Methods of language play in Russian. Research work "Analysis of the language game in the epigrams of A.S. Pushkin." § Gaming techniques are used to create original advertising. The originality of advertising begins to be associated with the originality of the advertised

The game is a phenomenon in which interest has arisen since antiquity. Even Plato, in his project for an ideal state, expressed theoretical propositions about the game.

In general, the creation of the theory of the origin of play and the functioning of language belongs to Ludwig Wittgenstein. The Austrian philosopher, logician, linguist, was the founder of the term “language game”, which he introduced in “Philosophical Studies” in 1953, according to which any type of activity related to language is a game.

Ludwig Wittgenstein asks the question: “What is common to all games?” and makes sure that any of the potential signs turns out to be inapplicable to some types of games. A language game, in his understanding, is not what people do when they want to have fun. L. Wittgenstein was the first to notice that people communicate not only with narrative sentences, but also give orders, describe objects, put forward and test hypotheses, etc. Those. There are countless types of sentences, and all of this is included in human language: “... there are infinitely diverse types of use of all that we call “signs,” “words,” “sentences.” And this multiplicity does not represent something stable, given once and for all; on the contrary, new types of language or new language games arise, while others become outdated and forgotten...” Thus, according to L. Wittgenstein, all human life is a collection of language games.

In modern linguistics, there are many interpretations of the concept of the term “language game”. The most fundamental study on language games is the book by V.Z. Sannikova “Russian language in the mirror” language game" In it, the author considers a language game as a type of linguistic experiment. He notes that “a language game, like the comic in general, is a departure from the norm, something unusual.” V.Z. Sannikov also draws attention to the fact that this deviation from the norm must be clearly understood and intentionally allowed by the speaker (writer), and the listener (reader), in turn, must understand that this is “on purpose.” In order not to evaluate this expression as a mistake, he thereby accepts this game and tries to reveal the deep intention of the author.

Any speaking in which more or less attention is paid to the form of speech will be a language game. But the goals of this game can be very different, depending on the specific task. For an adequate understanding of the language game by the addressee, the author must take into account the presence of certain knowledge of the recipient, as well as the cultural space in which communication takes place. A language game does not pursue specific practical goals other than pleasure and relief from boredom. Moreover, this property is considered one of the main ones. The pleasure from the game is received not only by the recipient, but also by the author himself, who, with the help of language games, achieves the effect of extreme sharpening and clarification of the meaning. The absence of a goal gives rise to the absence of a result planned in advance by the goal, which gives the game dynamism, concluding its meaning not in the end, but in the movement itself.

Functions of the language game.

In addition to pursuing certain goals, the language game also pursues certain functions.

Kurganova E.B. in his monograph “The Game Aspect in Modern Advertising Text,” he identifies 8 functions of a language game:

- aesthetic function, which consists in a conscious desire to experience and evoke in recipients a feeling of beauty through the very form of speech;

– Gnostic function aimed at generating a new model of the world by re-creating already existing linguistic material;

– hedonic function, its essence is to entertain the recipient unusual shape speeches;

– pragmatic function aimed at drawing attention to the original form of speech;

– the expressive function serves as a more figurative, and, accordingly, more subtle transmission of thought;

– the visual function helps to visually recreate the speaking situation, as well as in some way characterize the person whose words are being conveyed;

– occasionally researchers highlight the poetic function of language games, because “When playing, the speaker pays great attention to the form of speech, and the focus on the message as such is a characteristic feature of the poetic function of language”

– a camouflage function that puts on a “mask” of decency, prudence and logic on any obscene, cynical or even absurd text. Among other functions of a language game, they usually indicate the desire to entertain oneself and the interlocutor.

As most researchers note, the most important function of a language game is comic. The versatility of a language game and its focus on achieving a certain effect determines the widespread use of language games in various types of discourse. (LANGUAGE GAME: THE CURRENT STATE OF THE ISSUE Dedushkina Tatyana Aleksandrovna, senior lecturer. National Academy of the Security Service of UkraineStudia Linguistica. Issue 6/2012)

Types of language games.

In the language of advertising, violations of language norms may be allowed if this is necessary to enhance the impact. Violations of the norm, leading to the creation of expression in advertising text, are a characteristic feature of modern advertising texts. In building gaming style advertising involves multi-level language means - phonetic, graphic, lexical, morphological, word-formation, syntactic. Almost all modern advertising texts are characterized by the use of various gaming techniques in all their diversity, which in itself is directly related to the fact that initially the essence of advertising lies precisely in attracting the attention of recipients. To create effective advertising text, you need to know and be able to apply in practice the rules of text construction. Well-constructed argumentation skillful use linguistic manipulation, an appropriately used advertising slogan will allow the advertising message to influence the consumer and achieve the goal. Consequently, language play can manifest itself at different structural levels of language.

· Graphic techniques.

Graphic distortions create the possibility of “double” reading of one phrase. One of the graphic techniques is font selection. Font selection is often accompanied by a violation of the rules for writing phrases and sentences. Graphic techniques in the language game help increase the capacity of advertising text.

· Phonetics.

At the phonetic level, creators of advertising texts most often use various sound repetitions: alliteration, anaphora. Phonetic language play can also be carried out in the form of imitation of a certain manner of pronunciation in human speech, imitation of sounds made by animals. Phonetic techniques of language play in advertising are not common, but their use allows you to play up certain shades of the advertised product and add expressiveness to the text.

· Vocabulary.

In advertising text, expressiveness is the most important component. Expressiveness can be achieved through various lexical devices - epithets, homogeneous members, synonyms. Another important component of advertising text is ambiguity, which allows you to convey maximum amount information in a minimum period of time. The use of polysemy serves as fertile material for creating puns and for transferring the meaning of a word. Such artistic techniques as personification, metaphor, oxymoron, and opposition are based on polysemy. They all perform very well in advertising.

· Morphology.

At the morphological level, language play is based on a conscious violation of the morphological perception of lexical units. Sometimes language jokes are played on by allowing a word to be cut into parts; there is also a play on the category of person of the verb (using one person instead of another), etc.

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 language games has a long tradition dating back to antiquity. Mention of word play, “amusing verbal turns” as a means of jokes or “deception” of listeners is contained in Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” (1; pp. 145-147).

In our era, the problem of language games acquired particular relevance in the 80s, the period of the most effective study of spoken language. The first systematic description of the phenomenon of language games in Russian studies can be attributed to the publication of a collective monograph edited by EL. Zemskoy (14; p172 -214).

The work of E. A Ageeva, T.V. had a significant influence on the study of the problem. Bulygina, I.N. Gorelova, T.A. Gridina, N.A. Nikolina, V.Z. Sannikova, K.S. Sedova, A.D. Shmeleva (4; 7; 8; 13; 16).

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

Goal of the work– analysis, description and classification of independently selected factual material - extracted from the speech stream of various types of language games.

Language play in speech occurs 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 cliché. We were interested in those situations when a language game (as the interaction of systemic and asystemic) was created directly at the moment of communication, and attention was paid to an insufficiently studied aspect of the problem - game at the text level. What is said is determined novelty and relevance of the topic.

Research methods: studying 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 techniques of language games in verbal communication have been selected and described, and the existing classification of types of language games has been 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 capabilities of the Russian language.

Work on this problem was structured in this way.

First, theoretical sources on the research question were analyzed, factual material was collected over the course of several months (examples of language play in colloquial speech) 1, then practical material was described, which in some cases was supplemented with examples from works of fiction, where language play serves as a marker of colloquialism.

The work consists of an introduction, a 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 that together form speech mastery. 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 cliches are used. Stereotypes of communication, in which linguistic units are linked to typical situations, appear at the level of genre forms.

Genre frameworks are characteristic of various speech forms (dialogue and monologue, prepared and unprepared, official and unofficial), implemented in various communicative situations:

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

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

From a systemic 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 programmed by a language game from the stereotype of perception, formation and use of language units "(9; p. 9).

As a phenomenon in the sphere of discourse, a language game, according to N.A. Nikolina E.Aageeva, “presupposes the systematicity of language (and the systematicity 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 the functioning of speech units" (13; p. 552).

The main communicative task of a speaker using a language game is deliberate detachment from the word, verbal reflection both in the minds of the addresser and in the minds of the addressee of the speech.

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

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

The game presupposes a mandatory orientation towards a communicative situation that has signs of ease and informality. The language game serves as a marker of colloquialism, since the listed features “relate to the components of the 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 relaxed communication” (13; p. 353).

Psychologists consider play to be 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 a type of activity that does not pursue any clearly expressed specific practical goals: “The goal of the game is to bring 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 orientation towards the form of speech, the desire to achieve in utterance effects similar to the effects of artistic literature” (7; p. 180). These kinds of effects are comic in nature.

