Methods of language game in Russian. Language game in colloquial speech. List of sources used

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.

Introduction

1. Theoretical background of the study

2. Analysis of the use of various types of language games in speech activity

Conclusion

List of used literature

INTRODUCTION

The study of the language game has a long tradition going back to antiquity. The mention of a play on words, "funny turns of phrase" as a means of joking or "deceiving" listeners is contained in Aristotle's "Rhetoric" (1; pp. 145-147).

In our era, the problem of the language game acquired particular relevance in the 80s, the period of the most effective study of colloquial speech. The first systematic description of the phenomenon of the language game in Russian studies can be attributed to the publication of a collective monograph edited by EL. Zemskoy (14; s172 -214).

The works of E. A. Ageeva, T.V. Bulygina, I.N. Gorelova, T.A. Gridina, N.A. Nikolina, V.Z. Sannikova, K.S. Sedova, A.D. Shmelev (4; 7; 8; 13; 16).

The language game is a multifaceted phenomenon, having at the same time a stylistic, psycholinguistic, pragmatic and aesthetic nature. The versatility of this phenomenon makes it difficult to provide a consistent and exhaustive definition of the language game, not all aspects of which have been sufficiently well studied.

Objective- analysis and description and classification of independently selected factual material - various types of language game extracted from the speech flow.

The language game in speech arises in different ways. In one case, the addresser uses what he already knows, has memorized and skillfully reproduces at the right moment. As a rule, these are well-known formulas that have already become a stamp. We were interested in those situations when a language game (as an interaction between the system and asystem) was created directly at the moment of communication, and attention was paid to an insufficiently studied aspect of the problem - the game at the text level. What is said is determined novelty and relevance of the topic.

Research methods: study of the degree of development of various aspects of the problem in the specialized literature; observation; analysis of the use of various types of language games in speech practice (genres of colloquial speech); classification.

Results: the most productive and some little-studied methods of language game in speech communication are selected and described, the existing classification of types of language game is supplemented.

Efficiency research is determined by the novelty of the presented material; The data obtained can be used to demonstrate the aesthetic resources of the language, embedded at all levels of its organization and implemented in speech, which helps to more fully and comprehensively master the expressive possibilities of the Russian language.

The work on this problem was structured in the following way.

First, theoretical sources on the research question were analyzed, factual material was collected for several months (examples of a language game in colloquial speech) 1 , then a description of practical material was made, which in some cases was supplemented with examples from works of art, where the language game serves as a marker of colloquiality.

The work consists of an introduction, the main part, consisting of two chapters (theoretical and practical), a conclusion and a list of references.

1. Theoretical background of the study

Normativity and expediency are elements of speech culture, which together form speech skills. The ability to correctly and linguistically correctly use normative speech structures, knowledge of language norms is necessary when creating any statement. Human speech activity is based on the use of mainly ready-made communicative units. When creating both prepared and unprepared statements, schemes and clichés are used. Stereotypes of communication, in which language units are linked to typical situations, are manifested at the level of genre forms.

Genre frames are characteristic of various speech forms (dialogical and monologue, prepared and unprepared, official and informal), implemented in various communicative situations:

In real communicative situations (mainly in colloquial speech), there is often a conscious violation of the language stereotype, caused by the desire to draw the interlocutor's attention to the non-standard of one's own speech, as well as the ability to master the associative potential of language units. In this case, it is permissible to talk about the aesthetic elements of everyday everyday communication. The originality of live conversational communication lies precisely in the fact that, due to informality, spontaneity, ease, stencils and standards are combined in it with a clearly expressed attitude towards creativity.

In communication, creativity manifests itself primarily at the level of the language game. The personal experience of the creative nature of the language is greatly enhanced when the word becomes identical to the game. The game function of the language is very important. It frees the subconscious, makes the process of understanding the world free, direct and attractive. “Human culture has arisen and is unfolding in the game, like a game ...” - claims I. Huizinga (19; p. 9),

From a system-linguistic point of view, a language game is considered as an anomaly - “a phenomenon that violates any formulated rules or intuitively felt patterns”, (4; p. 437), “a deviation from the stereotype of perception, formation and use of language units programmed by a language game "(9; p. 9).

As a phenomenon in the sphere of discourse, a language game, according to N.A. Nikolina E. AAgeeva, “suggests the systemic nature of the language (and the systemic nature of its use) as a prerequisite for the implementation of various kinds of derivations, deviations from the “correct” (habitual, communicatively conditioned) construction of language and functioning of speech units" (13; p. 552).

