. Gridina. - Yekaterinburg, 1996.

8. Dzemidok, B. About the comic / B. Dzemidok. - M., 1974.

9. Dolgushev, V. G. Paradox and means of the comic in V. You-
Sotsky / V. G. Dolgushev // Russian speech. - 2006. - No. 1. - S. 49-51.

Zemskaya, E. A. Speech techniques of the comic in Soviet literature / E. A. Zemskaya // Studies in the language of Soviet writers. - M., 1959.

Kasatkin, L. L. Russian language / ed. L. L. Kasatkina. - M., 2001.

Kovalev, G. F. Onomastic puns by A. S. Pushkin / G. F. Kovalev // Russian speech. - 2006. - No. 1. - S. 3-8.

Kostomarov, V. G. Linguistic taste of the era / V. G. Kostomarov. - M., 1994.

Novikov, L. A. Semantics of the Russian language / L. A. Noviko Pankov, A. V. Bakhtin's clue / A. V. Pankov. - M., 1995.

16. Pokrovskaya, E. V. Language game in the newspaper text /
E. V. Pokrovskaya // Russian speech. - 2006. - No. 6. - S. 58-62.

17. Russian Speaking. - M., 1983.

Sannikov, V. 3. Russian language in the mirror of the language game / V. Z. Sannikov. - M., 2002.

Sannikov, V. 3. Linguistic experiment and language game / V. Z. Sannikov // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 9. Philology. - 1994. - No. 6.

Sannikov, V. 3. Pun as a semantic phenomenon / V. Z. Sannikov // Questions of linguistics. - 1995. - No. 3. - S. 56-69.

Fomina, M. I. Modern Russian language. Lexicology / M. I. Fomina. - M, 1973.

Fomina, M. I. Modern Russian language. Lexicology / M. I. Fomina. - M, 2001.

Khodakov, E. P. Pun in Russian literature of the XVIII century. / E. P. Khodakov // Russian literary speech in the XVIII century: Phraseology. Neologisms. Puns. - M., 1968.

Shmelev, D. N. Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary (based on the Russian language) / D. N. Shmelev. - M., 1973.

sources, dictionaries and accepted abbreviations

Pushkin, A. S. Complete collection. cit.: in 20 volumes - M., 1999-2000

(PSS).

Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language / ed.D. N. Ushakova: v4t.-M., 1996 (TSU).

Dictionary language of A. S. Pushkin: in 4 volumes - M., 1956-1961.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education

"KUBAN STATE UNIVERSITY"

(FGBOU VPO "KubGU")

Department of General and Slavic-Russian Linguistics

BACHELOR'S FINAL QUALIFICATION WORK

Linguistic features of the language game in the speech of a strong linguistic personality

Work completed

4th year student K.N. Zabunova

Faculty of Philology

Specialty 031000.62 philology

scientific adviser

d.f. n., Professor E.N. Ryadchikov

Comptroller

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor V.V. Roan

Krasnodar 2014

Introduction

Linguistic features of the language game in the speech of a strong linguistic personality

1 Understanding linguistic personality in modern linguistics

2 Types and types of linguistic personality (weak, average, strong)

Linguistic studies of the language game

2 Language game definition

4 Criteria and properties, types and methods of the language game

5 Functions of the language game

6 Means and techniques of a language game used in the speech of a strong linguistic personality

7 Basic means and techniques of a language game in the speech of a strong linguistic personality

Conclusion

List of sources used

Introduction

The relevance of the research topic is largely due to the fact that the language game needs a comprehensive study. Currently, many works have been written on the study of the language game in the speech of linguistic personalities. However, there are no specific criteria for assessing a linguistic personality and a unified classification of a language game.

There is a huge number of linguistic personalities, whose language game can become the most interesting material for study. For example, the language of M.M. Zhvanetsky and F.G. Ranevskaya. There are practically no linguistic studies devoted to the linguistic analysis of their work. Meanwhile, the language game in the work of these bright linguistic personalities is diverse and unique. The turns of their speech became popular expressions and quotations. We encounter them on the pages of newspapers, in social networks, in the media, we hear from friends. Their popularity is growing day by day. Collections of their works and statements have been published. The turns of speech of these outstanding people are characterized by a deep meaning, which is not always immediately clear, therefore their linguistic analysis can contribute to the comprehension of both hidden meanings expressed in a playful way, and the personalities themselves.

The object of the study is the speech parameters and features of the speech use of linguistic personalities that can be classified as strong.

The subject of the study was the statements of the Soviet theater and film actress Faina Georgievna Ranevskaya and the modern satirist Mikhail Mikhailovich Zhvanetsky.

The purpose of the study is to identify the features of the language game in the speech of a strong linguistic personality.

The tasks are defined by the goal and boil down to the following:

identify the main means and techniques of the language game used in the speech of a strong linguistic personality;

characterize a weak, average and strong linguistic personality;

determine the main criteria and properties, types and methods of the language game; language game speech Ranevskaya

to study the main functions of the language game;

The methodological basis of the research is the works in the field of studying the language game and linguistic personality of M.M. Bakhtin, V.V. Vinogradov, L. Wittgenstein, V.I. Karasika, E.N. Ryadchikova, V.Z. Sannikov, J. Huizinga and other scientists.

The illustrative material was taken from the book by I.V. Zakharov (Zakharov, 2002), the official site of M. Zhvanetsky and Internet resources. The card index is more than 250 units.

Scientific methods used in the study: component analysis method, descriptive method, semantic analysis method, classification.

The theoretical significance is determined by referring to the concepts of "language game", "language personality", "syntactic-semantic morphology", their development and structuring, as well as the possibility of applying the results achieved in scientific works devoted to the language game in the speech of a linguistic personality.

The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that in linguistics there has not yet been developed a direction that would study the language game in the speech of a linguistic personality from the point of view of syntactic-semantic morphology. This work is one of the first systematic studies in this direction.

The practical value of the study lies in the fact that its materials can be used in teaching university courses and special courses on the theory and practice of speech communication, rhetoric, imageology, speech game, text analysis, syntactic semantics, and also become the basis for further study of the language game in speech. other linguistic personalities.

Approbation of the work was carried out at the annual student scientific conference "Science and creativity of young researchers of KubSU: results and prospects" (April 2012, April 2013).

1. Linguistic features of the language game in the speech of a strong linguistic personality

1 Understanding linguistic identity

A person's speech is his inner portrait. D. Carnegie argued that a person is always judged by his speech, which can tell insightful listeners about the society in which he rotates, about the level of intelligence, education and culture (Carnegie, 1989).

The term "linguistic personality" was first used by V.V. Vinogradov in 1930. He wrote: “... If we rise from the external grammatical forms of the language to the more internal (“Ideological”) and to more complex constructive forms of words and their combinations; if we recognize that not only the elements of speech, but also the compositional techniques of their combinations, associated with the peculiarities of verbal thinking, are essential features of linguistic associations, then the structure of the literary language appears in a much more complex form than Saussure's planar system of linguistic correlations. And the personality included in different of these "subjective" spheres and including them in itself, combines them into a special structure. In objective terms, everything that has been said can be transferred to speech as a sphere of creative disclosure of a linguistic personality ”(Vinogradov 1930, pp. 91-92).

In modern linguistics, the problem of studying a linguistic personality is one of the most relevant, since “one cannot know the language itself without going beyond it, without turning to its creator, carrier, user - to a person, to a specific linguistic personality” (Karaulov, 1987 ). As V.I. Karasik, the science of linguistic personality, or linguopersonology, is “one of the new areas of linguistic knowledge. Yu.N. Karaulov, whose book focused the interests of linguists on the development of the problem of linguistic consciousness and communicative behavior (Karaulov, 1987). The term "linguopersonology" was introduced and substantiated by V.P. Unknown (1996). Linguopersonology as an integrative field of humanitarian knowledge is based on the achievements of linguistics, literary criticism, psychology, sociology, cultural studies (Karasik, 2007).

To date, a global, interdisciplinary approach has been formed to interpret the essence of language as a specific human phenomenon, through which one can understand the nature of the individual, his place in society and ethnicity, his intellectual and creative potential, i.e. to comprehend for oneself more deeply what a Man is (Susov, 1989). As E.A. Dryangin, “ideas concerning the features of this concept were presented in the works of V.V. Vinogradova (“On Fiction”), SlavchoPetkova (“Ezik and Personality”), R.A. Budagova (Man and his language). But in none of these works there is no way out to a real holistic linguistic personality as a linguistic object" (Dryangina, 2006).

For modern science, interest is no longer just a person in general, but a person, i.e. a concrete person, a bearer of consciousness, language, having a complex inner world and a certain attitude towards fate, the world of things and his own kind. He occupies a special position in the Universe and on Earth, he constantly enters into a dialogue with the world, himself and his own kind. Man is a social being by nature, human in man is generated by his life in the conditions of society, in the conditions of the culture created by mankind (Leontiev, 1996). The image of the world is formed in any person in the course of his contacts with the world and is the main concept of the theory of linguistic personality (Samosenkova, 2006).

“The word personality, which has a bright coloring of the Russian national-linguistic system of thought, contains elements of an international and, above all, European understanding of the corresponding range of ideas and ideas about man and society, about social individuality in its relation to the team and the state” (Vinogradov, 1994).

E. Sapir also spoke about the mutual influence of the personality and its speech (Sapir, 1993).

One of the first references to the linguistic personality is associated with the name of the German scientist J.L. Weisgerber. The concept of a linguistic personality began to be developed in detail by G.I. Bogin, who created a model of a linguistic personality, where a person is considered from the point of view of his "willingness to perform speech actions, create and accept works of speech" (Bogin, 1986). The active, active aspect is also emphasized as the most important for a linguistic personality by other scientists: “A linguistic personality is characterized not so much by what it knows in the language, but by what it can do with the language” (Biryukova, 2008). G.I. Bogin understands a linguistic personality as a person as a carrier of speech, who has the ability to use the language system as a whole in his activity (Bogin, 1986). Yu.N. Karaulov: “A linguistic personality is a personality expressed in language (texts) and through language, there is a personality reconstructed in its main features on the basis of linguistic means” (Karaulov, 1987).