The language game is intended to have a comic effect. In this context, the ideas present in the works of M. M. Bakhtin about the unofficial nature of laughter, which creates a “familiar festive group” opposing any official “seriousness,” are very indicative. “True laughter,” the researcher noted, “does not deny seriousness, but cleanses and replenishes 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 and the perception of a joke.

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

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

The language game develops linguistic flair, the ability to think logically, listen and hear, freedom 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 frequency techniques for generating a language game, and we will focus on both well-studied methods of transforming linguistic units and insufficiently studied ones.

A productive way of language play is to experiment with the sound form of words of different meanings, generating various kinds of sound writing in the text, for example:

A. Did you hear him say?

B. He didn’t say anything... His head was empty, and the post was behind him... He didn’t waste time. (discussion of the results of the TV show) .

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

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

A. If you wait five minutes, you won't die.

B. And he won’t eat this fish. His grandfather brought him a whole package of crucian carp.

A. Crucian carp. I've already devoured everything.

(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 value - No.

Distortion of the phonetic shell of a word occurs by rearranging syllables:

A. Well, let's go. You will be on time. We'll go straight there along the way.

B. Well, okay, whatever.

A. Why! (speech genre of persuasion).

This technique has stable reflection. This use preserves the memory of another repetition (from children’s speech), since it is correlated with speech defects that are quite common in young children (plane - salamot, album - ablom, Alma - Amlya, wheel - mow, etc.)

Frequent play on the level of homophonic associations, indicating the blurring of word boundaries in the speech stream, ambiguous definition of linguistic form. The game may be based on a primary false perception of the boundaries between units of utterance. This is the child’s involuntary perception of units, for example: “Man and the Law” (The Man from the Windows), peace (died from jam), or whether there will be more (Tolya will still be there). The inherent possibility of erroneous interpretation of the content of an utterance during homophonic re-arrangement creates a special technique of language game, for example: During the day we will bend... in the evening we will straighten up (in the daytime with fire).

We're going down the mountain... even... slowly... Skis aren't rolling today... Not a leg... And not a hypotenuse... (conversation on a ski trip).

The effect of double interpretation depends largely on how easily different meanings of words or phrases are grasped and how effectively the transition from one meaning to another is achieved.

Let us give similar examples from literary texts.

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

Scoundrel!

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

Nonsense! - the mouse is angry. - Always all sorts of nonsense! I'm so tired of them! This is simply unbearable!

What should you take away? - asks Alice, always ready to serve (L. Carroll. Alice in Wonderland)

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

Why did you call him Octopus, asked Alice, if in fact he was the Turtle?

We called him Octopus, because he always walked with a twig- Kwazii answered angrily. (L. Carroll. Alice in Wonderland)

Infrequent in our examples, although a very well-known case of a language game is a game based on the collision of homographs.

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

A recognized means of play on words is the collision in the text of homonyms themselves (complete and incomplete), the meaning of which is often clarified in the context.

The football players are leaving without goals... They probably also played without goals, with just their feet, that’s why there are no goals. (post-match commentary).

Polysemantic words are played on .

A striking example of such a game is the following joke:

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

I wanted to sleep longer, right before lunch. And then first the morning came, then - dog. No one came for a walk, but she couldn’t stand it anymore.(situation of explanation-complaint).

Polysemous word step on allows the speaker to create a humorous illogic.

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 of meaning is called a pun. Pun is one of the most famous types of language games.

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

...And who came up with the idea of ​​blinds to cover the pipe? Did you come up with it? Yes, this is just a new how ! (situation of discussion and assessment of repairs in an apartment). The game was obtained by replacing paronomases in English: know – how; InouI and new.

It is not uncommon (especially in children’s speech) for word-formation reactions to be based on false etymologization or situational conditioning of words (fern - mammy, folder - mother).

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

B. But this white mother?(request).

2. A. Papazol, buy more... there’s not enough money... take it there... Well, hurry up, I don’t have time!..

B. It’s better for us to buy mamazole then. (the situation of the genre of request growing into the genre of order and the perception of this genre).

ON THE. Teffi’s story “Cause and Effect” plays on this type 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

really ask about your health.

The aunt knew that there was no such word - “micniks” - but, like a rich old woman, she sometimes allowed herself a lot of unnecessary things. (N.A. Teffi. Causes and effects)

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

A. What were you doing there? Was everyone singing there?

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

There are great possibilities for language games based on deviations from norms at the level of morphological categories. 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).

Here's to making your dreams come true!(philologist's toast).

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

R

Invasion into the sphere of set expressions - a change in the components included in them - is also the source of the emergence of games in speech.

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

At first he kept diving somewhere... Now he’s basking in the sun like... a cat in seventh heaven... and doesn’t hear anything. (blame).

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 are the most delicious link.

This example reveals a deliberate intrusion into the sphere of stable expression.

The ability with amazing speed to connect into one whole several ideas that are alien to each other in their internal content, manifests itself in cases when components of different semantic content are lined up in one row (words distant in meaning, combined at the sentence level (syntactic level) and related to one supporting nuclear word (rhetorical figure 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 recorded:

Fell from a tree in the forest. Why did you climb... Up there it was like a birdhouse, only big... At the emergency room they set my shoulder and brains back in place. (story - memory).

Only grandma is home now. Hung everything: bag, hat, noodles on

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

Similar 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 that causes a smile:

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

Our camp is not exactly 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 do occur. MM. Bakhtin noted the possible “parody-ironic re-emphasis” of genres, that is, the transfer of genre forms from the official sphere to the familiar sphere (M. M. Bakhtin’s term). Using various techniques, parodies and works are created that make fun of the content of other, “serious” works. So, for example, the philosophical Japanese three-line poem haiku (haiku), for example:

New Year's holiday.

I'm sad and happy.

I remembered autumn.

plays out like this:

New Year arrived...

Carefree faces of passers-by

They lie here and there.

A ringing drop

They announced themselves again

Neighbors upstairs.

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

There is a magazine on the table,

And in the magazine there is a deuce.

Why don't you learn everything?

Do you have lessons, Olka? (Literature lesson)

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

Everyone rejoices and rejoices... Such an achievement cannot but be celebrated. How long everyone has been waiting for this! Will our switch really work?!!

CONCLUSION

The conducted research allows us 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, implying a departure from the standard, requires mastering certain techniques for generating and using language units in a function unusual for them.

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

3. Language play 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 the addressee’s speech contains many errors and shortcomings, an attempt at language play may be perceived as another mistake.

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

6. Language play differs from children’s and unconscious “adult” word creation. It is based on deviation from stereotypes while realizing the normativity of these stereotypes.

7. A language game always presupposes an orientation toward 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 sense the nuances of a speech situation.

The value of the game cannot be exhausted by its entertaining and reactive application. This is the essence of its phenomenon: being entertainment, it can develop into learning, education, creativity, and a model of a type of human relationship.

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

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

List of sources used

1. Aristotle. Ancient rhetoric. M,.: MSU, 1978, pp. 145-147.

2. Yu. Borev. Aesthetics. M.: Political publishing house. literature. 1988. 496 p.

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

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

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

6. Golub I.B., Rosenthal D.E. Entertaining stylistics: a book for students in grades 8-10 of secondary school. M.: Education, 1988. 208 p.

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

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

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

10. Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997-1999. Vol. 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. 496 p. Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1990. 686 p.

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

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

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

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

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

17. Sirotinina O.B. What and why does a teacher need to know about Russian colloquial speech. M.; Enlightenment - Educational literature, 1996. 176 p.

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

19. Huizinga I. In the Shadow of Tomorrow. - M., 1992.

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

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

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

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 GRADUATE THESIS

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

Krasnodar 2014

Introduction

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

1.1 Parameters and criteria of 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 language games in world culture and the language of works of art

1.2.2 Definition of a language game

1.2.3 Understanding the language game in various humanities

1.2.4 Criteria and properties, types and methods of language games

1.2.5 Functions of the language game

1.2.6 Means and techniques of language games used in speech

strong linguistic personality

1.2.7 Methods and techniques for the linguistic study of language games

Conclusion

List of sources used

Introduction

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

There are 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 works of these bright linguistic personalities is diverse and unique. Their turns of speech became catchphrases and quotes. We encounter them on the pages of newspapers, in in social networks, media, we hear from friends. Their popularity is becoming more and more every 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, so their linguistic analysis can help to comprehend the hidden meanings expressed in game form, and the individuals themselves.

The object of the study is the speech parameters and features of speech use of linguistic individuals who 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 language play in the speech of a strong linguistic personality.

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

Define a language game;

Identify the basic means and techniques of language games,

used in the speech of a strong linguistic personality;

Characterize a weak, average and strong linguistic personality;

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

Study the main functions of the language game;

statements by M. Zhvanetsky and F. Ranevskaya.

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

Illustrative material was extracted from the book by I.V. Zakharov (Zakharov, 2002), the official website of M. Zhvanetsky and Internet resources. The card index contains more than 250 items.