The main communicative task of the speaker using the language game is the intentional removal from the word, verbal reflection both in the mind of the addresser and in the mind of the addressee of the speech.

As the philosopher Th. Lipps, the language game in speech gives us "contrast of ideas", "meaning in nonsense", "confusion due to misunderstanding and sudden clarification". "Contrast arises, for example, due to the fact that we recognize a certain meaning behind words, which, however, we cannot then recognize for them again" (quoted from: 18; p. 7).

To appreciate the funny, you need the ability to analyze, reason, compare.

The game presupposes a mandatory orientation to the communicative situation, which has signs of ease, informality. The language game serves as a marker of colloquialism, since the listed signs “refer to the components of a communicative act that form colloquial speech. In other words, colloquial speech creates optimal prerequisites for the emergence of a language game, however, the language game itself becomes ... a sign of a certain communicative situation - a situation of easy communication” (13; p. 353).

Psychologists consider the game one of the main properties of human culture. The authors of the textbook "Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics" I.N. Gorelov and K.F. Sedov consider the game as an activity that does not pursue any clearly expressed specific practical goals: "The purpose of the game is to give pleasure to the people who take part in it." Researchers offer the following definition of the phenomenon under consideration: “Language game is a phenomenon of speech communication, the content of which is an attitude to the form of speech, the desire to achieve effects similar to the effects of artistic literature in the utterance” (7; p. 180). Such effects are comic in nature.

The language game has a setting for comic effect. In this context, the ideas present in the works of M.M. Bakhtin about the informal nature of laughter, which creates a “familiar festive collective”, opposing any official “seriousness”, are very indicative. “Real laughter,” the researcher noted, “does not negate seriousness, but purifies and replenishes it. It cleanses from dogmatism, one-sidedness, ossification, from fanaticism and categoricalness, from elements of fear or intimidation, from didacticism, from naivety and illusions, from bad one-dimensionality and from unambiguity ... ”(3; p. 17).

The mechanism of the comic can manifest itself in the implementation of illocutionary components: jokes, witticisms, jokes, puns, ridicule, irony. The comic effect reduces the distance in interpersonal communication, contributes to the decoding of hidden irony, the perception of a joke.

The basis of the comic is certainly some kind of contradiction, the unification into one whole of several representations that are alien to each other in their inner content. On this occasion, the philosopher Th. Visher and the poet Jean Paul figuratively remarked: “Wit - this is a disguised priest who crowns each couple ... He most willingly crowns the couple whose union the relatives are intolerant of” (according to 18; p. 7). The language game contains no logical necessity, but it liberates and unravels the thought process.

The discoveries made by the participants in the communicative situation push the limits of the imagination, encourage creative search, cultivate the ability to listen and hear, and develop the speed of reaction to the word. The effect of suddenness and surprise in the linguistic discoveries made enhances their impact on the addressee, and the humorous coloring, the desire for a joke make them understandable and accessible.

The language game develops a linguistic instinct, the ability to think logically, listen and hear, emancipation in handling concepts, ease and joy from communication.

2. Analysis of the use of various types of language games in speech activity

Let us consider the frequency methods of generating a language game, and we will dwell on both well-studied methods of transforming language units, and on insufficiently studied ones.

A productive way of a language game is an experiment on the sound form of words that are not the same in meaning, generating various kinds of sound writing in the text, for example:

BUT. Did you hear what he said?

B. He didn't say anything... The head is empty, and the post is behind him... I didn't waste time in vain. (discussion of the results of the TV show) .

It can be assumed that at the moment of speech production, alliteration is not felt by the speakers as a game. However, word articulation in vain already used intentionally.

Often, playing is achieved by combining the phonetic similarity of the reference word and the "occasional" formation. The combination of such words also acts as a means of rhythmizing speech, for example:

BUT. Wait five minutes, you won't die.

B. And he will not be this fish. Grandfather carp brought him a whole package.

BUT. Carp aras. Everything has already been devoured.

(conversation in the speech situation of feeding a cat).

In this example, the desire for rhyme ( crucian...) suggested to the speaker a word from the Mordovian language ( aras), whose meaning - no.

The distortion of the phonetic shell of the word occurs by rearranging the syllables:

BUT. Well, let's go. You will be on time. We'll go right there and go along the way.

B. Well, okay, whatever.

BUT. Why! (speech genre of persuasion).