The study of linguistic personality is currently multifaceted, large-scale, and draws on data from many related sciences (Krasilnikova, 1989). “The concept? language personality? formed by a projection into the field of linguistics of the corresponding interdisciplinary term, in the meaning of which philosophical, sociological and psychological views are refracted on a socially significant set of physical and spiritual properties of a person that make up his qualitative certainty” (Vorkachev, 2001).

A linguistic personality is a social phenomenon, but it also has an individual aspect. The individual in a linguistic personality is formed through an internal attitude to the language, through the formation of personal linguistic meanings, while the linguistic personality influences the formation of linguistic traditions. Each linguistic personality is formed on the basis of the appropriation by a specific person of all the linguistic wealth created by his predecessors. The language of a particular person consists to a greater extent of the general language and, to a lesser extent, of individual linguistic features (Mignenko, 2007).

Yu.N. Karaulov identifies three levels of linguistic personality: verbal-semantic, linguo-cognitive (thesaurus), and pragmatic (or motivational) (Karaulov, 1987). He speaks “of three ways, three ways of representing a linguistic personality, which is oriented towards linguodidactic descriptions of a language. One of them proceeds from the three-level organization described above (consisting of the verbal-semantic or structural-systemic, linguo-cognitive or thesaurus, and motivational levels) of a linguistic personality; the other is based on the totality of skills, or readiness, of a linguistic personality to carry out various types of speech and thought activities and perform various kinds of communicative roles; finally, the third is an attempt to recreate a linguistic personality in three-dimensional space a) data on the level structure of the language (phonetics, grammar, vocabulary), b) types of speech activity (speaking, listening, writing, reading), c) degrees of language acquisition "(Karaulov , 1987).

So, already from the definitions of a linguistic personality presented by Yu.N. Karaulov, followed by the fact of heterogeneity, the difference in the "qualitative attitude" of linguistic personalities. The scientist wrote: “A linguistic personality is understood as a set of abilities to create and perceive speech works (texts), differing in the degree of structural and linguistic complexity, accuracy and depth of reflection of reality, a certain purposefulness” (Karaulov, 1987). It is quite obvious that not only speech products differ in complexity, but also the indicated abilities of people are different. Accordingly, a linguistic personality should not be considered as something homogeneous, but a certain gradation should be made, a hierarchy of types of linguistic personality should be created. “The very choice of means of designation can be interpreted as a speech act, characterizing, as such, the one who performs this act, according to its personal (intersubjective), interpersonal and social aspects” (Telia, 1986). It follows that the speech acts of the individual are able to differentiate the speaking / writing person. Personality in communication, in communicative discourse can manifest itself “as contact and non-contact, conformist and non-conformist, cooperative and non-cooperative, hard and soft, straightforward and maneuvering. It is the person who is the subject of the discourse that gives the speech act one or another illocutionary force or direction. Personality is an integral part of discourse, but at the same time it creates it, embodying in it its temperament, abilities, feelings, motives of activity, individual characteristics of the course of mental processes” (Zakutskaya, 2001).

A.V. Puzyrev also defends the idea of ​​a multi-level linguistic personality, pointing to such incarnations as mental (the archetypes of consciousness dominating in society), linguistic (the degree of "development and features of the language used"), speech (the nature of the texts that filled time and space), communicative (the ratio of communicative and quasi-communicative, actualizing and manipulative types of communication) (Puzyrev, 1997). This idea is supported and developed by S.A. Sukhikh and V.V. Zelenskaya, who understand the linguistic personality as a complex multi-level functional system, including levels of language proficiency (language competence), proficiency in ways to carry out speech interaction (communicative competence) and knowledge of the world (thesaurus) (Sukhikh, Zelenskaya, 1998). Researchers believe that a linguistic personality necessarily has a feature of verbal behavior (a language trait) that is repeated at the exponential (formal), substantial and intentional levels of discourse. At the exponential (formal) level, the linguistic personality manifests itself as active or conscious, persuasive, hasitive or unfounded; at the substantial level, it has the qualities of concreteness or abstractness; at the intentional level, the linguistic personality is characterized by such features as humorousness or literalness, conflict or cooperativeness, directiveness or decentering (Sukhikh, Zelenskaya 1998). Each of the levels of the linguistic personality is reflected in the structure of the discourse, which has, respectively, formal or exponential, substantial and intentional aspects.

In linguistics, a linguistic personality finds itself at the crossroads of study from two positions: from the position of its ideolecticity, that is, individual characteristics in speech activity, and from the standpoint of the reproduction of a cultural prototype (see: Kulishova, 2001).

2 Types and types of linguistic personality

Linguistic personality is a heterogeneous concept, not only multilevel, but also multifaceted, diverse.

V.B. Goldin and O.B. Sirotinin distinguishes seven types of speech cultures: elite speech culture, "medium literary", literary colloquial, familiar colloquial, colloquial, folk speech, professionally limited. The first four types are the speech cultures of native speakers of the literary language (Goldin, Sirotinina, 1993).

The level division of speech ability (G.I. Bogin, Yu.N. Karaulov) provides for the lower, semantic-combatant, and the higher, motivational-pragmatic, levels, the last of which is characterized by efficiency associated with intellectual activity, as well as with various affects and feelings, developed general and speech culture of a person (Biryukova, 2008). Yu.V. Betz characterizes three levels of language proficiency as “pre-systemic”, systemic and “super-systemic”. “A mistake tends to the first level of language acquisition, intentional deviation from the norm to the third level, and correct speech (and hidden speech individuality) to the second” (Bets, 2009). All linguistic facts can be distributed, the researcher believes, into three categories: 1) errors and shortcomings; 2) the right options; and 3) innovations that testify to the creative use of the language system. “A noticeable predominance of one of the categories indicates the level of development of a linguistic personality, the degree of language acquisition” (Bets, 2009).

N.D. Golev proposes to classify the types of linguistic personality according to the strength and weakness of the manifestation of signs, depending on its ability to produce and analyze a speech work, as “creative” and “hoarding”, “meaningful” and “formal”, “onomasiological” and “semasiological”, “mnemonic”. ” and “inferential”, “associative” and “logical-analytical” types (Golev, 2004). The possibility of expanding the concept of linguistic personality occurred due to the inclusion of the provisions of social psychology about its formation in communication and understood as a "model of interpersonal relations" (Obozov, 1981; Reinvald, 1972).

As V.I. Karasik, linguistic classifications of personalities are built on the relationship of personality to language. There are people with a high, medium and low level of communicative competence, carriers of a high or mass speech culture who speak the same language, and bilinguals who use a foreign language in natural or educational communication, capable and less capable of linguistic creativity, using standard and non-standard means of communication. (Karasik, 2007). At the same time, the degree of competence is presented as a concept that is designed to regulate both successes and failures in the process of communication, since competence is felt both ontologically and phylogenetically (Tkhorik, Fanyan, 1999).

V.P. Neroznak distinguishes two main types of individual human linguistic personality: 1) standard, reflecting the average literary processed norm of the language, and 2) non-standard, which combines the "tops" and "bottoms" of the culture of the language. The researcher refers writers, masters of artistic speech to the top of culture. The lower levels of culture unite the bearers, producers and users of a marginal language culture (anticulture) (Neroznak, 1996).

According to G.G. Infantova, within the limits of the literary language, based on the level of its development, three types of speech cultures are clearly distinguished: the culture is elite (super high), the culture is “average literary” (generally quite high), and the culture is literary-reduced. However, these terms, the researcher notes, are very conditional. Each of the types of speech cultures has subtypes, and between them there are syncretic, intermediate varieties. On the basis of the profession, occupation, linguistic personalities of different types can be distinguished, for example: personalities for whom learning a language, speech activity is an element of the profession (philologists, teachers, actors, announcers, writers, etc.), and linguistic personalities who they implement the language system in speech not as a component of their own professional activity. At the same time, people of the same specialty can speak the language / speech at different levels. Thus, teachers can be carriers of both elite and “average literary” speech culture (Infantova, 2000).

O.A. Kadilina proposes a classification of linguistic personalities, which includes three components: 1) a weak linguistic personality; 2) average language personality; 3) a strong (elitist) linguistic personality (Kadilina, 2011). This classification seems to us the most accurate.

Consider the main parameters of each of these types.

Average language personality

The concept of the average native speaker in the linguistic literature has not yet been defined, the scope of his regional knowledge for any language has not been exhaustively described. (On the "middle level theory" in modern linguistics, see, for example: Frumkina, 1996; Fedyaeva, 2003). There is also no single answer to the question of how much the average native speaker knows about this or that fact. Whether his knowledge is limited to the volume of an explanatory dictionary, to what extent encyclopedic information is presented, where the boundary between individual and social associations is difficult to determine (Ivanishcheva, 2002).

Perhaps the study of the “average” native speaker does not arouse much interest among Russian linguists, not only because of the blurring of the boundaries and criteria for such a person, but also because “in the Russian language, the mediocrity of a person, his averageness, the absence of clear individual traits are negatively assessed; in the cultural and linguistic society of native speakers of the Russian language, the qualitative uncertainty of the personality is negatively assessed - the half-heartedness, the instability of its value-motivational structure" (Zelenskaya, Tkhorik, Golubtsov, 2000).

HE. Ivanishcheva notes that “for? an average native speaker? our contemporary is accepted, having a secondary education (who graduated from school at least ten years ago), without taking into account age, gender, occupation, field of activity (E.M. Vereshchagin), the author of the study (V.Ts. Vuchkova), an average linguistic personality, those. one abstract native speaker instead of a set of individuals in a mass linguistic study (you, me, they, an old man, Napoleon, Mohammed ... in one) (Yu.N. Karaulov). “I think,” writes O.N. Ivanishchev, that the concept of an average native speaker includes two aspects - the content (level) of knowledge and their volume. To determine what the average native speaker should know may mean, on the one hand, the definition of a "minimum of cultural literacy"; what everyone who was born, grew up and graduated from high school in a given country is supposed to know, and on the other hand, what a native speaker really knows” (Ivanishcheva, 2002).