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”, “linguistic personality”, “syntactic-semantic morphology”, their development and structuring, as well as the possibility of applying the achieved results 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 linguistics has not yet developed a direction that would study language play 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 play, text analysis, syntactic semantics, and also become the basis for further study of language play in speech other linguistic personalities.

The work was tested at the annual student scientific conference “Science and creativity of young researchers at KubSU: results and prospects” (April 2012, April 2013).

1 Linguistic features of language play in strong speechlinguistic personality

1.1 Parameters and criteria of a strong linguistic personality

1.1. 1 Understanding linguistic personality

A person’s speech is his inner portrait. D. Carnegie argued that a person is always judged by his speech, which can tell discerning listeners about the society in which he moves, 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 language to 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 signs of linguistic associations, then the structure of the literary language appears in a much more complex form than Saussure’s flat system of linguistic relationships. And the personality, included in different of these “subjective” spheres and itself including them, combines them into a special structure. In objective terms, everything that has been said can be transferred to speech as the sphere of creative disclosure of the linguistic personality” (Vinogradov, pp. 91-92).

In modern linguistics, the problem of studying linguistic personality is one of the most pressing, since “it is impossible to know the language itself without going beyond its boundaries, without turning to its creator, bearer, user - to a person, to a specific linguistic personality” (Karaulov, 1987 ). As V.I. writes Karasik, the science of linguistic personality, or linguopersonology, is “one of the new areas of linguistic knowledge. Yu.N. is rightfully considered the founder of this trend in Russian linguistics. 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, and cultural studies" (Karasik, 2007).

To date, a global, interdisciplinary approach to the interpretation of the essence of language as a specific human phenomenon has been formed, through which one can understand the nature of the individual, his place in society and ethnicity, his intellectual and creative potential, i.e. understand more deeply for yourself what a Man is (Susov, 1989). As E.A. Dryangin, “ideas concerning the characteristics of this concept were presented in the works of V.V. Vinogradova (“About artistic prose”), SlavchoPetkova (“Ezik and personality”), R.A. Budagova (Man and his language). But none of these works provides access to a real, integral linguistic personality as a linguistic object” (Dryangina, 2006).

For modern science, the interest is no longer just a person in general, but an individual, i.e. a specific person, a bearer of consciousness, language, with a complex inner world and a certain attitude towards fate, the world of things and others like him. He occupies a special position in the Universe and on Earth; he constantly enters into dialogue with the world, himself and his own kind. Man is a social being by nature, the human in man is generated by his life in the conditions of society, in the conditions of the culture created by mankind (Leontyev, 1996). The image of the world is formed in any person during his contacts with the world and is the basic 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 collective and the state” (Vinogradov, 1994).

E. Sapir also spoke about the mutual influence of a person and his speech (Sapir, 1993).

One of the first appeals to the linguistic personality is associated with the name of the German scientist J.L. Weisgerbera. G.I. began to develop the concept of linguistic personality in detail. Bogin, who created a model of linguistic personality, where a person is considered from the point of view of his “readiness to perform speech acts, create and accept works of speech” (Bogin, 1986). The active, activity aspect is 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 speaker of speech who has the ability to use the language system as a whole in his activities (Bogin, 1986). A similar understanding is given by Yu.N. Karaulov: “A linguistic personality is a personality expressed in language (texts) and through language; it is a personality reconstructed in its main features on the basis of linguistic means” (Karaulov, 1987).

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

Linguistic personality is a social phenomenon, but it also has an individual aspect. The individual in a linguistic personality is formed through internal attitude to 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 characteristics (Mignenko, 2007).

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

So, already from the definitions of linguistic personality presented by Yu.N. Karaulov, followed by the fact of heterogeneity, differences in “qualitative

attitude" of linguistic personalities. The scientist wrote: “A linguistic personality is understood as a set of abilities to create and perceive speech works (texts), differing in the degree of structural and linguistic complexity, accuracy and depth of reflection of reality, a certain purposefulness” (Karaulov, 1987). It is quite obvious that not only speech productions differ in complexity, but also the indicated abilities of people are different. Accordingly, the 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” (Teliya, 1986). It follows that a person’s speech acts are capable of differentiating the speaker/writer. A 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 personality, who is the subject of discourse, that gives the speech act one or another illocutionary force or direction. A personality is an integral part of discourse, but at the same time she creates it, embodying in it her temperament, abilities, feelings, motives of activity, individual characteristics of the course mental processes"(Zakutskaya, 2001).

A.V. Puzyrev also defends the idea of ​​a multi-level linguistic personality, pointing to such hypostases as mental (the dominant archetypes of consciousness in society), linguistic (the degree of “development and characteristics of the language used”), speech (the nature of the texts that fill 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 (linguistic competence), knowledge of ways to carry out verbal 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 (linguistic trait), which 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, hesitive or unfounded; at the substantial level it has qualities of concreteness or abstractness; at the intentional level, the linguistic personality is characterized by such traits as humorous or literal, conflict-oriented or cooperative, directive or decentered (Sukhikh, Zelenskaya 1998). Each of the levels of linguistic personality is reflected in the structure of discourse, which has, respectively, formal or exponential, substantial and intentional aspects.

In linguistics, a linguistic personality finds itself at the crossroads of study from two positions: from the position of its ideolecticity, that is, individual characteristics in speech activity, and from the position of 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 multi-level, but also multifaceted and diverse. V.B. Goldin and O.B. Sirotinin distinguishes seven types of speech cultures: elite speech culture, “average literary, literary-colloquial, familiar-colloquial, vernacular, folk-speech, professionally limited. The first four types are the speech cultures of native speakers of a literary language (Goldin, Sirotinina, 1993).

The level division of speech ability (G.I. Bogin, Yu.N. Karaulov) provides for the lower, semantic-structural, and higher, motivational-pragmatic, levels, the latter 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-system”, system and “super-system”. “An error gravitates towards the first level of language acquisition, intentional deviation from the norm - towards the third level, and correct speech (and hidden speech individuality) - towards the second” (Betz, 2009). All linguistic facts can be distributed, the researcher believes, into three categories: 1) errors and omissions; 2) correct choices and 3) innovations that demonstrate creative use of the language system. “A noticeable predominance of one of the categories indicates the level of development of the linguistic personality, the degree of language mastery” (Betz, 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”, “substantial” 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 on its formation in communication and understood as a “model of interpersonal relationships” (Obozov, 1981; Reinwald, 1972).

As noted by V.I. Karasik, linguistic classifications of personalities are based on the relationship of personality to language. We distinguish people with high, medium and low levels of communicative competence, carriers of high or mass speech culture, speaking one language, and bilinguals who use a foreign language in natural or educational communication, capable and less capable of language creativity, using standard and non-standard means of communication (Karasik, 2007). At the same time, the degree of competence seems to be a concept that is designed to regulate both successes and failures in the communication process, since competence is felt both ontologically and phylogenetically (Thorik, Fanyan, 1999).

V.P. Neroznak identifies two main types of private human linguistic personality: 1) standard, reflecting the average literary norm of the language, and 2) non-standard, which combines the “tops” and “bottoms” of the culture of the language. The researcher considers writers and masters of artistic speech to be the heights of culture. The lower classes of culture unite the speakers, producers and users of a marginal language culture (anticulture) (Neroznak, 1996).

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

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

Let's consider the main parameters of each of these types.

Average linguistic personality

The concept of an average native speaker has not yet been defined in the linguistic literature; 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 clear answer to the question of how much the average native speaker knows about a particular fact. Whether his knowledge is limited by the volume of the explanatory dictionary, to what extent encyclopedic information is presented, where the border between individual and social associations is is difficult to determine (Ivanishcheva, 2002).

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

HE. Ivanishcheva notes that “for? the average native speaker? our contemporary is accepted, having a secondary education (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 mass linguistic research (you, me, they, the 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 its volume. Determining what the average native speaker should know may mean, on the one hand, defining a “minimum cultural literacy”, i.e. 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 actually knows” (Ivanishcheva, 2002).

In the article “Correct sounding is a necessary attribute of Russian speech” Z.U. Blyagoz addresses all speakers, without exception, and rightly speaks about 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 theater stage, 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. Speech that is correct from the point of view of the norm raises our image and authority. Stress is an integral part of our speech culture, compliance with the norms of verbal stress is the duty of every speaker of the Russian language, an indispensable condition for the culture of speech” (Blyagoz, 2008).