This technique has a stable reflection. This use keeps the memory of another repetition (from children's speech), since it is correlated with speech defects that are quite common in young children. (aircraft - salamot, albom - abl, Alma - Amla, wheel - koselo, etc.)

Frequency playing at the level of homophonic associations, indicating the blurring of the boundaries of the word in the speech stream, the ambiguous definition of the language form. The game can be based on the primary false perception of the boundaries between the units of the statement. Such is the child's involuntary perception of units, for example: “Man and the Law” (Man from the Windows), appeasement (he died of jam), whether there will be more (Tolya will still be). The inherent possibility of erroneous interpretation of the content of the utterance during homophonic re-decomposition creates a special technique of the language game, for example: During the day we will bend ... in the evening we will disperse (in the afternoon with fire).

From the mountain ... even ... slowly ... we are going ... Skiing today is not rolling ... Not skiing ... And not the hypotenuse ... (conversation on a ski trip).

The effect of double interpretation depends to a large extent on how easily different meanings words or phrases and how efficient the transition from one meaning to another is.

Let's take examples from literary texts.

1. The mouse promises to tell Alice a sad story and suddenly cries out:

Scoundrel!

About the tail? Alice is surprised. - A sad story about a tail?!

Nonsense! - angry mouse. - Forever all sorts of nonsense! How tired I am of them! This is simply unbearable!

What needs to be taken out? - asks Alice, always ready to serve (L. Carroll. Alice in Wonderland)

2. When we were little, - said Kwazi, - we went to school at the bottom of the sea. Our teacher was the old Turtle. We called him Sprutik.

Why did you call him Sprutik, Alice asked, if in fact he was a Turtle?

We called him Sprutik, because he always went with a twig Quasi answered angrily. (L. Carroll. Alice in Wonderland)

An infrequent in our examples, although a very famous case of the language game is the game based on the collision of homographs.

Well, they perform ... Ours on the beans generally remained on the beans. (discussion of the results of competitions in bobsleigh).

A recognized means of word play is the clash in the text of homonyms proper (full and incomplete), the meaning of which is often specified in the context.

Football players leave without goals... They probably played without goals too, with only their feet, that's why there are no goals. (post-match comment).

Polysemantic words are played .

A vivid example of such a game can serve as an anecdote:

"How are things going?" the blind man asked the lame man. “As you can see,” the lame answered the blind(joke).

I wanted to sleep longer, right before dinner. And then morning came first, then - dog. No one took a walk, and she could not stand it anymore.(lamentation situation).

polysemantic word step on allows the speaker to create a playful alogism.

We dance on Friday. In pairs. Let's share. Anton, don't sleep. Will you share? Will you? Bring what you will share (announcement and invitation to action).

The deliberate use of ambiguity to create a play on meanings is called a pun. Pun is one of the most famous types of language game.

Contaminations based on the substitution of consonant (associative correlative) lexemes in the composition of an expression reveal a tendency to combine paronomases.

... And who invented blinds to close the pipe? Did you come up with? Yes, it's just a new how ! (the situation of discussion and evaluation of repairs in the apartment). The game was obtained by replacing paronomases in English: know – how; InouI and new.

Often (especially in children's speech) word-formation reactions based on false etymologization or situational conditionality of words (fern - mamorotnik, folder - mother).

1. A . Give me that black folder, please.

B. But this white mother?(request).

2. A. Papazol, buy more ... there won’t be enough money ... take it there ... Well, hurry up, I have no time! ..

B. We'd better buy Mamazol then. (the situation of the genre of request growing into the genre of order and the perception of this genre).

ON THE. Teffi in the story "Cause and Effect" plays this kind of language game like this:

Aunt Alexandra received a second letter about the picnic and was offended.

And yet they have nonsense in their heads! Picnics yes micnics! No, about the old woman

ask about health.

Auntie knew that there was no such word - "micnik", - but, like a rich old woman, sometimes she allowed herself a lot of superfluous things. (N.A. Teffi. Causes and effects)

The comic effect is achieved in the following case as a result of playing with morphemes.

BUT. What were you doing there. Did everyone sing there?

B. We danced. And the soloists sang... And the soloists (talk) .

The possibilities of a language game based on deviations from the norms at the level of morphological categories are great. I'll sing, just a little later. “You want songs. I have them."(quoting a well-known example of a language game in a situation promises).

For dreams come true!(philologist's toast).

Among the transformations of the grammatical structure of the word is a change in the gender of the noun:

R

Intrusion into the sphere of set expressions - a change in their components - is also the source of the appearance of a game in speech.