In the article “Correct sounding is a necessary attribute of Russian speech” Z.U. Blagoz addresses all speakers, without exception, rightly speaks of the peculiar speech duty of any native speaker: “So, is it necessary to monitor the correctness of your speech behavior? It is necessary, although it is not easy. Why is it necessary? Because competent speech is needed not only on the stage of the theater, it is needed by everyone who is preparing to communicate with the public. Competent intelligible speech with clear diction is an indicator of a respectful attitude towards both the interlocutor and oneself. True from the point of view of the norm, speech raises our image, authority. Stress is an integral part of our speech culture, compliance with the norms of verbal stress is the duty of every Russian speaker, an indispensable condition for the culture of speech ”(Blyagoz, 2008).

O.A. Kadilina says that in interpersonal speech communication, an average linguistic personality, as a rule, does not think about oratorical skills, what impression her words make, about the comfort of communication, about techniques and means that help to win and retain the attention of the interlocutor (Kadilina, 2011).

G.I. Bogin, developing criteria for determining language proficiency levels, included the following parameters in the language proficiency level model: correctness (knowledge of a sufficiently large vocabulary and basic structural patterns of a language, which allows one to build an utterance and produce texts in accordance with the rules of a given language); internalization (the ability to implement and perceive the statement in accordance with the internal plan of the speech act); saturation (diversity and richness

expressive means at all language levels); adequate

choice (in terms of the correspondence of language means

communicative situation and roles of communicants); adequate synthesis (correspondence of the gesture generated by the personality to everything

complex of communicative and meaningful tasks) (see: Bogin 1975; Bogin 1984; Bogin 1986). The reflection of a number of parameters of a strong linguistic personality is presented, for example, in articles (Abdulfanova, 2000; Infantova, 2000; Kuznetsova, 2000; Lipatov, 2000; Lipatov, 2002).

Weak language personality

E.N. writes about the reasons for the emergence of a large number of weak linguistic personalities and the consequences of this. Ryadchikov: “With many undeniable merits, the policy of the Soviet state, however, was aimed at eradicating the intelligentsia as a class and humiliating it in every possible way. For decades, a stereotype of a dismissive, ironic attitude to culture has been developed. The concepts of "etiquette", "politeness", "rhetoric" and still are considered by many people, if not as bourgeois as at the dawn of Soviet power, then at least abstruse, incomprehensible and unnecessary. However, such denial and ridicule lasts only as long as a person is silently watching someone. As soon as it comes to the need to speak for oneself, especially for a large audience or in front of a TV camera, a conscious or unconscious “self-exposure” begins, the person himself begins to experience inconvenience, and even suffering, even neurotic reactions from the inability to communicate” (Ryadchikova, 2001 (a) ). It is no secret that in our country there are cases when even quite adult, fully formed specialists with higher education do not know the forms of speech etiquette (even such simple clichéd forms as a greeting, an expression of sympathy, congratulations, a compliment, etc. cause difficulty), do not they know how to communicate with elders in age and position (including by telephone), do not consider it necessary to simply listen to another person, and do not know how to read kinetic information. They are afraid or do not know how to resist the impoliteness and rudeness of their opponents. This leads to stiffness, stiffness, fear and avoidance of communication, the inability not only to carry on a conversation in the right direction, to calmly, with dignity defend one’s point of view, but even simply to state it in a form accessible to other people is fraught with conflicts with management and with clients ( ibid.).

In relation to a weak linguistic personality, there is “a mismatch (at the semantic level) between the sign formation, postulated as a text, and its projections (Rubakin, 1929), formed in the process of perception, understanding and evaluation of the text by the recipients” (Sorokin, 1985). Consequently, like a strong linguistic personality, a weak linguistic personality acts both as an author and as a recipient of speech.

The main sign of a weak language personality is poor speech. “Bad (in semantic, communicative, linguistic terms) speech is evidence of unformed cognitive models, the absence of information fragments, the connection between mental and verbal structures. Similarly, can be evaluated and "good" and? average? speech” (Butakova, 2004).

Yu.V. Betz convincingly prove that at the beginning of its formation, a linguistic personality first of all assimilates the language system, and only then - the norm and usage. At the first stage of language acquisition, the structure of the language, its norms and usage have not yet been mastered, which is manifested in the presence of a large number of errors, poverty of speech - in a word, in the rawness of the speech of a particular person. Conventionally, this level can be called "pre-systemic". The specificity of this period is illustrated by children's speech and the speech of people who are learning a second language. Deviation from the norm and custom may be in the nature of an error. At the same time, errors in the generation of an utterance can be due to the complexity of the process of speech generation itself or its failures, then they do not depend on the level of mastery of the language system, its norm or usage (Bets, 2009). S.N. Zeitlin recognizes the “pressure of the language system” as the main cause of speech errors (Tseitlin, 1982).

Since speech communication is the basis (a kind of means of production and an instrument of labor) for a number of humanitarian types of social activity, such as, for example, jurisprudence, teaching, politics, it is so obvious that the specifics of their speech should be comprehensively studied in order to be able to create samples of how norms and “anti-norms” of such communication, to warn people against mistakes that they themselves probably do not notice, but having done, they often discredit themselves as a speaking person, as a specialist (Ryadchikova, Kushu, 2007).

Like a strong linguistic personality, a weak linguistic personality can manifest itself at almost all speech-communicative levels: phonetic (orthoepic), lexical, semantic, phraseological, grammatical, stylistic, logical, pragmatic. However, in this respect, as V.I. Karasik, “it is not so much the hierarchy of levels that is important, but the idea of ​​an inseparable connection between different signals that characterize either prestigious or non-prestigious speech” (Karasik, 2001).

Speech needs constant improvement. D. Carnegie suggests that any speaker can carefully follow the rules and patterns of constructing a public speech, but still make a lot of mistakes. He can speak in front of an audience exactly as he would in a private conversation, and still speak in an unpleasant voice, make grammatical errors, be awkward, act offensively, and do a lot of inappropriate things. Carnegie suggests that every person's natural everyday way of speaking needs many corrections, and it is necessary to first improve the natural way of speaking and only then transfer this method to the podium (Carnegie, 1989).

It is possible to determine the speaker's belonging to a low social stratum of society (which in the vast majority of countries of the world correlates with the concept of a weak linguistic personality) already at the level of pronunciation, intonation. IN AND. Karasik speaks of a low educational level and a provincial origin and lists a number of signs of a "despised pronunciation" (Karasik, 2001). “The pronunciation should not be illiterate, on the one hand, and pretentious, on the other hand” (Karasik, 2001).

Logical disturbances are also a sign of a weak linguistic personality. “Observations show that people tend to lose sight of some essential (most often not categorical, but characteristic) feature of an object for a short time: thereby, the object is to some extent identified in the mind of the subject, as a result of which the subject behaves towards the object A as if it were not-A” (Savitsky, 2000).

Strong language personality

In rhetoric as the art of logical argumentation and verbal communication, the concept of a “strong linguistic personality” usually includes: 1) possession of fundamental knowledge; 2) the presence of a rich information stock and the desire to replenish it; 3) possession of the basics of constructing speech in accordance with a certain communicative plan; 4) speech culture (the idea of ​​the forms of speech corresponding to the communicative plan) (Bezmenova, 1991).

G.G. Infantova notes that the composition of the characteristic features of a strong linguistic personality should include extralinguistic and linguistic indicators. The researcher notes that “in the number of extralinguistic signs of a strong linguistic personality, it is advisable, first of all, to include the social characteristics of the personality (the social activity of the personality should be considered a constant feature here, and the variables are social status, level of education and general development, age, profession and occupation, ideological orientation personality - democratic, anti-democratic, etc.); extralinguistic awareness (permanent features here include the fundamental ability to take into account the speech situation, and variables - the level of ability to take into account all the components and parameters of this situation, including the participants in the communicative act) ”(Infantova, 2000).

Among the linguistic signs, it is necessary to single out the signs of language and speech. They can be fixed or variable.

According to G.G. Infantova, to include knowledge of the means of all language levels, oral and written forms of speech, dialogic and monologue types of speech; means of all styles of speech (meaning their abstract, vocabulary-grammatical aspect; in the terminology of Yu.N. Karaulov - verbal-semantic, zero level of development of a linguistic personality, or associative-verbal network, - units: words and grammatical models, text parameters ) in their normative variety. The composition of permanent speech features includes the implementation of the statement in accordance with its internal program, the possession of all the communicative qualities of speech (accuracy, expressiveness, etc.), the correspondence of the statement as a whole to all parameters of the communicative act, the ability to perceive statements in accordance with such parameters and adequately respond to them. All this applies to both one statement and the entire text (Kadilina, 2011).

Variable speech features include, for example, quantitative and qualitative indicators such as the degree of knowledge of the norms of speech communication, the degree of diversity of the means used, the degree of saturation of the text with expressive means of all language levels, the percentage of deviation from language norms and the percentage of communicative failures, as well as the standard / non-standard speech; simple reproduction of the language system or its creative use, enrichment (Infantova, 2000). In addition, writes G.G. Infantova, when forming a multidimensional model of a linguistic personality, it is advisable to single out constant and variable not only linguistic and speech features, but also features that characterize a linguistic personality from other points of view (for example, from the point of view of activity-communicative needs) (Infantova, 2000).

“Certainly, a strong linguistic personality must know and skillfully apply the whole range of linguistic means that enrich and decorate speech - comparisons, contrasts, metaphors, synonyms, antonyms, proverbs, aphorisms, etc.” (Kadilina, 2011).

The use of symbolic words, from the point of view of E.A. Dryangina, reveals the richness of the linguistic personality. “At the same time, it is obvious that the words-symbols help convey the peculiarities of the worldview and worldview of both the author and the addressee, thereby helping to establish a dialogue both between them and with culture as a whole” (Dryangina, 2006).

A.A. Vorozhbitova, as an example of a strong linguistic personality, names a future teacher of a democratic type, who has ethical responsibility, general educational and professional training and high linguo-rhetorical competence, which ensures effective speech activity in Russian (foreign) language (Vorozhbitova, 2000).