O.A. Kadilina says that in interpersonal speech communication, the average linguistic personality, as a rule, does not think about oratory skills, about the 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, when developing criteria for determining levels of language proficiency, included the following parameters in the model of language proficiency levels: correctness (knowledge of a sufficiently large vocabulary and basic structure patterns of the language, allowing one to construct a statement and produce texts in accordance with the rules of a given language); interiorization (the ability to implement and perceive a statement in accordance with the internal plan of the speech act); richness (diversity and richness of expressive means at all language levels); adequate choice (from the point of view of compliance of linguistic means with the communicative situation and the roles of the communicants); adequate synthesis (correspondence of a gesture generated by a person to the entire complex of communicative and meaningful tasks) (see: Bogin 1975; Bogin 1984; Bogin 1986). A 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 appearance of a large number of weak linguistic individuals and the consequences of this. Ryadchikova: “With many undeniable advantages, the policy of the Soviet state, nevertheless, was aimed at eradicating the intelligentsia as a class and humiliating it in every possible way. For decades, a stereotype of a disdainful, ironic attitude towards culture has been developed. The concepts of “etiquette”, “politeness”, “rhetoric” are still 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 silently observes someone. When it comes to having to speak up yourself, especially for large audience or in front of a television camera, 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 often cases when even fully grown, fully formed specialists with higher education do not know the forms of speech etiquette (even simple clichéd forms such as greetings, expressions of sympathy, congratulations, compliments, etc. cause difficulties), not they know how to communicate with seniors in age and position (including over the phone), 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 constraint, tightness, fear and avoidance of communication, the inability not only to conduct a conversation in the right direction, to calmly and worthily defend one’s point of view, but even simply to express it in a form accessible to other people, which 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 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 linguistic personality is poor speech. “Bad (in semantic, communicative, linguistic terms) speech is evidence of unformed cognitive models, the absence of information fragments, and the connection between mental and verbal structures. Both “good” and “good” can be assessed in a similar way. average? speech" (Butakova, 2004).

Research by Yu.V. Betz convincingly prove that at the beginning of its formation, a linguistic personality acquires 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 unprocessed speech of a particular individual. Conventionally, this level can be called “pre-system”. The specifics of this period are illustrated by children's speech and the speech of people learning a second language. Deviation from the norm and usage may be in the nature of an error. At the same time, errors in the production of utterances may be due to the complexity of the speech production process itself or its failures, then they do not depend on the level of mastery of the language system, its norm or usage (Betz, 2009). S.N. Tseitlin recognizes the main cause of speech errors as “pressure of the language system” (Tseitlin, 1982).

Since speech communication is the basis (a kind of means of production and a tool of labor) for a number of humanitarian types of social activity, such as, for example, jurisprudence, teaching, politics, it is obvious that the specifics of their speech should be comprehensively studied in order to be able to create examples of how norms and “anti-norms” of such communication, to warn people against mistakes that they themselves probably do not notice, but having made, 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 and communicative levels: phonetic (orthoepic), lexical, semantic, phraseological, grammatical, stylistic, logical, pragmatic. However, in this regard, as V.I. rightly writes. Karasik, “what is important is not so much the hierarchy of levels as the idea of ​​an inextricable 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 bunch of mistakes. He can speak in front of an audience exactly as he would in a private conversation, and yet speak in an unpleasant voice, make grammatical errors, be awkward, be offensive, and engage in many inappropriate behavior. Carnegie suggests that each person's natural, everyday way of speaking needs many corrections, and it is necessary to first improve the natural way of speaking before transferring this method to the platform (Carnegie, 1989).

It is possible to determine whether a speaker belongs to a low social stratum of society (which in the vast majority of countries in the world correlates with the concept of a weak linguistic personality) already at the level of pronunciation and intonation. IN AND. Karasik talks about a low educational level and provincial origin and lists a number of signs of a “despised pronunciation” (Karasik, 2001). “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, expressions “and all that”, “and the like” are often found, acting as detail and abstraction (Karasik, 2001).

Logical impairments are also a sign of a weak linguistic personality. “Observations show that people tend to lose sight of some significant (most often not categorical, but characteristic) feature of an object for a short time: thereby, the object is to one degree or another disidentified in the consciousness of the subject, involuntarily does not belong to its class, in as a result of which the subject behaves in relation to 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 “strong linguistic personality” usually includes: 1) possession of fundamental knowledge; 2) the presence of a rich information reserve and the desire to replenish it; 3) mastery of the basics of constructing speech in accordance with a specific communicative plan; 4) speech culture (idea of ​​speech forms corresponding to the communicative intent) (Bezmenova, 1991).

G.G. Infantova notes that the characteristic features of a strong linguistic personality should include extralinguistic and linguistic indicators. The researcher notes that “among the extralinguistic signs of a strong linguistic personality, it is advisable to first of all include the social characteristics of the individual (the social activity of the individual should be considered a constant sign here, and the variables are social status, level of education and general development, age, profession and occupation, ideological orientation of the individual - democratic, anti-democratic, etc.); extralinguistic awareness (constant features here include the fundamental ability to take into account the speech situation, and variable features include 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 features, linguistic and speech features should be distinguished. They can be constant or variable.

The composition of permanent linguistic features should, according to G.G. Infantova, include mastery of means of all language levels, oral and written forms of speech, dialogic and monologue types of speech; by means of all styles of speech (meaning their abstract, dictionary and 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 permanent speech characteristics include the implementation of an utterance in accordance with its internal program, mastery of all communicative qualities of speech (accuracy, expressiveness, etc.), compliance of the utterance as a whole with all parameters of the communicative act, the ability to perceive utterances in accordance with such parameters and adequately react to them. All this applies to both one statement and the entire text (Kadilina, 2011).

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

“Of course, a strong linguistic personality must know and skillfully use the entire range of linguistic means that enrich and embellish speech - comparisons, contrasts, metaphors, synonyms, antonyms, paremias, aphorisms, etc.” (Kadilina, 2011).

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

A.A. Vorozhbitova, as an example of a strong linguistic personality, calls a future teacher of a democratic type who has ethical responsibility, general educational and professional training and high linguistic competence, ensuring 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 accumulated knowledge in order to motivate one’s actions and the actions of other linguistic individuals” (Tameryan, 2006). It follows that a strong linguistic personality is incompatible with underdeveloped intellectual activity, and that a prerequisite 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 the identification, establishment of a hierarchy of meanings and values ​​in its picture of the world, in its thesaurus” (Karaulov, 1987). Therefore, creativity is a necessary characteristic of a strong linguistic personality, as pointed out by Yu.N. Karaulov (1987). Linguistic creativity is understood as the ability to use not only knowledge of the idiomatic component, but also to use linguistic means in an individual or figurative sense (Kulishova, 2001).

A number of linguistic scientists interpret communication as the joint creation of meanings (Dyck, Kintsch, 1988; Wodak, 1997; Leontovich, 2005). For example, A. Schutz writes about the “social world of everyday intersubjectivity” of the communicant, which is built in mutual, mutually directed acts of presentation and interpretation of meanings (Quoted in: Makarov, 1998). Similarly, the “hermeneutics of play” by the German culturologist W. Iser, creatively developed by the American scientist P. Armstrong, presupposes “an alternating counter-movement of meanings open to each other for questioning” (see: Venediktova, 1997).

Researchers note that a linguistic personality appears in four of its guises: personality 1) thinking, 2) linguistic, 3) speech, 4) communicative (Puzyrev, 1997). On this basis, it seems completely fair to conclude that “if you expand the area of ​​competence of a linguistic personality, then he, as a person with a decent status, must follow certain principles of not only word use, but also speech use, and then mental use” (Thorik, Fanyan, 1999).

Development of good, competent speech, the ability to explain, convince, defend certain positions- a requirement of modern life.

In types of speech culture, i.e. the degree of approximation of an individual’s linguistic consciousness to the ideal completeness of linguistic wealth in a particular type of language, O.B. Sirotinina distinguishes and contrasts such linguistic personalities as the bearer of an elite speech culture in relation to the literary norm, the bearer of dialect speech culture, the bearer of urban vernacular, etc. (Sirotinina, 1998). In the 90s of the twentieth century. dissertation studies and articles appeared with speech portraits of individual native speakers who master the elite speech culture (see: Kuprina 1998; Kochetkova 1999; Infantova 1999; Infantova, 2000; Infantova, 2000; Isaeva, Sichinava, 2007). For understanding such objects, the principle of intellectualism is especially significant (see: Kotova 2008).

IN AND. Karasik believes that we will get a more complete understanding 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 prevailing opinion in society, “it is the literature teacher who should act as a bearer of an elite type of speech culture, master all the norms of the literary language, fulfill ethical and communication requirements?” (O.B. Sirotinina), since by the nature of his professional activity he is prepared not only for the use of language, but also for understanding linguistic facts and the very process of speech activity” (Grigorieva, 2006).