Where did my backpack go? Such a big backpack... And just yesterday a pool cap... Like a cow blowing everything away with the wind . (situation of searching for missing things).

At first he kept diving somewhere... Now he warmed himself in the sun like... a cat in the seventh heaven... and hears nothing. (reprimand).

The examples given can be interpreted in different ways. Contamination of phraseological units can be caused, for example, by ignorance of their components.

So the team decided... You're the tastiest link.

In this example, a deliberate intrusion into the sphere of stable expression is revealed.

The ability with amazing speed to connect into one whole several representations that are alien to each other in their internal content, manifests itself in cases where components of different semantic content are lined up in one row (words that are remote in meaning, combined at the sentence level (syntactic level) and related to one basic nuclear word (rhetorical figure of zeugma).

As a textbook example, here is a sentence: I drank tea With young lady, lemon and pleasure (according to: 7; p. 194).

From what we have recorded:

Fell from a tree in the forest. Why climbed... Up there, it was like a birdhouse, only big... In the emergency room, my shoulder and brains were adjusted. (story-remembrance).

Only grandma is at home now. He hung everything: a bag, a hat, noodles on

ears and left. (the action is represented by past tense forms of verbs, and the situation hypothetically refers to the future - the advice genre).

Such constructions are often used by writers. For example, A.P. Chekhov:

He had a stick with a knob and a bald head.

The same construction in children's speech is an unintentional violation of the norm, causing a smile:

On Sunday we visited Sveta. I liked the jelly, gifts and mom with contests.

Our camp is not quite in the forest, on the edge. We have a lot of berries, snakes and Belarusians.

In Russian studies, games at the level of genre forms have not been sufficiently studied, although such examples are found. MM. Bakhtin noted the possible "parodic-ironic re-accentuation" of genres, that is, the transfer of genre forms from the official sphere to the familiar sphere (M. M. Bakhtin's term). With the help of various techniques, parodies are created, works that make fun of the content of other, “serious” works. So, for example, a philosophical Japanese three-line haiku (haiku) poem, for example:

New Year's holiday.

I am sad and happy.

I remember autumn.

played like this:

New Year has come...

Carefree faces of passers-by

They lie here and there.

ringing drop

announced themselves again

Upstairs neighbors.

The text structure of the ditty in the following example includes the content of the genre of assessment of the student's preparation for lessons.

There is a magazine on the table

And in the magazine a deuce.

Why don't you learn

Are you lessons, Olka? (Literature lesson)

There was a case of designing conversational content according to the laws of the reporting genre:

Everyone rejoices and rejoices... Such an achievement cannot but be noted. How long have you all been waiting for this! Are we going to have a switch?

CONCLUSION

The conducted research allows to draw the following conclusions.

1. Ability to play - an important indicator of the level of human development. The very principle of the language game, assuming a departure from the standard, requires the mastery of certain methods of generation and use of language units in a function unusual for them.

2. The language game affects all levels of the structure of the language.

3. A language game in speech always implies the personality of the speaker, performing the function of characterizing the author of the speech as a qualified native speaker and as a creative person. If there are a lot of errors and shortcomings in the speech of the addresser, an attempt at a language game can be perceived as another mistake.

4. The effect produced by the language game also depends on the level of the addressee's linguistic culture. If the language potential of the communicants does not match, the response may not be emotionally colored enthusiasm, but misunderstanding.

6. The language game is different from children's and unconscious "adult" word creation. It is based on a deviation from stereotypes while realizing the normativity of these stereotypes.

7. The language game always involves orientation to a specific communicative situation.

8. The originality of thought is clearly felt in original expression. But when using such constructions, it is important to show a sense of proportion, the ability to subtly feel the nuances of a speech situation.

The value of the game cannot be exhausted by its entertainment-reactive application. This is its phenomenon, that, being entertainment, it is able to grow into training, education, creativity, a model of the type of human relations.

In a disturbed person, touched by the game, he awakens: everything is not just like that. Everything is much more alive and inexplicable than it seemed, thought and thought.

Research prospects may be associated with further study of the "parodic-ironic re-accentuation" of genres, that is, the transfer of genre forms from one sphere to another, in our case - unofficial, "familiar" (the term of M. M. Bakhtin); with a comparison of various types of language games in colloquial (spontaneous) and artistic (thoughtful) speech.

List of sources used

1. Aristotle. ancient rhetoric. Moscow: Moscow State University, 1978, pp. 145-147.

2. Yu. Borev. Aesthetics. M.: Izd-vo politich. literature. 1988. 496s.

3. Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979.

4. Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Language conceptualization of the world. M., 1997.

5. Galimova L.M. Language - game - creativity //Rus. lang. at school. 1991. - No. 1. From 8-13.

6. Golub I.B., Rozental D.E. Entertaining style: a book for students in grades 8-10 of high school. M.: Education, 1988. 208s.

7. Gorelov I.N., Sedov K.F. Fundamentals of psycholinguistics: Tutorial. M.: Labyrinth, 2001304s.

8. Gridina T.A. Language game in children's speech // Rus. lang. at school. 1993. No. 4. pp. 61-65,

9. Gridina T.A. Language game: Stereotype and creativity. Yekaterinburg, 1996.

10. Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997-1999. Issue. 1-2.

11. Zhinkin N.I. Language - speech - creation. M., 1998. Kazartseva O.M. Culture of speech communication: theory and practice of teaching. M.: Flinta-Nauka, 1998. 496s. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990. 686s.

12. Mikhalskaya A.N. Fundamentals of rhetoric. M.: Education, 1996. 416s. Nikolina N. A. Types of inter-genre interaction // Russian language today: Collection of articles. Issue. 1. M., 2000, 596s. P.540-550.

13. Nikolina N.A., Ageeva E.A. Language game in modern Russian prose / Russian language today: Collection of articles. Issue. 1. M., 2000, 596s, S.551-561.

14. Russian colloquial speech: General issues. Word formation. Syntax. M., 1983.

15. Russian language and culture of speech / Ed. IN AND. Maksimova, M., 2001. 250s.

16. Sannikov V.Z. Russian language in the mirror of the language game. M., 1999.

17. Sirotinina O.B. What and why should teachers know about Russian colloquial speech. M.; Enlightenment - Educational literature, 1996. 176s.

18. Freud 3. Wit. D.: Intern, 1999 - 352 p.

19. Huizinga I. In the shadow of tomorrow. - M., 1992.

20. Encyclopedia for children. T. 10. Linguistics. Russian language. M., 1998. S.533.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

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:

1. The informative structure of a 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.

2. 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.

3. 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).

Functions of the language game

The function of comicality is characteristic of most of all language games. Violation of the rules, conciseness (briefness) of style, surprise and the ability to closely connect different contents with each other in a language game contribute to the satisfaction of forbidden or blocked impulses (impulses of aggression, sexuality and play). The recipient tends to follow an argument based on violations of the norm in order to re-evoke the psychic source of pleasure through rational objection. The power of impact and originality make the language game a rhetorical means of motivation. The language game, as a stylistic means, naturally refers to poetic word usage, quite often to the work of one poet. If poetry is understood as a linguistic expression of the individual subjective perception of the poet's world, then it becomes obvious that the language game with its widespread and at the same time compressed use of linguistic material and linguistic rules becomes one of the classic rhetorical means in poetic expression (Sannikov, 1999).

In addition to the universal characteristics of the language game, the set of functions that the language game performs in the text can also be considered universal for all languages ​​of the world. The most important and general functions of the language game, according to N.A. Nikolina, are the following: 1) expressive function (providing an emotional impact on the addressee); 2) stylistic function (creation of stylistic devices in the text); 3) attractive (attracting the attention of the addressee); 4) sense-forming (creation of new content (meaning) due to the unusual use of language); 5) aesthetic (setting on the novelty of the form, shifting the emphasis from what is being said to what the cbk is talking about); 6) entertainment (the desire to entertain yourself and your interlocutor) and 7) the function of creating a comic effect (Nikolina, 2000).

The functions of the language game vary by genre. As for radio and television programs of an entertaining genre, they primarily implement the following functions of a language game: comic (creating a playful mood), entertaining (the desire to entertain yourself and your interlocutor), hedonistic (the hedonistic nature of the game is manifested in the use of a language game for the pleasure of the process itself, as well as its result), softening (softens speech, eliminates the seriousness of the tone, thereby attracting the interlocutor), expressive (language game serves to convey thoughts more subtle and accurate, for figurative and expressive transmission of the message), aesthetic ( installation on the novelty of the form, shifting the emphasis from what is said to how it is said) (Kuranova, 2008).