The concept of a linguistic personality includes not only linguistic competence and certain knowledge, but also “the intellectual ability to create new knowledge based on the knowledge accumulated in order to motivate their actions and the actions of other linguistic personalities” (Tameryan, 2006). It follows from this that a strong linguistic personality is incompatible with underdeveloped intellectual activity, that an indispensable condition for a strong linguistic personality is a highly developed intellect. Moreover, Yu.N. Karaulov believes that “a linguistic personality begins on the other side of ordinary language, when intellectual forces come into play, and the first level (after zero) of its study is to identify, establish a hierarchy of meanings and values ​​in its picture of the world, in its thesaurus” (Karaulov, 1987). Therefore, a necessary characteristic of a strong linguistic personality is creativity, as pointed out by Yu.N. Karaulov (1987). Language creativity is understood as the ability to use not only knowledge of the idiomatic component, but also to use language means in an individual or figurative sense (Kulishova, 2001).

A number of linguists interpret communication as a co-creation of meanings (Dijk and Kinch, 1988; Wodak, 1997; Leontovich, 2005). So, for example, A. Schutz writes about the “social world of everyday intersubjectivity” of a communicant, which is built in mutual reciprocal acts of presentation and interpretation of meanings (Cited by: Makarov, 1998). Similarly, the “hermeneutics of the game” by the German culturologist W. Iser, creatively developed by the American scientist P. Armstrong, suggests “an alternately counter-movement of meanings open to each other for questioning” (see: Venediktova, 1997).

Researchers note that the linguistic personality appears in four of its hypostases: personality 1) mental, 2) linguistic, 3) speech, 4) communicative (Puzyrev, 1997). On this basis, it seems quite fair to conclude that “if we expand the area of ​​competence of a linguistic personality, then it, as a person with a decent status, must follow certain principles of not only word usage, but also speech usage, and further - thought usage” (Tkhorik, Fanyan, 1999).

The development of good, competent speech, the ability to explain, convince, defend certain positions is a requirement of modern life.

In the types of speech culture, i.e. the degree of approximation of the linguistic consciousness of the individual to the ideal completeness of linguistic wealth in one form or another of the language, O.B. Sirotinin distinguishes and contrasts such linguistic personalities as the carrier of an elite speech culture in relation to the literary norm, the carrier of a dialectal speech culture, the carrier of urban vernacular, etc. (Sirotinina, 1998). In the 90s of the twentieth century. dissertation research and articles appeared with speech portraits of individual native speakers who own an elite speech culture (see: Kuprina 1998; Kochetkova 1999; Infantova 1999; Infantova, 2000; Infantova, 2000; Isaeva, Sichinava, 2007). To understand such objects, the principle of intellectualism is especially significant (see: Kotova 2008).

IN AND. Karasik believes that we will get a more complete picture of non-standard linguistic personalities if we turn to the study of the speech of not only writers, but also scientists, journalists, and teachers (Karasik, 2002). According to the opinion prevailing in society, “it is the language teacher who should act as the bearer of the elite type of speech culture, master all the norms of the literary language, fulfill ethical and communication requirements? (O.B. Sirotinina), because by the nature of his professional activity he was prepared not only for the use of the language, but also for the comprehension of linguistic facts and the very process of speech activity” (Grigorieva, 2006).

The problem of a linguistic personality as a personality, considered from the point of view of its readiness and ability to produce and interpret texts, has been actively developed in modern linguistic literature since the works of G.I. Bogin and Yu.N. Karaulova. One of the most interesting objects of theoretical understanding here, of course, is the concept of a strong linguistic personality - one for which a significant part of the production of modern artistic discourse is designed, and one that is able to apply adequate orientation strategies in this area of ​​cultural communication. The problem of a strong linguistic personality was mostly covered in relation to the creators of texts - writers, writers, poets (see, for example: Kuznetsova, 2000).

“In general terms, the secrets of speech image can be summarized in the following list. This is knowledge of the basic norms of the language and the rules of rhetoric, the principles of mutual understanding in communication, the rules of etiquette - behavioral, including official, and speech; understanding the essence of persuasion techniques, the ability to qualify (admissible and unacceptable) and correctly apply tricks in a dispute and measures against them, knowledge of methods of counteracting difficult interlocutors; skillful and timely isolation of positive and negative in the psychology of communication, what leads to the emergence of psychological barriers in communication; avoidance of logical and speech errors; the art of drafting normative documents, preparing written and oral speech, knowing the reasons for unsuccessful argumentation, etc.” (Ryadchikova, 2001 (a)).

A speech delivered on the same occasion on the same topic will differ in the mouths of a weak, medium and weak linguistic personality. “Only great word artists are able to subdue - partially and, of course, temporarily - the associative-verbal network of their native language. This is due to the emergence of a double semantic perspective, characteristic of irony, metaphor, symbol" (Zinchenko, Zuzman, Kirnoze, 2003).

2. Linguistic studies of the language game

1 The role of the language game in world culture and the language of works of art

A great contribution to the development of the theory of the language game belongs to the Dutch philosopher I. Huizinga. The game, in his opinion, is older than the cultural forms of society. Civilization comes from the game, not vice versa. Based on the analysis of the meanings of the word “game” in different languages ​​and civilizations, I. Huizinga came to the conclusion that in most of them, “game” has a relationship with struggle, competition, competition, as well as with a love game (forbidden), which explains the trend playing with forbidden topics (taboos) in modern jokes. At the heart of the game is fighting or animosity tempered by friendships. The roots of play in philosophy begin in the sacred game of riddles; the roots of play in poetry are mocking songs teasing the object of ridicule. Myths and poetry were recognized as linguistic games, Huizinga believes that the language game is identical to magic. Despite Huizinga's assertions that the notion of play is not reducible to other terms and is not applicable to the biological approach, it still seems possible to question some of his assertions. For example, his assumption that competition and competition are the basis that prompts the subject to ridicule the object does not apply to all statements.

The language game as operating with linguistic means in order to achieve a psychological and aesthetic effect in the mind of a thinking person is considered by many foreign and domestic scientists (Brainina, 1996; Vezhbitskaya, 1996; Sannikov, 1994; Huizinga, 1997; Bogin, 1998; Nikolina, 1998; Beregovskaya, 1999; Ilyasova, 2000a; Lisochenko, 2000).

In the works of a philosophical warehouse, for example, by J. Huizinga, the language game acts as a private realization of the game as an element of culture. It reveals features that are common with games of sports, music, painting, etc. plan.

Understanding that language is a special sphere of human life, literary critics and linguists devote special studies to the language game. There are works in which the consideration of the game is subordinated to the methods of its implementation. As a rule, the main such device is a pun (Vinogradov, 1953; Shcherbina, 1958; Khodakov, 1968; Kolesnikov, 1971; Furstenberg, 1987; Tereshchenkova, 1988; Luxembourg, Rakhimkulova, 1992; 1996; Sannikov, 1997; Lyubich, 1998 ).

Researchers note that the language game is implemented within the framework of various functional types of language. This can be colloquial speech (Zemskaya, Kitaigorodskaya, Rozanova, 1983; Bondarenko, 2000), journalistic texts (Namitokova, 1986; Neflyasheva, 1988; Ilyasova, 1998, 1986; 2000), artistic speech (Vinokur, 1943; Krysin, 1966; Grigoriev, 1967; Bakina, 1977; Kulikova, 1986; Luxemburg and Rakhimkulova, 1996; Brainina, 1996; Nikolina, 1998; Novikova, 2000; Rakhimkulova, 2000).

It seems that it is fiction that turns out to be the very space in which the language game can be fully realized. Moreover, there are authors who largely gravitate towards the playful manner of conveying thoughts. Artistic speech of the 18th - 19th centuries. realized the possibilities of playing with language means, primarily by creating a comic effect. Linguists note that among the masters of laughter in the Russian classics, A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol. Pushkin has long been considered a recognized master of the pun created by both the clash of meanings and the play of form of expression (Khodakova, 1964; Lukyanov, 2000). It is interesting that puns and - more broadly - in general, the playful manner of constructing a text are also embodied in Gogol not only at the lexical-semantic, but also at the syntactic level. In the second case, it is created by "uncilually interrupted, syntactically helpless speech of characters, coinciding (similar) ends of two or more sentences or phrases, in a funny way emphasizing the object of conversation or characteristics, and unexpected transitions from one key to another" (Bulakhovsky, 1954). Obviously, the language game embodied in Russian literary and artistic texts has its roots in the buffoon culture, the traditions of the Russian folk farce theater, and folklore in general. Without any doubt, game genres include ditties, anecdotes, jokes, tongue twisters, riddles. In the circle of authorized works, as scientists point out, the language of vaudeville is located to it (Bulakhovsky, 1954). The authors of comedies of the 18th century gravitate towards the language game (Khodakova, 1968).

It must be emphasized that the language game involves two fundamentally different forms of existence.

Firstly, one can find literary genres specially designed for its implementation, aimed at drawing the perceiver (reader, viewer) into the creative process, at generating multiple allusions in the recipient, capturing the hidden meanings lurking in the text. This is not only the already mentioned comedy, vaudeville, but also an epigram, a parody, a palindrome, an acrostic.

Secondly, a language game can appear on the pages of works that do not have it in the list of obligatory elements, the unconditional features of the genre. It is this form of manifestation of the language game that depends on the intentions of the author, on the warehouse of his consciousness. It seems to be the most significant in characterizing the writer's idiostyle, the specifics of his linguistic personality. The variety of methods of the language game, the commitment to certain ways of its implementation makes the writer's work individual, unique, and therefore recognizable. game at the lexico-semantic and syntactic level. The paradoxical compatibility of linguistic units is extremely significant for A. Platonov (Bobylev, 1991; Skobelev, 1981). Therefore, he embodies the game in a syntagmatic way.