The problem of the linguistic personality as an individual, considered from the point of view of its readiness and ability to produce and interpret texts, is being actively developed in modern linguistic literature, starting with the works of G.I. Bogina 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 whom a significant part of the production of modern artistic discourse is designed, and one who is able to apply adequate orientation strategies in this area of ​​cultural communication. The problem of a strong linguistic personality was mostly highlighted 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 language and rules of rhetoric, principles of mutual understanding in communication, rules of etiquette - behavioral, including official, and speech; understanding the essence of persuasion techniques, the ability to classify (acceptable and unacceptable) and correctly apply tricks in a dispute and measures against them,

knowledge of techniques for dealing with difficult interlocutors; skillful and timely identification of positive and negative in the psychology of communication, that which leads to the emergence of psychological barriers in communication; avoiding logical-speech errors; the art of drawing up normative documents, preparing written and oral speech, knowledge of the reasons for unsuccessful argumentation, etc.” (Ryadchikova, 2001).

A speech delivered on the same occasion on the same topic will differ in the mouth of a weak, average and weak linguistic person. “Only great artists of words are capable of subjugating - partially and, of course, temporarily - the associative-verbal network of their native language. This occurs due to the emergence of a double semantic perspective, characteristic of irony, metaphor, and symbol” (Zinchenko, Zuzman, Kirnoze, 2003).

1.2 Linguistic studies of the language game

1.2.1 RolelanguagegamesVworldcultureAndlanguage of works of art

A major contribution to the development of the theory of language games belongs to the Dutch philosopher I. Huizinga. The game, in his opinion, is older than the cultural forms of society. Civilization originates from the game, and not vice versa. Based on an 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 love game(forbidden), which explains the tendency to play on forbidden topics (taboo) in modern jokes. The game is based on struggle or hostility, tempered by friendly relations. The roots of play in philosophy begin in the sacred game of riddles, the roots of play in poetry are mocking songs teasing the object of ridicule. Myths and poetry were recognized as linguistic games; Huizinga believes that language games are identical to magic. Despite Huizinga's assertions that the concept of play is not reducible to other terms and that a biological approach is not applicable to it, it still seems possible to question some of his statements. For example, his assumption that competition and competition are the basis that motivates the subject to ridicule the object does not apply to all utterances.

Language game as the operation of 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 works of a philosophical nature, for example, J. Huizinga, the language game acts as a private implementation of the game as an element of culture. It reveals features common to sports, music, painting, etc. games. plan.

Realizing that language represents a special sphere of human life, literary scholars and linguists devote special research 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 technique is a pun (Vinogradov, 1953; Shcherbina, 1958; Khodakova, 1968; Kolesnikov, 1971; Furstenberg, 1987; Tereshchenkova, 1988; Luxemburg, Rakhimkulova, 1992; 1996; Sannikov, 1997; Lyubich, 1998 ).

Researchers note that the language game is implemented within the framework of various functional types of language. This can be colloquial speech (Zemskaya, Kitaigorodskaya, Rozanova, 1983; Bondarenko, 2000), journalistic texts (Namitokova, 1986;

Neflyasheva, 1988; Ilyasova, 1998, 1986; 2000), artistic speech (Vinokur, 1943; Krysin, 1966; Grigoriev, 1967; Bakina, 1977; Kulikova, 1986; Luxemburg, 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 a playful manner of conveying thoughts. Artistic speech of the 18th - 19th centuries. realized the possibilities of playing with linguistic means primarily by creating a comic effect. Linguists note that among the masters of laughter in Russian classics we should first of all include A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol. Pushkin has long been considered a recognized master of puns, created through both a clash of meanings and a play on the form of expression (Khodakova, 1964; Lukyanov, 2000). It is interesting that puns and, more broadly, the generally playful manner of constructing a text are embodied in Gogol not only at the lexical-semantic, but also at the syntactic level. In the second case, it is created by “unskillfully interrupted, syntactically helpless speech of the characters, coinciding (similar) ends of two or more sentences or phrases that comically emphasize 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 buffoon culture, the traditions of Russian folk farce theater, and folklore in general. Without any doubt, game genres include ditties, anecdotes, jokes, tongue twisters, and riddles. In the circle of authorized works, as scientists point out, it includes the language of vaudeville (Bulakhovsky, 1954). Authors of comedies of the 18th century gravitate towards language games (Khodakova, 1968).

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

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

Secondly, a language game can appear on the pages of works that do not have it in the list of obligatory elements, absolute features of the genre. It is this form of manifestation of the language game that depends on the intentions of the author, on the mindset of his mind. It seems that it is most significant in characterizing the writer’s idiostyle and the specifics of his linguistic personality. The variety of language game techniques, commitment to individual methods of its implementation makes the writer’s work individual, unique, and therefore recognizable. Thus, the artistic style of M. Zoshchenko is characterized by a collision of the literary version of the language and vernacular (Bryakin, 1980), i.e. game at the lexical-semantic and syntactic level.

The paradoxical compatibility of linguistic units turns out to be extremely significant for A. Platonov (Bobylev, 1991; Skobelev, 1981). Consequently, he embodies the game in a syntagmatic way.

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

It should be noted that the language game does not necessarily mean an attitude towards the funny. Apparently, the creation of texts where everything is deliberately unclear should be considered a kind of language game with the reader. One of the methods of generating game text with general unclear semantics, researchers call nonsense. V.P. Rakov notes that nonsense (the absurdity of the meaning created in the text) can exist in different forms, generated either only at the semantic level, or at the formal level, but at the same time has the same goal - the impact on the reader, the work impressions of its paradoxicality. The semantic “darkness” of works containing nonsense encourages the reader, forced to seek clarity in the foggy, to activate the thought process. This manner of creating works is especially characteristic of literature of the “non-classical paradigm.” It consists in “the destruction of the lexical cohesion of an aesthetic statement, its continuity, deformation of syntax and strict optical geometricism of the text” (Rakov, 2001).

This fact in modern literature is primarily characteristic of the postmodernist movement. It is not for nothing that its representatives operate with the concepts of “the world as chaos”, “the world as text”, “double coding”, “inconsistency”, etc. (Bakhtin, 1986). There is a clear focus on working with text construction techniques, expressive and figurative means, and not with meanings. Therefore, playing with language, focused on using the potential of linguistic units, becomes an integral part of postmodernism texts. This causes the appearance of works characterized by an overly complex and sometimes confusing construction, which in turn affects the perception of their content (cf. works by 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 presupposes “play for the sake of the game itself,” the absence of any goals that have meaning outside the playing space. language game personality speech

Similar documents

Levels of secondary language personality. The set of abilities and characteristics of a person 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 internal lexicon. Elements of sensory, figurative, motor and sensory memory present in the language memory itself. The two-layer nature of the method of recording information is verbal and non-verbal. The concept of mental lexicon.

abstract, added 08/22/2010


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

course work, added 04/24/2010


Studying the features of speech development in the first years of a child’s life. The role of the family in the process of developing a child’s language skills. Instructions and tasks. Development of speech understanding. The most common speech disorders of preschoolers and ways to overcome them.

course work, added 08/06/2013


Characteristics and main provisions of game theories: K. Groos, Buytendijk, E. Arkin, P. Rudik, A. Usov. History of the role-playing movement. Role behavior of an individual as a subject of study of psychology. Study of the personality of a role-player, analysis and evaluation of results.

thesis, added 11/19/2010


Main types of ethnic groups. Geographical and linguistic description of the ethnosphere. Population and states of Asia. Peoples of the Turkic group of the Altai language family. Ethnic facets of personality. National character traits. Specifics of the people of Azerbaijan.

abstract, added 10/31/2009


The importance of speech for the development of children's thinking and the entire mental formation of the child. Psychological content role-playing game preschooler. 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. Prerequisites and structure of language analysis and synthesis. Functional basis for the development of written speech, reading and writing skills. Study of lexical-syntactic analysis.

course work, added 12/03/2013


Disclosure of the concept and essence of play as the most accessible type of activity for children. Theories play 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 development of play activity, its importance for the child. Conditions for the emergence of forms of play. The basic unit of the game, its internal psychological structure. A person, his activities and the attitude of adults towards each other are the main content of the game.

ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE GAME IN A. S. PUSHKIN’S EPIGRAMS

Introduction

S. Bally noted: “Each individual word is a loop of the finest network, which is woven by our memory from an unimaginable multitude of fibers, thousands of associations converge in each word and diverge from it in all directions.” It is this feature of language, due to the specifics of human thinking, that gives rise to such an interesting phenomenon aslanguage game. In art tests, various language games are a fairly well-known phenomenon.. The riddles that the reader needs to solve in a literary text require special knowledge from him and an attitude to restore them, an attitude to accept the author’s ironic and amused attitude, attributing the unusual to the familiar, somehow deforming the familiar, hinting at it.

The works of many linguists emphasize that a literary text is multidimensional, characterized by layers of meanings and presupposing the active participation of the reader in deciphering them.

However, to date, the mechanisms that give rise to a unique play on words and meanings in a literary text have not been fully studied, which is whyrelevance the research undertaken.

