Why we lose language?
What is language? In any textbook there is a standard answer which is learned by heart by many generations of school students: this means of communication. Me from such formulation shakes: to neither mind nor heart. I prefer others.
In - the first, language is a treasure, the treasure which is saved up by many generations for all people and for you personally - take, use. In - the second, it is the tool, but without being able to hold in hand the axe (the tool too), you will not build even the dog doghouse - only you will beat off fingers.
Why twenty years ago this treasure was huge, the vast majority of the Soviet people really owned it , and today our language is so primitive, clumsy and littered with the interjections and mainly derivative of abusive words? Life changed? And language and?
I think, business was so. In the USSR the priority of Russian was an integral part of a state policy. The party nomenclature was obliged to speak with the people the good literary language. Public speeches were prepared, checked, approved and most often became engrossed in reading, but were not said.
In printing editions of a mistake were inadmissible. Any of them was not published without two, and even triple proof-reading checks. The passed mistake - a minimum reprimand, at most discharge from work. My aunt worked the proofreader about 30 years. I did not meet the bigger bore: in my opinion, she did not penetrate into sense of read at all, paying attention only to a form.
The announcer of radio or television who allowed the wrong accent in oral speech risked to be left without work immediately too.
I remember the movie “Diary of the Principal“ when the new teacher the director tested, demanding that that explained on what it is possible to reach school (her predecessor spoke: “òðàíâàé“). Yes that the movie, on my memory the teacher, the Kazakh woman from the province, was betrayed to stigmatization by the pupils who allocated with its nickname “Stulo Fell“.
Conclusion: the speech addressed to people was standard by definition.
The Normativnost of public language played a huge role in formation of speech skills - was a role model, a standard. In a different way it was impossible to speak.
The trouble is in that, it was standard not only in a form, but also according to contents. The Soviet person accurately realized that is possible where it is possible and as it is possible to speak.
People used the nonliterary speech intentionally, is exclusive in an informal situation, when there is no others ears; it was a call, a fig in a pocket.
I remember, somehow time I who only began to work was invited to a close party by experienced colleagues - teachers. I never heard such perfect, masterly mat - to, later. And as it tastefully flew from lips of the refined ladies, the effect was tremendous. Much later I understood that they just came off - it was some kind of protest against tough standards of behavior and the speech which had to correspond both at work, and in life. Noblesse oblige.
The reorganization which abruptly changed life of the Soviet person, censorship including language, cancelled. It became clear that it is possible to tell and write that you want. Later - also as you want. Self-published symbols of “secret freedom“ became available - broke through a dam. Editions of the beginning 90 - x shook years by spelling and punctuation errors (yes god with them, with mistakes, the main thing, I at last can all this it is free buy and read!) .
Today in printing editions there are no such wild mistakes, but Shaltaya - Stirring not to collect any more. Literacy of the speech stopped being the universally recognized norm.
The new generation (and not the first) grew for which informal unrationed conversation which is thoroughly flavored with elements “hair dryer“ - language of criminals, the only structure which remained in Perestroika times became a standard. Unfortunately, our children practically do not read - there is no requirement, so there is no antidote.
Somehow the curious table of comparison of the main lines of functional styles of the speech got to me.
Style of fiction:
1) word usage accuracy degree - 100%;
2) figurativeness degree - 100%;
3) standartizovannost degree - 0%.
Style is colloquial:
1) word usage accuracy degree - 0%;
2) figurativeness degree - no more than 10%;
3) standartizovannost degree - about 85%.
I was indignant: how it is informal conversation and standardized? Same not officially - business language with its ready formulations. And then was forced to agree. Really, it is standardized - both lexicon, and situations, and ready cliches. On a question: “How are you doing?“, the answer one - “Normally!“
I here as (and first of all, for children) not the literary, but spoken language - simplified, deprived of figurativeness and accuracy, abounding with standard formulas became a speech standard for people we have what we have.
Already now for part of school students a problem it becomes simple to understand what is written in textbooks (the truth, sometimes and the adults of it knowing language cannot make, but it is already other problem), to transfer much of them thought by the own words (to retell) not in power, is very difficult to express the relation to something (unless by means of adverbs “abruptly“ or “a sediment!“), they write with the gross blunders. However, abusive language is used to the full extent: in it, in essence, only three roots, but a boundless scope for word formation.
And if the language policy of Russia does not change, it will be worse further. As it is regrettable, the country slowly comes down to the provision of the beginning of the nineteenth century when Russian was purely household, spoken language and to express thought it is more difficult, it was necessary to resort to French.