E. Bern believes that the game has two main characteristics: ulterior motives and the presence of a win (Bern, 1996).

It should be noted that the language game does not mean a mandatory setting for the funny. Apparently, the creation of such texts, where everything is deliberately unclear, should also be considered a kind of language game with the reader. One of the techniques for generating game text with general unclear semantics is called nonsense by researchers. V.P. Rakov notes that nonsense (the absurdity of the meaning created in the text) can exist in different forms, generated either only at the semantic level, or at the formal level, but at the same time has the same goal - the impact on the reader, the work impressions of its paradox. The semantic "darkness" of works containing nonsense prompts the reader, who is forced to seek clarity in the foggy, to activate the thought process. Especially this manner of creating works is characteristic of the literature of the “non-classical paradigm. It consists in "the destruction of the lexical cohesion of the aesthetic statement, its continuity, the deformation of the syntax and the strict optical geometry of the text" (Rakov, 2001).

This fact in modern literature is primarily characteristic of the postmodern direction. It is not for nothing that its representatives operate with the concepts of "world as chaos", "world as text", "double coding", "contradiction", etc. (Bakhtin, 1986). There is an attitude to work with methods of constructing a text, expressive and visual means, and not with meanings. Therefore, the game with language, focused on the use of the potential of language units, becomes an integral part of the texts of postmodernism. This leads to the appearance of works that are characterized by an excessively complex and sometimes confusing construction, which in turn affects the perception of their content (cf.: the works of Borges, Cortazar, Hesse, Joyce, etc.). Such dominance of form over content is determined by the essence of the game as such, its self-sufficiency, which implies “playing for the sake of the game itself”, the absence of any goals that matter outside the playing space.

A. Vezhbitskaya believes that “the game has special purpose or task”, but “this goal does not make any sense outside the game” (Vezhbitskaya, 1996). Thus, we can talk about a game with a form that is achieved by linguistic means (Zalesova, 2002).

The language game is one of the leading communicative categories. It is provoked by emotional categorical situations, which force the communicants into a language game. Any language game is a manipulation of the speaker with the language, which most often pursues a hedonistic goal (getting psychological and aesthetic pleasure). This is also observed in those cases when the language game is ritual, i.e. passes according to known rules, and in those when it is unexpected. In both cases, it must be implemented within the limits of understanding by all communicants, which requires them to have emotional intelligence and emotional / emotive competence. If this is not the case, then an anecdote, for example, or a joke becomes incomprehensible, and between the system values ​​of linguistic signs and their values ​​for the sender and recipient of the joke/anecdote, etc. semantic (emotional) dissonance arises (Shakhovsky, 2003).

2 Language game definition

Yazykova ?I'm game ?(German: Sprachspiel) is a term introduced by Ludwig Wittgenstein in Philosophical Investigations in 1953 to describe language as a system of conventional rules in which the speaker participates. The concept of a language game implies a pluralism of meanings. The concept of a language game comes to replace the concept of a metalanguage.

In "Philosophical Investigations" L. Wittgenstein tried to present the whole process of using words in a language as one of those games with the help of which children master their native language.

L. Wittgenstein called the language game “also a single whole: language and the actions with which it is intertwined” (Wittgenstein, 1997). Thus, it is not so much the cognitive (connection with thinking) as the instrumental (connection with action and influence) function of language that comes to the fore. L. Wittgenstein introduces the concept of a language game as “a single whole: language and the action with which it is intertwined”, and “the term language game is intended to emphasize that speaking a language is a component of activity or a form of life” (Wittgenstein, 1997).

The object of L. Wittgenstein's analysis is ordinary language, which requires a specific form of understanding and comprehension. He believed that the language game, grammar, rule and other "pseudo-concepts" have no definitions, not only de facto, but they are in principle impossible with a non-semantic approach to language. As a consequence, they also do not have clear boundaries. For example, the language game covers everything, extends to any human activity, a person is unthinkable without it. Following the rule, grammar, the form of life, and other “pseudo-concepts” of Wittgenstein only in different perspectives describe the givenness of this language game to us, imperceptibly passing into each other, resisting an attempt to clearly distinguish and outline them.

L. Wittgenstein offers a metaphor for the game: “We call a game very different types of activities, in them we see a complex network of similarities that overlap and intertwine with each other, similarities in large and small, for example, such areas of similarity as entertainment, the presence the winner, the type of skill, etc. Therefore, there is no essence behind the word “game”, the connection between the word and the meaning is carried out as a relationship of “family resemblance”, similarity according to a certain number of signs, and the scope of its concept is not enclosed in any boundaries” (L. Wittgenstein, 1997).

Pointing out that the game is a specific factor of the entire surrounding world, J. Huizinga wrote about the elements of the game in justice and in political life, in war and in art, in philosophy and poetry, in language. Through language, he believed, things rise to the realm of the spirit. While playing, the speech-creating spirit now and then jumps from the realm of the material to the realm of thought. Any abstract expression is a speech image, and according to J. Huizinga, any speech image is nothing but a play on words (Hizinga, 1997). He defines play as a free activity, which is realized "not really" and outside of everyday life. However, she can completely take over the player, does not pursue any material interest, does not seek benefit; free activity, which takes place within a deliberately limited space and time, proceeds in an orderly manner, according to certain rules, and brings to life social groups that prefer to surround themselves with mystery, or emphasize their difference from the rest of the world with all sorts of disguises (Hizinga, 1997).

How the game was considered by the process of “creating” speech (the process of preparation, the actual moment of internal action, theoretical work) M.M. Bakhtin. Inside the game - the work of creating a text - the researcher singled out several stages: an invention, which, in fact, is an internal intellectual game; the disposition, the preliminary judgment of the results of this game, and the expression, so to speak, of the business judgment of this court, formed in words as a deliberative result of its game - preparation. Provided that this internal speech work is skillfully carried out, a person gets the opportunity in a real situation of speech communication, freely playing with the form of this speech communication, to achieve the maximum deliberative effect of the content of this communication. An act (and speech activity is also an act) is considered by M.M. Bakhtin as a creative game in which the rules are overcome to some extent (Bakhtin, 1986).

M. M. Bakhtin is called the creator of the play concept of laughter culture and, moreover, they believe that “it was Bakhtin’s heritage that became the source of most domestic studies of the problem of play” (Isupov, 1971). The scientist refers to the game as "a dream, imagination, a surrogate for life", excluding aesthetic value from it (Bakhtin, 1992).

V.P. Rudnev notes that if we proceed from the understanding of language as a language game as a coupling of “language and the action with which it is intertwined”, then, firstly, the analysis can be carried out only on extremely specific material (actions are always specific), and , secondly, being limited only to specific examples of the use of words, we, in principle, cannot judge the structure of the language, the grammar “in general”, we can state that the grammar of such and such words is approximately the same, and such and such “does with us trick, deceives. Thus, such an approach to the analysis of language, having its own merits, which is evidenced by the rapid development of language pragmatics and other related areas of research based on it, implies a radical uncertainty in understanding the functioning of language games (Rudnev, 1993). “The notion of a language game is based on an analogy between the behavior of people in games as such and in various systems of real action in which language is woven. Their similarity is seen, in particular, in the fact that both here and there it is supposed to be a pre-elaborated set of rules that make up, let's say, the "charter" of the game. These rules define possible combinations of "moves" or actions for a particular game (behavior system or life form). After all, a game without rules is not a game: a sharp change in the rules can paralyze the game. At the same time, the rules define the "logic" of the game in a non-rigid way, variations and creativity are provided for. A system of actions subject to strict rules is no longer a game” (Rudnev, 1993).

S.Zh. Nukhov offers the following definition of a language game: “A language game is such a form of human speech behavior in which a linguistic personality, realizing his linguo-creative abilities, demonstrates his individual style. In a language game, it is important to separate the point of view of the author, the addresser, and the point of view of the recipient, the addressee. Both the one and the other get aesthetic pleasure from the game - the sender of the message from his wit and skill, the recipient from the ability to evaluate the game, the ability to guess an unsolvable, at first glance, linguistic riddle" (Nukhov, 1997). The author believes that “the speaker does not think about the dogmas of the norm and most often does not set himself the specific goals of influencing the addressee of the statement, but is guided only by the desire to express by linguistic means the thoughts and feelings that occupy him at the moment of speech, i.e. it can be said, in the end, that at the same time he clothes his inner world in linguistic forms” (Nukhov, 1997).

So humanity again and again creates its expression of being - the second, fictional, world next to the world of nature, which is a kind of playing field and, on this basis, has much in common with the game.

A language game is a deliberate violation of the norm of a language for a specific purpose. A norm can never be absolutely imperative, "otherwise it would become a law and lose the meaning of a norm" (Mukarzhovsky, 1975). Thus, deviation from the norm can be considered as a tendency inherent in speech activity. This thesis is confirmed by the words of A.G. Lykov, who points out that "speech is capable of any disturbance" (Lykov, 1977). The main thing is that these violations themselves do not violate the fundamental condition of any communication - mutual understanding between the addresser and the addressee. At the same time, as V.G. Kostomarov and A.A. Leontiev, it is necessary to strictly distinguish between the actual non-compliance with the norms of different tiers, leading to various kinds of errors, and the “game” of non-compliance with them, which does not lead to the perception of speech as non-normative, but, on the contrary, can be considered the “highest stage of speech culture” (Kostomarov, Leontiev , 1996). The purpose of such a game is to create an impression of unusualness. It is based on the desire to beat the norm, to build an effect on a collision with it, which leads to a violation of the automaticity of perception.

Exploring the phenomenon of the language game in certain types of texts, L.G. Ponomareva relies on such factors as the creativity of speech and thought activity, the pragmatic orientation of speech activity, and the close relationship between language and culture. Based on the above factors, the language game is determined by L.G. Ponomareva as follows: a language game is a phenomenon of speech and thought activity based on the creative movement of thought, focused on a pragmatic impact on the addressee, implemented through persuasive linguistic techniques that involve non-canonical ways of combining form and meaning in linguistic structures, often using culturally specific concepts (Ponomarev , 2009).

I.V. Tsikusheva offers the following definition: a language game is a conscious and purposeful manipulation of the expressive resources of speech, due to the setting for the implementation of a comic effect (Tsikusheva, 2009).