Object considerations were a language game and a joke in a literary text.

Subject Lexical, morphological, word-formation, and stylistic means of creating a comic effect in epigrams began to be studied.

Target The work consists in identifying various ways of linguistic realization of the comic in the analyzed poetic texts. The set goal determined the followingtasks:

develop criteria for distinguishing the concepts of “language game”;

identify the most productive ways of implementing the comic in the analyzed texts;

to conduct a psychological and linguistic experiment, during which it is expected to establish how much a modern reader is able to understand and decipher the linguistic joke contained in the epigrams of A. S. Pushkin.

Asmaterial The study was based on a card index of the poet’s epigrams, made by continuous sampling from the Complete Works of A. S. Pushkin in 20 volumes (22 epigrams).

Was nominatedworking hypothesis, which consists in the fact that the linguistic joke in the epigrams of A. S. Pushkin is complex in nature; various linguistic means (lexical, morphological, stylistic) are used in its creation.

Methodological foundations The work produced provisions on the systemic nature of language, on the connection between language and thinking.

Mainmethods are observation, description, comparison.

In accordance with the nature of the goal and objectives, the following special methods were also used: ascertaining experiment in order to establish the fact of perception of the comic by the modern reader in the text of the epigram; a psychological and linguistic experiment to identify the reasons causing the comic perception of the analyzed text.

Scientific novelty The work is determined by the fact that it establishes the reasons and mechanism for the appearance of the comic in the texts of epigrams.

Theoretical significance is that the work substantiates the criteria for distinguishing the concepts of “language game” and “language joke”; a working definition of the term “language joke” is given.

Practical significance. The results of the study and language material can be used when studying the sections “Vocabulary” and “Text Stylistics” in the school course of the Russian language, as well as when studying the works of A. S. Pushkin.

1. Language game in a literary text: the problem of definition and delimitation

1.1. Language game and language joke.

Defining a language game involves great difficulties. Some researchers raise the question that it would be more correct to talk about speech play, since it is “bidirectional in relation to language and speech”. It is implemented in speech, taking into account the situation and characteristics of the interlocutor; the effect, the result of the language game is singular. According to other scientists, it is still preferable to use the traditional term - language game, since it is based on knowledge of the system of language units, the norms of their use and ways of creative interpretation of these units.

The phenomenon of a language game as “a way of organizing a text in terms of correlation with a linguistic norm is based on any violation of the rules of use of a language or text unit.”

A more specific type of language game stands out, the purpose of which is to create a comic effect - a language joke. The scientific literature emphasizes that between the conceptslanguage game Andlanguage joke there is no clear boundary. When analyzing literary texts, it is sometimes very difficult to determine whether or not this or that author had as his goal the creation of a comic effect.

In this work, the following distinction is made between the conceptslanguage game Andlanguage joke.

In the course of analyzing the scientific literature, we adopted the following distinction: the termlanguage game seems broader. The goal of a language game is not always to create a comic effect, but any violation of the language norm remains obligatory in order to reveal the complex sides of the author’s self.

Language joke language By joke we understand a semantically integral fragment of text with comic content.

1.2. Problems of the comic in language.

Since the most important signlanguage jokes is a comic effect, it seems necessary to understand the nature of the comic.

Scientists studying the nature of the comic note that “not a single researcher... has been able to create a universal and comprehensive definition,” despite the fact that this phenomenon has been considered since ancient times.

The modern definition of the comic is not fundamentally different from the ancient definition.

So, the comic effect is not caused by any deviation from the norm, but only by such a deviation that causes the appearance of a second plan, sharply contrasting with the first.

1.3. Brief conclusions.

In the course of analyzing the scientific literature, we adopted the following terminological distinction: the termlanguage game seems broader. The goal of a language game is not always to create a comic effect, but any violation of the language norm remains mandatory in order to reveal the complex sides of the author’s “I”.

Language joke is a less broad concept; the purpose of a linguistic joke, as a rule, is to create a comic effect. A joke remains independent in the structure of a literary text and can be extracted from it. Thus, underWith a linguistic joke we understand a semantically integral fragment of text with comic content.

2. Language game in poetic text A.S. Pushkin

2.1. Linguistic experiment as a means of analyzing poetic text.

The works of many linguists emphasize that a literary text is multidimensional, it is characterized by layers of meanings and assumes the active participation of the reader in deciphering them. As part of the study, a ascertaining and psychological-linguistic experiment was carried out, during which it was established how much a modern reader is able to recognize and understand the linguistic joke contained in the analyzed text fragment. The experiment was conducted among students in grades 10-11. High school students were asked to read the texts of A. S. Pushkin’s epigrams and mark those in which, in their opinion, there is a comic effect; then the students explained why, in their opinion, the epigrams were funny.

The following results were obtained.

Those epigrams in which comedy was created were considered funny:

deliberate collision of opposite, lexically incompatible meanings of words;

the use of stylistically heterogeneous elements that differ sharply from each other;

using the disappointed expectation effect.

Epigrams in which the comic is based on the facts of the biography of the author and the addressees of his epigrams, the nuances of their relationship, unknown to the modern schoolchild, were not considered funny.

2.2. Lexical means of creating a comic.

Let's consider the lexical means of creating a linguistic joke in the epigrams of A. S. Pushkin:

How are you not tired of swearing!

My calculation with you is short:

Well, I'm idle, I'm idle,

And you business slacker .

In the above text, the main means of creating a comic effect is the combination “business slacker ». It simultaneously contains affirmation and negation; there is incompatibility of words such asslacker (one who does nothing, is idle, leads an idle lifestyle, lazy)

Andbusiness (knowledgeable and experienced in business, connected with business, busy with business; knowledgeable in business).

A similar technique for creating a comic is used by A. S. Pushkin in the following epigram:

...Calm down, buddy! Why the magazine noise?

And languid lampoons stupidity ?

The entertainer is angry, he will say with a smile stupidity ,

The ignorant is stupid, yawning, the Mind will say.

IN this fragment synonymous-antonymous relations of such words asignoramus, stupidity, stupidity, intelligence.

As the researchers note, “for the sake of a catchphrase, Pushkin did not mince words”. In some cases, the author uses colloquial vocabulary, for example:

Slanderer without talent

He searches for sticks with his instincts,

And the day's food

Monthly lies.

In other cases, the poet’s epigrams contain many colloquial and even rude words, which he used to discredit his characters:

"Tell me, what's new?" - Not a word.

“Don’t you know where, how and who?”

- ABOUT, brother, get off me - all I know is

What you fool ... But this is not new.

The most interesting texts in the epigrammatic heritage of A. S. Pushkin are those in which surnames and first names are played out.

Thus, in the epigram on Kachenovsky, the poet plays on the surname of its owner, as a result of which it becomes “speaking”

Where the ancient Kochergovsky

He rested over Rollin,

Days of the newest Tredyakovsky

Conjured and bewitched:

Fool, with his back to the sun,

Under your cold Messenger

Sprinkled with dead water,

I sprayed Izhitsa alive.

The same technique was used by A. S. Pushkin in his epigram to Thaddeus Bulgarin:

It's not a problem Avdey Flugarin,

That next to you you are not a Russian gentleman,

That on Parnassus you are a gypsy,

What in the world are you Vidocq Figlarin :

The trouble is that your novel is boring.

The author only distorts the name and surname of the unloved character, but this is already enough to give an unflattering satirical assessment of the entire mediocre work of F. Bulgarin.

In another famous epigram, A.S. Pushkin does not change his surname, but simply rearranges them several times:

There are three gloomy singers -

Shikhmatov, Shakhovskoy, Shishkov;

The mind has three adversaries-

Our Shishkov, Shakhovskoy, Shikhmatov,

But who is the stupidest of the three evil ones?

Shishkov, Shikhmatov, Shakhovskoy!

2.3. Stylistic and word-formation means of creating comic.

2.3.1. In the epigrammatic legacy of A. S. Pushkin, the technique of playing up the discrepancy between form and content is often used: “low” content and “high” style or, conversely, “high” content and colloquial or even colloquial vocabulary. An example of such a game could be an epigram in a book. P. I. Shalikova:

Prince Shalikov, our sad newspaperman,

I read an elegy to my family,

And the Cossack stub of a tallow candle

He held it in his hands with trepidation.

Suddenly our boy began to cry and squeal.

“Here, here, take an example from, fools! -

He shouted to his daughters in delight. -

Open up to me, O dear son of nature,

Oh! What has made your gaze brighter with tears?”

And he answered: “I want to go to the yard ».

This text combines lexical units of different styles: high(looks sharper) , rough( stupid ), colloquial(to the yard ). As we see, comedy is also created by playing out the situation as a whole. The entire epigram is built on a contradiction. The reason for the boy’s tears, as it turns out, is not caused by a “high” emotional reaction to reading the elegy, but, on the contrary, by a “low” physiological need.