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

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

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

BACHELOR'S FINAL QUALIFICATION WORK

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

Krasnodar 2014

Introduction

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

1.1 Parameters and criteria for a strong linguistic personality

1.1.1 Understanding linguistic personality in modern linguistics

1.1.2 Types and types of linguistic personality (weak, average,

1.2 Linguistic studies of the language game

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

1.2.2 Language game definition

1.2.3 Understanding the language game in the various humanities

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

1.2.5 Functions of the language game

1.2.6 Means and techniques of the language game used in speech

strong linguistic personality

1.2.7 Methods and techniques of linguistic study of the language game

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 hidden meanings expressed in game form, and individuals 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:

Define the language game;

Identify the main means and techniques of the language game,

used in the speech of a strong linguistic personality;

To characterize a weak, average and strong linguistic personality;

Determine the main criteria and properties, types and methods of the language game;

To study the main functions of the language game;

statements by M. Zhvanetsky and F. Ranevskaya.

The methodological basis of the study 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. Karasik, E.N. Ryadchikova, V.Z. 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 strong speechlanguage personality

1.1 Parameters and criteria for a strong linguistic personality

1.1. 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, 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 "quality

relation" 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 standpoint of its ideolecticity, that is, individual characteristics in speech activity, and from the standpoint of the reproduction of a cultural prototype (see Kulishova, 2001).

1.1.2 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, professional-limited. The first four types are 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 elitist 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. Is his knowledge limited to 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 - component of our speech culture, compliance with the norms of word stress is the duty of every speaker of Russian, 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 (variety and richness of expressive means at all language levels); an adequate choice (in terms of the correspondence of the language means of the communicative situation and the roles of the communicants); adequate synthesis (correspondence of a gesture generated by a person to the whole 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). 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 learns first of all

system of the language, 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).

(Ibid.). In the speech of a weak linguistic personality, the expressions “and all that”, “and the like” are often found, acting as a detail and abstraction (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 a 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 countering 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 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).

1.2 Linguistic studies of the language game

1.2.1 Rolelanguagegamesinworldcultureandlanguage 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 sacred game in riddles, the roots of the game 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. It can be colloquial speech (Zemskaya, Kitaygorodskaya, 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, 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 types, generated either only at the semantic level, or at the formal level, but at the same time has the same goal - to influence the reader, to impress with its paradoxicality. 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. language game personality speech

Similar Documents

Levels of secondary language personality. The totality of human abilities and characteristics that determine the creation and perception of speech texts, which differ in the degree of structural and linguistic complexity, depth and accuracy of reflection of reality.

presentation, added 04/13/2015


The basis of the concept of the internal lexicon. Elements of sensory, figurative, motor and sensory memory present in the linguistic memory itself. The two-layer nature of the method of fixing information is verbal and non-verbal. The concept of the mental lexicon.

abstract, added 08/22/2010


Theoretical foundations of the problem of memory development, the concept of "memory" in the psychological and pedagogical literature. Features and conditions for the development of memory of younger students in the process of studying language theory. Experimental work on memory diagnostics.

term paper, added 04/24/2010


The study of the development of speech in the first years of a child's life. The role of the family in the process of shaping the child's language skills. Orders and assignments. Development of speech understanding. The most common speech disorders of a preschooler and ways to overcome them.

term paper, added 08/06/2013


Characteristics and main provisions of the theories of the game: K. Groos, Boytendijk, E. Arkin, P. Rudik, A. Usov. History of the role movement. Role behavior of a person as a subject of psychology study. The study of the personality of the role player, analysis and evaluation of the results.

thesis, added 11/19/2010


The main types of ethnic groups. Geographical and linguistic description of the ethnosphere. The population and states of Asia. The peoples of the Turkic group of the Altaic language family. Ethnic facets of personality. Features of the national character. The specificity of the people of Azerbaijan.

abstract, added 10/31/2009


The value of speech for the development of children's thinking and the entire mental formation of the child. The psychological content of the plot role play preschooler. The development of the intellectual function of language in children. Formation of monologue and dialogic forms of speech.

thesis, added 02/15/2015


The problem of mastering language analysis and synthesis in children with speech disorders. Background and structure of language analysis and synthesis. Functional basis for the development of written language, reading and writing skills. Study of lexical-syntactic analysis.

term paper, added 12/03/2013


Disclosure of the concept and essence of the game as the most accessible view activities for children. theories gaming activity in domestic pedagogy and psychology. Psychological and pedagogical features of the game and its significance in the formation of the personality of a preschooler.

test, added 04/08/2019


Theories of the formation of play activity, its importance for the child. Conditions for the emergence of game forms. The basic unit of the game, its internal psychological structure. Man, his activities and the relationship of adults to each other, as the main content of the game.