The game as a concept is recognized as a “wandering”, universal category that belongs to all spheres of human activity and therefore cannot have an unambiguous interpretation (Isupov, 1971). The dictionary refers to the game as a polysemantic word. Among its many meanings, we single out: 2) an occupation, due to a set of certain rules, techniques and serving to fill leisure, for entertainment, which is a sport; 7) a deliberate series of actions pursuing a specific goal: intrigues, secret plans (MAS, 1984).

The language game is one of the representations of the general philosophical concept of the game, a kind of linguistic creativity, a type of speech behavior of speakers based on the deliberate destruction of the speech norm in order to deautomate the stereotypes of speech activity and create non-canonical language forms and structures using means and techniques of various language levels (graphic-phonetic, morphological , lexical, syntactic) for the implementation of a stylistic task aimed at optimizing the mechanism of advertising communication, acquiring expressive meaning and the ability to cause a stylistic effect in the addressee of information as a result of this destruction, and its result is an occasional expansion of the semantics of linguistic signs.

3 Understanding the language game in the various humanities

In linguo-sociological concepts, it is emphasized that the social significance of a language game is that it regulates the behavior of others, relieves boredom and routine, brings joy to its creator, helps a person to cognize reality, including linguistic. The game is involved in the struggle of ideologies, in which such properties of communication as theatricality and dramaturgy are observed, used by the individual to exploit the possibilities inherent in the language for the presentation of human needs.

In linguosemiotics, the interpretation of the game principle of a language is associated with the concepts of non-canonicity, anomaly, creativity, non-normative use of a linguistic sign. From this point of view, the language game is a language experiment, the material of which is linguistic anomalies, and the result is a witty (not necessarily comical) statement (Ponomareva, 2009). Linguistic creativity should be understood based on the recognition of the non-rigidity of the very nature of the language system, the natural ability of the language to change. This property is a manifestation of the basic law of the sign - asymmetric dualism. The concept of asymmetric dualism was introduced by the outstanding Russian linguist and semiotician S.O. Kartsevsky (Kartsevsky, 1965). According to S.O. Kartsevsky, each sign tends to go beyond the limits of the form prepared for it, and the content seeks to find a new form, that is, each sign of the language is potentially a homonym for itself.

Linguistic and stylistic understanding of the phenomenon of the language game is considered "narrow". In this regard, the language game is realized as a free, creative attitude to the form of speech, accompanied by an aesthetic task. In the “narrow understanding”, a language game is a speech phenomenon with a setting for a comic effect, which embodies the cheerful, comical facet of human speech activity. From this point of view, within the framework of traditional stylistics, abnormal phenomena, deviations from the norm - errors in speech practice, reservations, foreign inclusions that are incomprehensible to native speakers, speech defects, various occasional formations, etc. are studied. If such deviations from the norm are intentional or are considered by the addressee as such, then in the traditional style they are defined as a language game, built on the principle of deliberate use of deviant and perceived phenomena against the background of the system and the norm, which serve to create an unexpected, as well as a comic effect ( Ponomareva, 2009).

The inclusion of the game in culture and the game foundations of culture (according to Huizinga) make us pay attention to the role of culturally specific information in the language game. The linguoculturological aspect of the conceptualization of a language game is extremely important for studying the problem of translating language game techniques, in particular, a pun, especially in connection with the problem of incorporating precedent phenomena into a pun - culturally specific nominations that mark objects, events, facts of cultural history that are significant for some linguocultural community. etc.

2.4 Criteria and properties, types and methods of the language game

The types and methods of the language game are described quite fully on the basis of the Russian language. There are attempts to analyze the linguistic essence of the language game. However, the mechanism of the language game is still unknown to science, and the cognitive approach of V.A. Pishchalnikova may be fruitful for the explication of the internal mechanisms of the language game. So far, linguists are working only with their external manifestation (Shakhovsky, 2003).

“Everything and everyone can be tamed, except the language. It is not subject to taming, and the language game with its diversity and endless fantasy is evidence of this” (Shakhovsky, 2003).

An interesting theory of the language game was proposed by V.V. Vinogradov. According to his scheme, a language game consists of two components: a lexical base (basic component) that allows you to start the game, and a “changeling” (resulting component). V.V. Vinogradov identifies the following common features of the language game:

The informative structure of the language game is multicomponent and consists of a set of constant and variable elements. The first includes subject-logical, expressive-stylistic, associative-figurative and functional information. Variable components can be represented by varieties of socio-local and background information.

According to its contextual characteristics, the language game is divided into dominant and language game of limited action. The first contributes to the formation of the leading theme of the work and is usually located in the most significant parts of the text. The second one is involved in the creation of microthemes of the work and contributes to the formation of a limited space of the text. Depending on the connection with the previous or subsequent context, the language game can be divided into inproductive and summarizing types.

Mandatory components of the structure of any play on words are the core (two elements combined or similar in phonetic or graphic form, but different in content), and the basic context that creates the minimum conditions for the implementation of the elements of the core of the language game (Vinogradov, 1978).

5 Functions of the language game

The function of comicality is characteristic of most of all language games. Violation of the rules, conciseness (brevity) of style, surprise and the ability to closely connect different contents with each other in a language game contribute to satisfying<#"justify">Abdulfanova A.A. Strong metalinguistic personality // Language of Education and Language Education: Mat-ly Intern. scientific conf. - Veliky Novgorod, 2000. S.5-7.

Baranov A.G. Forms of the language game // Playing man. Homoludens: language, personality, society. - M.; Tver: Institute of Linguistics RAS. 1999. P.5-11.

Bartley W.W. Language game // Ludwig Wittgenstein: man and thinker. - M., 1993.

Bakhtin. Literary-critical articles. M., 1986.

Bogin G.I. Texts that arose during the language game // Philology-Philologika. - Krasnodar, 1998. No. 14.

Bezmenova N.A. Essays on the theory of the history of rhetoric. - M., 1991.

Bets Yu.V. Speech individuality as a semiotic system (on the material of written speech): author. dis. … cand. philol. Sciences. - Rostov n / a, 2009. - 23 p.

Biryukova T.G. Communicative needs of senior schoolchildren // Problems of Russian and General Linguistics: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr., dedicated Year of the Russian language.- Yelets: Yelets state. un-t im. I.A. Bunina, 2008. Issue. 6. S.155-161.

Blagoz Z.U. Correct sounding is a necessary attribute of Russian speech // Functional and pragmatic features of units of different levels: Sat. scientific articles. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 2008. S. 8-12.

Bogin G.I. The model of linguistic personality in its relation to the varieties of the text: author. dis. … Dr. Philol. Sciences. - L., 1984. 31 p.

Bogin G.I. Modern linguodidactics. - Kalinin, 1980.

Bogin G.I. Typology of text understanding. - Kalinin, 1986.

Bogin G.I. Levels and components of human speech ability. - Kalinin, 1975.

Boldareva E.F. Language game in the headlines of journalistic texts // Linguistic personality: problems of linguoculturology and functional semantics. - Volgograd, 1999. P. 45-50.

Boldareva E.F. Language game as a form of expression of emotions. - Volgograd. 2002.

Bryakin V.V. Language game in the work of V. Aksenov: author. dis. … cand. philol. sciences. - Rostov - n / a, 1980.

Bulakhovsky L.A. Introduction to linguistics. - M. 1954.

Butakova L.O. Language ability - speech competence - linguistic consciousness of the individual // Russian language: historical fate and modernity: II Intern. congress of researchers of the Russian language (Moscow: Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, March 18-21, 2004): Proceedings and materials. - M.: MGU, 2004. S. 13-14.

Buyanova L.Yu. Linguistic personality as a text: the life of language and the language of life // Linguistic personality: explication, perception and impact of language and speech: Monograph. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 1999. S. 47-73.

Vezhbitskaya A. Russian language as opposed to English // Vezhbitskaya A. Language. Culture. Cognition / Ans. ed. and comp. M.A. Krongauz. - M.: Russian dictionaries, 1997. S. 70-73.

Vezhbitskaya A. Language. Culture. Cognition. - M., 1996

Venediktova T.D. American Studies as Communicative Knowledge // Professionals for Cooperation. Issue. 1. - M.: Janus-K, 1997. S. 195-203.

Vinogradov V.V. About artistic prose. - M., 1930.

Vinogradov V.V. Issues of studying phrases (based on the Russian language) // Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1953. No. 9.S. 91-92.

Vinogradov V.V. History of words. - M.: Tolk, 1994.

Vodak R. Language. Discourse. Politics. - Volgograd: Change, 1997.

Vorkachev S.G. Linguoculturology, linguistic personality, concept: the formation of the anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics // Philological Sciences. 2001. No. 1. S. 64-72.

Vorozhbitova A.A. Linguistic-rhetorical paradigm: theoretical and applied aspects. - Sochi, 2000.

Golev N.D. Linguistic personality and anthropotext in linguistics and linguodidactics (typological aspect) // Russian language: historical fate and modernity: II Intern. congress of researchers of the Russian language (Moscow: Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, March 18-21, 2004): Proceedings and materials. -M.: MGU, 2004. S. 15-16.

Goldin V.B., Sirotinina O.B. Intranational speech cultures and their interaction // Questions of stylistics. - Saratov, 1993. Issue. 25. S. 9-19.

Grigorieva A.K. Normative aspects of the formation of the communicative competence of a language teacher // Language and thinking: psychological and linguistic aspects. Materials of the 6th All-Russian. scientific conf. (Ulyanovsk, May 17-20, 2006) / Ed. ed. prof. A.V. Bubble. - M.; Ulyanovsk, 2006. S. 215-218.

Gridina T.A. Associative potential of the word and its implementation in speech: author. dis. ... candidate of philological sciences - M. 1996.

Gridina T.A. Principles of a language game and the associative context of a word in a literary text // Semantics of Languages. units. Report VI Intern. conf. - M., 1998. V.2. pp.239-241.

Gridina T.A. The associative potential of the word and its implementation in speech (the phenomenon of a language game). - M., 1996.

Gridina T.A. Language game: stereotype and creativity. - Yekaterinburg, 1996.

Dijk T.A. van, Kinch V. Strategies for understanding a connected text // New in foreign linguistics. Issue. XIII. Cognitive aspects of language. - M.: Progress, 1988. S. 153-211.