In the above text, the clash of elements of different styles creates a linguistic joke.

Due to the stylistic contrast, a comic effect is created in the following epigram:

EPIGRAM H.A. A . M. KOLOSOV

Everything captivates us in Esther:

Intoxicating speech

The step is important in purple,

Black curls to shoulder length;

Whitened hand.

Painted eyebrows

And wide feet.

In the above text, along with the neutral( speech, curls, voice ) and high vocabulary( step, purple, gaze ) a reduced (colloquial, dismissive) word is usedpainted [eyebrows] in the meaning of “roughly, painted with paints,” which cannot characterize a noble, sophisticated woman.

In this epigram, one phenomenon (beauty, nobility, sophistication) is revealed as the opposite (their absence) and, thus, the image of the heroine of the epigram is generally reduced. The reader feels the effect of disappointed expectations: instead of a noble beauty, a roughly painted, ponderous lady appears before him. This detail finally emphasizes the image of the pseudo-beauty created by the poet.

2.3.2. In our material, only a few texts were noted in which word-forming devices were used:

TO COUNT VORONTSOV

Half my lord, half merchant,

Semi-scoundrel, but there is hope

Which will be complete at last.

Half-sage, half-ignorant,

This epigram plays on the morphemesemi-, which, as noted in dictionaries, means “half of something.” In direct use with inanimate nouns denoting objects, morphemesemi- does not have any special shades of meaning, however, in combination with nouns denoting persons(half my lord, half merchant, half sage, half ignorant, half scoundrel ), this morpheme acquires an additional evaluative meaning.

2.4. Brief conclusions.

The analysis showed that the combination and alternation of different thematic and different style elements in the texts of epigrams are the main means of creating a comic. The abundance of various techniques, the mixing of stylistic layers - all this is a sign of the language and style of Pushkin’s epigrams.

Conclusion

Thus, the most productive means of realizing the comic in the analyzed texts are the following:

clash in the context of incompatible lexical meanings of words;

the use of stylistically heterogeneous elements that sharply contrast with each other;

use of the disappointed expectation effect.

The experiment confirmed that the combination and alternation of different thematic and different style elements in the texts of epigrams is perceived by modern readers as a linguistic joke.

The results of the study were summarized in the following summary table.

Means of creating linguistic jokes in the epigrams of A. S. Pushkin

(data are given in absolute terms and in shares)

Tools for creating language jokes

Quantitative data

Lexical

9 (0,4)

Stylistic

6 (0,3)

Synthetic

5 (0,2)

Derivational

2(0,1)

Total

22(1,0)

As evidenced by the table, in which quantitative data are presented in descending order, the most common means of creating linguistic jokes in epigrams are

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 made up of word-forming means of creating a comic effect (0.1).

list of used literature

1. Bally, Sh. French stylistics / 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 / V. V. 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. - Ekaterinburg, 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. - P. 49-51.

Zemskaya, E. A. Speech techniques of the comic in Soviet literature / E. A. Zemskaya // Studies on 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. - P. 3-8.

Kostomarov, V. G. Language 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 solution / A.V. Pankov. - M., 1995.

16. Pokrovskaya, E. V. Language game in newspaper text /
E. V. Pokrovskaya // Russian speech. - 2006. - No. 6. - P. 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. - P. 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.

Khodakova, E. P. Pun in Russian literature of the 18th century. / E. P. Khodakova // Russian literary speech in the 18th century: Phraseology. Neologisms. Puns. - M., 1968.

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

sources, dictionaries and accepted abbreviations

Pushkin, A. S. Complete collection Op.: 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.

The article gives a definition of the term “language game” in Russian linguistics, provides classifications of techniques, and outlines the goals and functions of linguistic language. As illustrated material, examples of language play in family communication are given, and comments on an independent city website are analyzed from the point of view of techniques and methods of language play. In addition, there is a table of the frequency of use of game components in the speech of communicants of a particular family.

Download:

Preview:

LANGUAGE GAME AS AN ELEMENT OF EVERYDAY COMMUNICATION

In our era, the problem of language games acquired particular relevance in the 80s of the 20th century, the period of the most effective study of spoken language. Language play in speech occurs in different ways. In one case, the addresser uses what he already knows, has memorized and skillfully reproduces at the right moment, and in the other, a language game is created directly at the moment of communication.The study of the ubiquitous phenomenon of language games helps to deepen knowledge about the system of spoken speech, the peculiarities of the functioning of its elements, and the variety of forms of the modern Russian literary language.

In the process of speech, the speaker uses a language game for different purposes: to enter into an existing dialogue, prolong speech contact, stop communication, make the message incomprehensible, convey ambiguous information, evaluate a phenomenon or object, demonstrate abilities for linguistic creativity, annoy the listener, name a phenomenon or object when the absence of a one-word designation in the language, to entertain the listener.

The language game in colloquial speech performs four functions: training (language-creative), entertaining, psychotherapeutic, camouflage.

In Russian linguistics, the term “language game” came into wide scientific use after the publication of the work of the same name by E. A. Zemskaya, M. V. Kitaigorodskaya and N. N. Rozanova, which speaks of a language game as a phenomenon “when the speaker “plays” with the form of speech, when a free attitude to the form of speech receives an aesthetic task, even the most modest one. It can be a simple joke, a more or less successful wit, a pun, or different types tropes (comparisons, metaphors, periphrases, etc.).”

In the article by D.I. Rudenko and V.V. Prokopenko “Philosophy of Language: The Path to a New Episystem” language game is considered as “a creative, free attitude to the form of speech, non-canonical use of language, allowing the speaker to realize the ability for linguistic creativity and distinguish himself as a linguistic personality from a number of other speaking individuals.”

V.Z. Sannikov identifies the specific goals of using a language game: to intrigue, to force listening; develop language and thinking; entertain yourself and your interlocutor; assert yourself. Based on the purposes of using a language game, V.Z. Sannikov identifies “four functions of a language game: 1) training (language-creative), 2) entertaining, 3) psychotherapeutic, 4) camouflage.”

In modern science, there are several classifications of language game techniques. Our study used the structural classification of Yu.O. Konovalova. If the speaker uses a ready-made unit as a linguistic joke, it speaks of assigning game status to the corresponding ready-made linguistic element. If the speaker independently creates a linguistic unit, we speak of the production of a game linguistic element. In addition, the linguist classifies occasionalisms according to the part-speech affiliation of the producing and derived words. Therefore, she divides all gaming occasional formations into 3 groups: verbal, substantive, adjectival.

Scheme 1.

Classification of language game techniques

Production of game language element

Unusual shape:

1.Rhyme

2. Phonetic deformations

3.Morphological deformations

Unusual form and meaning:

4.Indirect nominations

Giving game status to an existing language element

1.Contrast

5. Violation of lexical compatibility

6. Occasionalisms

7.Puns

8. Precedent texts

Carrying out the speech contact need, the speaker uses a language game in order to begin verbal communication, enter into an existing dialogue, prolong communication, stop communication,make a message incomprehensible to someone present, convey ambiguous information, evaluate a phenomenon or object, demonstrate (test) abilities for linguistic creativity, give and receive pleasure.

One of the significant components of the situation that influences the structure of the statement is the form of speech: oral and written. It should be noted that spoken written communication is currently actively developing in chats, forums, and in comments when discussing any article or problem.

Over the course of two months, I collected language material (51 units in family communication), which can be attributed to the following techniques and methods.

1) Phonetic deformations:

a) rearrangement of sounds and syllables in a word - types (birds), copa (bye), Ashyundra (Andryusha), likes (likes), cherabushka (Cheburashka) - from children's speech;

b) replacing some sounds with others – khan-dog (hot dog), kolidor (corridor), ketchuk (ketchup) - from the speech of the older generation; holya (“cold”), soti (“look”), fest (“light”), facets (“napkins”) – from children’s speech;

c) the appearance of additional sounds in the word – skochet (scotch tape), sprinter (printer), kiosk (kiosk) - from the speech of the older generation.

d) transfer of stress – dam/ (flesh/on), sty/ral (washing/linen) machine - from the speech of the older generation.

Rearranging and replacing sounds is a common phenomenon in children's speech. Phonetic deformations of children's speech are used by family members to create a comic effect; they perform an entertaining function in speech. Substitution, the appearance of additional sounds, stress transfer are a typical phenomenon in the speech of the older generation. This is due to the low educational and cultural level of native speakers, although these phenomena are recognized by them and are often used intentionally.

2) Morphological deformations:

a) change in gender of words - The car is moving along the highway (on the highway); Geese are swimming along the river (along the river); I couldn't move, I walked along the wall (along the wall). Communicators (people of the older generation) deliberately enter into word game, often “competing” to distort words. We'll go with mom? Let's go to kindergarten with dad ? - from the speech of the younger generation, used by family members as a playful element of oral speech.

b) transformation of foreign words - Packed two valise ( French word for "suitcase");

3) Wit, jokes:

a) use of a foreign language component as an element of a language game – Cook bulbs (Belarusian word for “potato”); Lena's house yok ? (Turkic word for “no”); Maman already back? (French word for "mama"); - from the speech of the middle generation.

Wit serves as a means of creating irony and humor in the communication process; often, as a result of the creation of a game component (wit), ambiguous phrases appear.

4) Precedent statements:

a) quotation in its pure form (use of ready-made quotes from songs, films - “We must, Fedya, we must”; “We must look at life more broadly, and be gentler with people”; “Mustards?” - “Yeah”; “Flowers for grandma - ice cream for children"; "Mymra"; "What disgusting, your jellied fish"; "To live is good, but to live well is even better"; "I demand that the banquet be continued"; "Babble"; "A thief should be in prison."

5) Occasionalisms:

a) named - Mopa (Matvey), kiki (candy) - from children's speech;

b) verbal – we’ll make a little noise (to put the “baby” to sleep - a little daughter) - from the speech of the middle generation.

The speech of family members (4 generations) was observed for one week in order to identify the frequency of use of game components. In quantitative terms, the elements of a language game can be represented as follows:

Table 1.

Frequency of use of game components

Gaming Elements Days weeks	Phonetic deformations	Morphological deformations	Wit	Precedent statements
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
During the week

Analyzing the table, we can draw the following conclusions:

1) in speech games phonetic deformations and wit are more often used;

2) the frequency of use of game elements is related to the characteristics of the family (there are Small child, constant communication with the older generation), preferences, aesthetic tastes;

3) weekends become the peak of communication.

In addition, comments (62 units) of Novosibirsk residents left on the NGS (an independent city website) in October - December 2012 when discussing articles on the News Feed were analyzed. The communicants' remarks represent written colloquial speech, which is characterized by spontaneity, reduced vocabulary, and the use of language games. The production of the game component is carried out as follows:

1) phonetic deformations:

a) replacing some sounds with others - “I’m cold, I went home, tomorrow taxi I'll go"; “This is not at all useful pischa "; "And budget money I wish I had more in pocket"; “These little people don’t like everything. Byada";

2) morphological deformations:

a) occasional formation of the simple comparative degree of an adjective - “In the article, organizations argue about who is in what kopecks truer "; change in gender affiliation - “Yesterday I went home in the evening, and there sobakin the local cannot get out, he clings to the parapet with his paws”;

3) indirect nominations:

a) use of metaphor - “The facades of beautiful houses spoil"conditioner acne"; “The frosts didn’t stop us from dumping the snow on the roadway and, to be honest, eat n about one lane on each side";

b) paraphrase - “There are different Lexuses. Eat curly year (80-90 years of the 20th century) at a red price of 50-70 oblique"; “It’s immediately obvious: Novosibirsk is poor, no one has money - everyone spent on cars,essential item»;

c) hyperbole:

Be patient, people, a slave must earn just enough to survive.

Yes, you can't go to the house because slave machines , on the road you are stuck in traffic jams slave cars, in the store slaves sweep away goods from shelves without looking , which is why it takes 15-20 minutes in the queue you see slaves at the checkout.

d) comparisons: “Senechka, you read carefully, butnot like a blonde»;

4) occasionalisms:

a) substantive denominatives – “Instead, with turnips studies for 3 hours” (with a tutor); "Thank you they drive (to the driver) of the bus that passed my child at 7:30 on Saturday”; "And it caught fire"Doctor" (Lexus), most likely because the Japanese have plastic crankcase protection”; “It’s good to live in Novosibirsk only to the sellers (sellers) and officials"; "You'd have six cartoons (millions), would you buy such a car?”; “The bad people got caught - they don’t want to governor figure out what he wanted to express there”; “The quality of workmanship and safety margin of Japanese (Japanese cars) of previous years is an order of magnitude higher than yours out (car); "So don't flatter yourself,truthmatcuts, this is a fact” (from the phrase “to cut the truth - the womb”;

b) verbal denominatives “If it’s hard to guess, you can use the reference book google" (google);

c) adjective: “How did you get it?” American burgers" (American); " Healthy image life is a set cross-country skiing "(from the phrase "to ski"); “A good little animal, like a huskymid-size"(from the phrase "medium size"); “The media is in the hands of the president. At least one federal TV channel criticized sun-faced?";

5) pun (humorous use of the meaning of a word): “ Treat numbers of people"; "Often just a fantasy in sleep mode is present when circumstances are not pressing”; “Yesterday there was no frost, that’s all snowdrops they started up and started driving the cars in all directions”; “I won’t get a high-speed tram like I’m a resident of Academ, but I’m worried about fellow villagers Why don’t they build on the left?”; “This is what I mean” splashing "? Moreover, from November to March it is cold, but there may be thaws”; "The margin of safety of my trough 2000 is twice the safety margin of your glamorous car”;

6) precedent statements:

a) quote in its purest form - “Is it the bank’s fault that the consumerenvious eyes and raking hands"; “Live, work honestly, otherwise it’s like in a fairy tale”go there - I don’t know where, bring that - I don’t know what"; “It’s sad that normal people have no place in”land of slaves, land of masters"; “The end of the world has long come in our city, we need a new one.”a ray of light in a dark kingdom"; “Parrot, they won’t give her a real sentence, but here we have"the most humane court in the world"; "For some reason we have" spiritual bonds “they only appear when it’s nearly 40 degrees outside, and in the summer we don’t even notice people in each other”; "As the saying goes,it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines»; « Meli Emelya, your week. What he’s doing is that the city is bigger, but the governor’s affairs are not visible”;

b) transformed quote: “And hereofficials and roads? Or do you have a different version of the Russian misfortune?” (“There are two troubles in Russia: fools and roads”); "Light Rail to help you, will give you a ride to the metro"("God help you"); "The taste and color...the markers are different. Some people like it, but others suffer from it” (“There are no comrades to taste and color”);

Having analyzed the replicas of written colloquial speech on forums and chats, it should be stated that occasionalisms (36%) and precedent texts (21%) of the total number of collected phrases are used most often. Communication participants use morphological and phonetic deformations least of all: 5% and 8%, respectively. This is most likely explained by the desire of communicants to enter into a dialogue, demonstrate their ability for linguistic creativity, and please their interlocutors.

Based on the functions of a language game identified by V.Z. Sannikov, we can name (in relation to chats) the following: training (the desire to develop language and thinking), entertainment (the speaker’s desire to entertain himself and his interlocutor), psychotherapeutic (a person’s intention to assert himself). A language game in family communication performs two functions: entertaining and training. Game components are used within the family circle in order to entertain and bring pleasure to everyone who participates in the language game. The training function is manifested in demonstrating the ability of family members to create words and distinguish themselves as linguistic individuals.

Observing the creation of a game component in the collected material, it can be stated that the goals of a language game are the desire to begin verbal communication, enter into an existing dialogue, prolong verbal contact, evaluate a phenomenon or object, and give and receive pleasure. There were no cases of interruption of communication, attempts to make the message incomprehensible, or convey ambiguous information.

Every day people communicate, and depending on a particular situation, they select linguistic means, thereby often entering into a game that has certain rules. For an adequate understanding of the language game by the addressee, the author must take into account the presence of certain knowledge of the listener, as well as the cultural space in which communication takes place.

Language games are a common phenomenon in modern Russian colloquial speech. When using a language game, the work of the linguistic consciousness of native speakers becomes obvious; when producing or perceiving a language game, a person demonstrates awareness of the non-canonical use of language. A language game relieves boredom and routine and brings joy to its creator.

Bibliography:

1. Gridina T.A. Language game: Stereotype and creativity. Ekaterinburg, 1996.
2. Gridina T.A. The associative potential of a word and its implementation in speech. The phenomenon of the language game. - M., 1996.
3. Zemskaya E.A., Kitaigorodskaya M.A., Rozanova N.N. Language game. Russian colloquial speech. – M., 1983.
4. Konovalova Yu.O. Language game in modern Russian colloquial speech. - Vladivostok. VGUES, 2008.
5. Rudenko D.I., Prokopenko V.V. Philosophy of language: The path to a new episystem // Language and science of the late 20th century. – M, 1995.
6. Sannikov V.Z. Russian language in the mirror of the language game. M., 1999.
7. NGS Novosibirsk, “News Tape”, November – December 2012.

Did you like the article? Share with your friends:

Facebook

Twitter

My world

In contact with

Google+

11.05.2020

Solitaire Mat

The most interesting:

Crazy zombies 1. Crazy swordsmen. Controls in a fight against zombies and pair sparring

Review of the game The West Review of the game The West

Orientation on the map