Dryangina E.A. Linguistic personality of the teacher: to the formulation of the problem // Language and thinking: psychological and linguistic aspects. Materials of the 6th All-Russian. scientific conf. (Ulyanovsk, May 17-20, 2006) / Ed. ed. prof. A.V. Bubble. - M.; Ulyanovsk, 2006. S. 219-220.

Zakutskaya N.G. Directive speech acts as a means of characterizing the psychological characteristics of a person // Social power of language. - Voronezh: VGU, 2001. P. 106-112.

Zakharov I.V. Faina Ranevskaya. Cases. Jokes. Aphorisms. M., 2002.

Zelenskaya V.V., Tkhorik V.I., Golubtsov S.A. Semantic dimension of personality according to language (on the basis of phraseological units) // Linguistic personality: structure and evolution: Monograph. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 2000. S. 188-202.

Zemskaya E.A., Kitaygorodskaya M.V., Rozanova N.N. Language game // Russian colloquial speech. Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture. M., 1983. S.172-214.

Zinchenko V.G., Zusman V.G., Kirnoze Z.I. Intercultural communication. Systems approach: Tutorial. - Nizhny Novgorod: NGLU im. ON THE. Dobrolyubova, 2003. - 192 p.

Ivanishcheva O.N. The content of knowledge of the average native speaker (to the question of the representation of culturally connoted vocabulary in bilingual dictionaries) // Problems of Applied Linguistics: Collection of materials of the All-Russian Seminar (December 25, 2002). - Penza, 2002. S. 74-76.

Infantova G.G. On the issue of elite speech culture // Units of the language in the functional and pragmatic aspect. - Rostov n / a, 2000 (a). pp.79-85.

Infantova G.G. P.V. Chesnokov as a bearer of elite speech culture // Language units: logic and semantics. Function and pragmatics. - Taganrog, 1999. S. 9-17.

Infantova G.G. Strong language personality: its permanent and variable features // Speech. Speech activity. Text: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Rev. ed. ON THE. Senin. - Taganrog, 2000 (b). pp.63-69.

Isaeva L.A., Sichinava Yu.N. Elite Linguistic Personality: Strokes to the Portrait of Professor A.G. Lykova // Continuity and discreteness in language and speech. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 2007. S. 18-19.

Kadilina O.A. Strong / weak linguistic personality: communicative and pragmatic characteristics: dis. … cand. philol. Sciences. - Krasnodar, 2011.

Karasik V.I. Speech indication of a person's social status // Essay on the social power of language / Ed. ed. L.I. Grishaeva. - Voronezh: VGU, 2001. S. 37-56.

Karasik V.I. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. - Volgograd, 2002. - 477 p.

Karasik V.I. language keys. - Volgograd: Paradigm, 2007. - 520 p.

Karasik V.I., Prokhvacheva O.G., Zubkova Ya.V., Grabarova E.V. Other mentality. - M.: Gnosis, 2005. - 352 p.

Karaulov Yu.N. Russian language and linguistic personality. - M., 1987. - 263 p.

Karaulov Yu.N. Linguistic personality // Russian language: Encyclopedia. - M., 1997.

Carnegie D. How to win friends and influence people. How to develop self-confidence and influence people by speaking in public. How to stop worrying and start living: Per. from English. / Common ed. and foreword. V.P. Zinchenko and Yu.M. Zhukov. - M.: Progress, 1989. - 720 p.

Kolodko V.M. "... Handling the Russian language is alarming" // Problems of Russian and General Linguistics: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr., dedicated Year of the Russian language.- Yelets: Yelets state. un-t im. I.A. Bunina, 2008. Issue. 6. P.120-122.

Konovalova O.Yu. Linguistic features of the play on words in modern English: author. dis. … cand. philol. Sciences. - M., 2001.

Kochetkova T.V. Linguistic personality of the bearer of the elite speech culture: Ph.D. dis. ... Dr. Philol. Sciences. - Saratov, 1999. - 54 p.

Kotova N.S. Ambivalent language personality: vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics: author. dis. … Dr. Philol. Sciences. - Krasnodar, 2008.

Kuznetsova L.K. The scope of the concept "strong linguistic personality" // Language of Education and Language Education: Mat-ly Intern. scientific conf. - Veliky Novgorod, 2000. S. 164-166.

Kuprina S.V. Oral and written monologue speech of one person: on the material of the author's abstract. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. - Saratov, 1998.

Krasilnikova E.V. Russian linguistic personality and the tasks of its study // Language and Personality. - M., 1989.

Kulishova N.D. Linguistic Personality in the Aspect of Psycholinguistic Characteristics (On the Material of Written Texts): Cand. … cand. philol. Sciences. - Krasnodar, 2001. - 147 p.

Kuranova T.P. Language game in the speech of TV and radio hosts: author. dis. … cand. philol. Sciences. - Yaroslavl. 2008.

Leontiev A.A. Psychology of communication. - Tartu, 1996.

Lipatov A.T. Strong Linguistic Personality and Its Linguistic-Rhetorical Components // Language of Education and Language Education: Mat-ly Intern. scientific conf. - Veliky Novgorod, 2000. S. 185-187.

Literary encyclopedia: in 11 volumes. T. 5. - M .: Publishing House of Kom. acad., 1931.- 784 p.

Lipatov A.T. Domestic rhetoric and its role in the formation of a strong linguistic personality // Linguistic and rhetorical paradigm: theoretical and applied aspects: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Issue. 1 / Ed. A.A. Vorozhbitova. - Sochi: SGUTiKD, 2002. S. 156-164.

Makarov M.L. Interpretive analysis of discourse in a small group. - Tver: Tver state. un-t, 1998.

MAS - Dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes. M., 1981-1985.

Mignenko M.A. Linguistic personality in the space of culture // Modern linguistics: theory and practice. Materials of the 7th Interuniversity. scientific and methodical. conf. Part 1. - Krasnodar: KVVAUL, 2007. S. 132-134.

Mokienko T.G., Nikitina V.M. Big dictionary of Russian sayings. - M: Olma Media Group, 2007.

Nikolina N.A., Ageeva E.A. Language game in modern Russian prose // Semantics yaz. units. Report VI Intern. conf. - M., 1998. V.2. pp.315-317.

Neroznak V.P. Linguistic personology: to determine the status of the discipline // Sat. scientific tr. Moscow state lingu. university Language. Poetics. Translation. - M., 1996. Issue. No. 426.S. 112-116.

Obozov N.N. On the three-component structure of interpersonal interaction // Psychology of interpersonal knowledge. - M., 1981.

Puzyrev A.V. Multi-layered linguistic personality // Linguistic personality: problems of designation and understanding: Proceedings. report and scientific messages. conf. - Volgograd, 1997. S. 113-114.

Reinvald N.I. Psychology of Personality. - M., 1972.

Rubakin N.A. Psychology of the reader and books. - M.-L., 1929.

Rudnev V.P. Man and thinker. - M. 2011.S. 7-9.

Ryadchikova E.N. Speech image in a cross-cultural perspective // ​​Language and national images of the world. Mat-ly Intern. scientific conf. (March 20-21, 2001). - Maikop: ASU, 2001 (a). S.19-21.

Ryadchikova E.N. The role of morphological and syntactic categories in revealing the deep structure and meaning of the utterance // Interaction of languages ​​in the process of translation as a factor of intercultural communication. Anniversary Sat. INEP. - Krasnodar, 2002. S.296-310.

Ryadchikova E.N. Semantic-pragmatic transformations of syntactic models, or the rules of the game against the rules // Quantitative Linguistics and Semantics. Sat. scientific tr. Materials of the Internet conference "QUALISEM-2000" (December 15, 2000 - January 31, 2001). - Novosibirsk: publishing house of NGPU, 2001 (b). Issue. 3. S. 172-175.

Ryadchikova E.N. Semantic-syntactic morphology as an integral component of modern language theory // Studies in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 2009. P.4-50.

Ryadchikova E.N., Kushu S.A. To the question of the classification of common mistakes in the speech of politicians // Actual problems of language education. International scientific and practical. conf. (November 15-16, 2007). - Maikop: AGU, 2007. Vol.2. pp. 86-91.

Savitsky V.M. Pseudo-informative statements (logical aspect) // Linguistic personality: problems of creative semantics. Sat. scientific tr. to the 70th anniversary of Professor I.V. Sentenberg. - Volgograd: VSPU: Change, 2000. S. 115-120.

Samosenkova T.V. Linguistic picture of the world and the formation of the linguistic personality of a foreign student in the process of teaching the culture of professional speech communication // Mova: Scientific and Theoretical Journal of Linguistics. - Odessa: Odessa National University. I.I. Mechnikov. 2006. No. 11. S. 384-387.

Sannikov V.Z. Linguistic experiment and language game // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 9. Philology. 1994. No. 6.

Sannikov V.Z. Russian language in the mirror of the language game. - M., 1998.

Sannikov V.Z. On the history and current state of the Russian language game // Questions of linguistics. 2005. No. 4.S. 160.

Sapir E. Speech as a personality trait // Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies. - M., 1993. S. 285-297.

Sedykh A.P. Linguistic Behavior, Conventional Semantics and National Archetypes // Philological Sciences. 2004. No. 3. P.51-56.

Simutova O.P. Language game in word formation: Ph.D. dis. … cand. philol. Sciences. - Ufa, 2008.

Sirotinina O.B. Sociolinguistic factor in the formation of a linguistic personality // Linguistic personality: sociolinguistic and emotive aspects. - Volgograd - Saratov: Change, 1998. S. 3-9.

Sorokin Yu. A. Psycholinguistic aspects of text study. - M., 1985.

Susov I.P. Personality as a subject of linguistic communication // Personal aspects of linguistic communication. - Tver, 1989.

Sukhikh S.A., Zelenskaya V.V. The representative essence of personality in the communicative aspect of realizations. - Krasnodar, 1997.

Sukhikh S.A., Zelenskaya V.V. Pragmalinguistic modeling of the communicative process. - Krasnodar, 1998.

Teliya V.N. The connotative aspect of the semantics of nominative units / holes. ed. A.A. Ufimtsev. - M.: Nauka, 1986. - 143 p.

Tkhorik V.I., Fanyan N.Yu. Area of ​​competence of the linguistic personality // Linguistic personality: explication, perception and impact of the language of speech: Monograph. - Krasnodar: KubGU, 1999. S. 31-47.

Ushakova T.N. etc. Human speech in communication. - M., 1989.

Ushkalova M.V. Some theoretical foundations for the study of the pun: author. dis. … cand. philol. Sciences. -Kursk, 2002.

Frumkina R.M. "Theories of the middle level" in modern linguistics // Questions of linguistics. 1996. No. 2. S. 55-67.

Fedyaeva N.D. The linguistic image of the average person in the aspect of cognitive categories of gradualness, duality, evaluation, norms (On the lexical and textual material of the modern Russian language): based on the author's abstract. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. - Omsk, 2003.

Huizinga J. "In the Shadow of Tomorrow"//HomoIudens. -M., 1992.

Huizinga J. Article on the history of culture//HomoLudens. - M., 1997.C. 23.

Khodakova E.P. From the history of the Russian pun (second half of the 18th - first third of the 19th century): author's abstract. dis. … cand. philol. Sciences. - M., 1969.

Museum of Art and History. Art Planet SmallBay. URL: http://smallbay.ru/default.html

Zeitlin S.N. Speech errors and their prevention. - M., 1982.- 143s.

Tsikusheva I.V. Phenomenon of a language game as an object of linguistic research: author's abstract. dis. … cand. philol. Sciences. - St. Petersburg, 2009.

Shatrova T.I. Language game in English-language texts of a comic orientation (processes of coding and decoding): Author. dis. … cand. philol. Sciences. - Novomoskovsk, 2005.

Shakhovsky V.I. Game trends in modern Russian // Russian language: historical fate and modernity: P Intern. congress of researchers of the Russian language. - M.: MSU, 2004. S.375-376.

Shakhovsky V.I. Emotional intelligence in the language game. - Tomsk, 2003.

Shakhovsky V.I. Implementation of an emotive code in a language game. - Tomsk, 2008.

Shcherbina A.A. The essence and art of verbal wit (pun). - Kyiv: Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, 1958. - 68s.

Elkonin D.B. The psychology of the game. - M., 1978.

Epshtein N.P. Game in life and art // Soviet dramaturgy. - M., 1982. No. 2.

Tags: Linguistic features of the language game in the speech of a strong linguistic personality Diploma English

For all stylistic figures of speech in the book, the technique of graphic highlighting in the text is used - all expressions built on a language game are highlighted in capital letters. “He just became NOT OWN”. “I always have FREE ENTRANCE!”

The most common game technique in this text is the materialization of a metaphor or phraseological unit. The stable expression is broken into parts and the abstract concept is personified or reified. For example, in the second chapter, the appetite goes hungry, with a lost look, not needed by anyone. You can put him on a chain, make him guard the house. "It's drafty in here," said the Esquire. - What are you, my friend, it seemed to you, there is no one here except the two of us! Pan reassured him. - From this conversation, we see that the draft is mistaken for Mr. Pan for an animated being.

“Such a thought came into his head, or maybe it didn’t even come, but flew in, because it happened in a strong draft, when ...”, - the first thing the author does is insert the phraseological unit “the thought came” into the text. Then the author breaks it down and the abstract concept of thought becomes an actor that can come or fly, and even an external object that is born not in the head, but somewhere outside it.

“Losing my head… Day of Loss!” - the collocation "to lose one's head" is dissected and the word head becomes a lost object, given that Mr. Peng, who is speaking this, works in a lost and found office, then a comedy appears, a language game becomes a language joke. "A mountain has fallen off my shoulders ... - How many times have I asked you not to carry heavy things." The mountain seems to be a kind of object that is carried, carried from place to place, because it is put on a par with “heavy”, in the word heaviness we see furniture, heavy bags, that is, these are heavy things, heavy objects, cargo Big dictionary. http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?word=%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&all=x, which are enough compacts, no one will see a locomotive or a house in the word gravity, and even more so a mountain. But in D. Rubina's text, the mountain, like the head, becomes a literal object, estrangement takes place. (V. Shklovsky. Art as a technique, in his book. On the theory of prose. M., Federation, 1929, 11-12)

Sometimes the game can be based on an unnamed phraseological unit. “Dead silence” is absent in the text, we immediately read in the dialogue the phrase “A minute ago the silence was alive, but now it has died of fear.” As in the previously given examples, the phraseologism was divided into parts and each of the words began to be taken literally, with the word "silence" personification took place.

A literalized phraseological unit or metaphor can be combined with other set expressions or their parts. In the third chapter, after classifying the concept of “vocation” as an object and returning it back to the category of abstract values, the Esquire says with a sigh that “you have to SEARCH, then YOU WILL FIND YOUR CALL”, and you can say that “I FOUND my CALL”.

The position of the stable expression in the context also plays an important role. Sometimes only with the help of a few sentences the meaning of this or that trope is revealed. For example, "it is difficult to find one's vocation", due to the meaning of the previous sentences, takes on a literal meaning. “While I was wandering through the swamps and looking for that idiot Mr. Bull, I suddenly realized ... there is not and cannot be any vocation away from strawberry pudding. .. That's it, sir, I'll tell you - it's very difficult to find your calling. Indeed, while Benjamin Smith was looking for a calling (as a subject), he overcame many difficulties: he wandered through the swamps, remained without strawberry pudding. Esquire really had a hard time. On another occasion, the author writes: “... the journey through the tiles left an indelible mark on Trikitaka's pants. That is, no matter how hard Aunt Trotty tried to smooth out the harmonica on his pants with a hot iron, the mark remained indelible. Thus, if in the first case of the use of the word "indelible" we see an abstract meaning, then the next sentence dispels this impression, making the meaning of the word "indelible" literal.

The author endows rhetorical statements with the literalness of the saying: “I can’t live without him (appetite - N.K.)!” - exclaims Mr. Pan, and this is the absolute truth. A person without appetite stops eating, and without food he dies after a while, that is, one cannot live without appetite. The author returns the postulate of sincerity to phraseology. The same thing happens in the dialogue between Pan and Smith: Mr. Bull will share his experience, - ... do you think he is not greedy? Experience acts as something that can be divided into parts.

In addition to dividing expressions and playing with the words obtained as a result of this articulation, the author often plays with parts of one word - in this case they become independent words; in word game often words are used that are not cognate with respect to independent words obtained from parts of a divided word: “announcement is announcing a phenomenon”, “horizon” becomes a sentence with a verb in the imperative mood and an appeal to the “Gori-Zont” umbrella. In search of a hobby, Peng is going to take up "astronomy", but the Esquire dissuades a friend, arguing that "asters are whimsical."

New words are being created “he landed, or rather COVERED”, from the word offends comes “offensive acid”.

The qualities of homonymy and antonymy give rise to another way of playing with words. "Why don't we take care of the defense environment? “But today is Thursday!” The word Wednesday in the first sentence makes sense - the place of dwelling, in the second sentence - the day of the week. And in contrast to the previously given example, we see in the text the following type of language game - "the note read ... no, it was silent ...". The verb has two meanings, see Big explanatory dictionary. http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?lop=x&bts=x&zar=x&ag=x&ab=x&sin=x&lv=x&az=x&pe=x&word=%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1% 81% D0% B8% D1% 82% D1% 8C, one of which is the antonym of the verb was silent, is played out.

As one of the methods of the language game, the polysemy of words is actively used, which is enhanced with the help of syntax. Such groups of sentences are common, where the sentences follow each other as follows: “... midnight has come. She stepped right on Trikitaka's house." First of all, the author uses the polysemy of the word "has come", and then the syntactic feature - homonyms follow one after another, in sentences that continue each other.

There are many examples in the text when the language patterns established by the author himself can be violated. For example, as we wrote earlier, “he landed, no, or rather, covered himself, because he ended up on the roof” a new word is created (the condition for creation is the place where the main character ended up, the need to create this new word is spelled out in the text), but already in In the next sentence COVERED changes the semantics, “covered up on a weather vane”. Not only the logic of creating an expression is violated, but also the reader's expectations. Such transformations can occur with a word denoting an abstract concept. Also from the previously given examples, we saw that the word “vocation” initially sounds like an abstract concept, then materializes, then turns into an abstraction again (by prescribing a definition by the author) and finally, for the third time, it passes into the world of objects, and as such, it already exists until the end of the chapter.

The stylization of an English literary work is organically reflected in the whole fairy tale, especially clearly manifested in individual episodes. Pan Trikitak's first encounter with Aunt Trotty's dog Lady Emmy Suite is like an English novel. A high syllable is used.

“He stood in front of the booth ... and thought about how best to make himself known .. The lady was silent” (the author achieves the effect of personification by shortening the dog's name). Then events develop rapidly: interrupted, the chain rang (it seems that this is the chain of the order), but the illusion is broken - dragging the chain, the dog got out of the booth, the bulldog pulled.

Separately, it must be said about games based on phonetics. The sound shell of the word is used to describe and emphasize the character of the characters. Starting with a name that sounds expressive. For example, Aunt TroTty. "T-t-t-t-t" - like the rattling of a machine gun, or as an imitation of the sound of a quick conversation. Such is the nature of the aunt: she is talkative, she is straightforward, she always says everything “on the forehead”.

The author finds another opportunity to use phonetics in the phrase often repeated by Benjamin Smith: "The thing must be done." And even one of the chapters is called that. The author plays with the sounds "D-d-d-t" - it's like a measured blow of a hammer, he beat loudly, loudly, loudly and achieved his goal, so he also lightly poked - "th". This is Benjamin Scott's pattern of behavior.

Appetite is consonant with the phrase “this type”, offensive acid offends, here we see a paronymic attraction, when ascorbic acid turned into offensive in the process of speech.

As can be seen from the list, the writer uses a variety of wordplay techniques. Phonetics, syntax, morphology, graphics, semantics - at all these levels of the language the author creates new examples of the language game.