Nature is renewed, a new year begins, the living awakens on the day of the holiday...
The problem of people's attitude to the fate of their native language. According to K. I. Chukovsky
Native language ... "Great and mighty" - these are the definitions given to him by I. S. Turgenev. Should we worry about the fate of the Russian language? These questions are posed in the text of K. I. Chukovsky, taken from his book “Alive as Life”, dedicated to the problems of the culture of the Russian language.
Revealing the problem of people's attitude to the fate of the Russian language, the author draws historical parallels, with the help of citation refers to the authority of prominent cultural figures, linguists and writers. Chukovsky contrasts two types of attitudes towards changes taking place in the language. In the past, language was felt like a blind element that could not be controlled. The linguist Humboldt wrote about this, arguing that language is completely independent of the individual subject. To be more convincing and figurative, the author uses the metaphor, “a mighty speech river”, depicting powerless linguists and teachers who only look from the shore, “how much rubbish its waves carry”. But today is a different time - "the era of the conquest of space, the era of artificial rivers and seas." One cannot be indifferent to one's native language, one must purposefully, systematically, resolutely rise up "against the ugliness of our current speech." In the struggle for the purity of the native language, not only the media, but also every native speaker should take an active part.
In the work of Ilf and Petrov “The Twelve Chairs”, Elochka Lyudoyedova is ridiculed, whose vocabulary is miserable and miserable and consists of only three dozen words, such as “lad”, “brilliance”, “horror”. This limited vocabulary reflects the soulless, petty-bourgeois world of the heroine.
Summing up, I emphasize that the culture of the language, its purity and development depend on the general culture, on moral development. Take care of our language, our beautiful Russian language!
Text K. I. Chukovsky
(1) Our language is still felt by many as a kind of blind element that cannot be controlled.
(2) One of the first to approve this idea was the brilliant scientist W. Humboldt.
(3) “Language,” he wrote, “is completely independent of the individual subject ... (4) Before the individual, language stands as a product of the activity of many generations and the property of an entire nation, therefore the strength of the individual is insignificant compared to the strength of the language.”
(5) This view has survived to our era. (6) “No matter how you say reasonable words against stupid and impudent words, they - we know this - will not disappear from that, and if they disappear, it’s not because aesthetes or linguists were indignant,” wrote one gifted scientist. (7) “That’s the trouble,” he said with anguish, “that no one wants to hear the zealots of the purity and correctness of their native speech, as well as the zealots of good morals ... (8) 3 but they are spoken by grammar and logic, common sense and good taste, euphony and decency, but nothing comes out of all this onslaught of grammar, rhetoric and style on reckless, ugly, reckless lively speech. (9) Having cited samples of all kinds of speech “ugliness”, the scientist embodied his sadness in a bleak and hopeless aphorism: “Arguments from reason, science and good taste affect the existence of such words no more than geology courses on an earthquake.”
(10) In the old days, such pessimism was completely justified. (I) There was no point even thinking about how to intervene in unison, systematically, with united forces in the ongoing linguistic processes and direct them along the desired channel. (12) Old Karamzin very accurately expressed this general feeling of humble obedience to the elemental forces of the language: "Words enter our language autocratically."
(13) Since then, our leading linguists have constantly pointed out that the will of individual people, unfortunately, is powerless to consciously control the processes of formation of our speech.
(14) Everyone imagined this: as if a mighty river of speech flows past them, and they stand on the shore and, with impotent indignation, watch how much rubbish its waves carry on them.
- (15) There is no need, - they said, - to boil and fight. (16) Until now, there has not yet been a case where the attempt of the guardians of the purity of the language to correct the linguistic errors of any significant mass of people was crowned with even the slightest success.
(17) But can we agree with such a philosophy of inaction and non-resistance to evil? (18) Can we really, writers, teachers, linguists, can only grieve, be indignant, horrified, watching how the Russian language is deteriorating, but we don’t even dare to think about subordinating it to the collective mind with mighty efforts of the will?
(19) Let the philosophy of inaction have its meaning in the past eras, when the creative will of people was so often powerless in the fight against the elements - including the elements of language. (20) But in the era of the conquest of space, in the era of artificial rivers and seas, do we really not have the slightest opportunity to at least partially influence the elements of our language?
(21) It is clear to everyone that we have this power, and one should only be surprised that we use it so little. (22) After all, in our country there are such super-powerful levers of education as radio, cinema, television, ideally coordinated with each other in all their tasks and actions. (23) I'm not talking about the many newspapers and magazines - district, regional, city - subordinate to a single ideological plan, completely owning the minds of millions of readers.
(24) All this purposeful complex of forces has only to unite, systematically, resolutely rise up against the deformities of our current speech, loudly stigmatize them with national disgrace - and there is no doubt that many of these deformities, if not completely disappear, then, in any case, forever lose their massive, epidemic character...
(25) True, I understand very well that all these measures are not enough.
(26) After all, the culture of speech is inseparable from the general culture. (27) To improve the quality of your language, you need to improve the quality of your heart, your intellect. (28) Another writes and speaks without errors, but what a poor dictionary he has, what moldy phrases! (29) What an anemic spiritual life is reflected in them!
(ZO) Meanwhile, only that speech can truly be called cultural, which has a rich vocabulary and many different intonations. (31) This cannot be achieved by any campaigns for the purity of the language. (32)3 here other, longer, broader methods are needed. (33) For true enlightenment, so many libraries, schools, universities, institutes, etc. have been created. (34) By raising their general culture, the people thereby raise the culture of their language.
(35) But, of course, this does not exempt any of us from all possible participation in the struggle for the purity and beauty of our speech.
(According to K.I. Chukovsky)
Collection of I.P. Tsybulko "36 options. USE-2019". The essay was written in strict accordance with the new assessment criteria for task 27.
Our language is still felt by many as a kind of blind element that cannot be controlled.
One of the first to approve this idea was the brilliant scientist W. Humboldt. “Language,” he wrote, “is completely independent of the individual subject...
Composition 528 words
The Russian language is our national heritage, which has gone through many centuries of formation and contains the experience of previous generations. The language resource of our people is extraordinarily rich, beautiful, and has no limits. In modern conditions, in the era of the Internet and the exchange of cultures, new words enter the language, which do not always decorate it, often clog and spoil it. How can we fight for the purity of the Russian language? This question is covered by K.I. Chukovsky in his text.
The writer is convinced that it is necessary to interfere in the language processes. He categorically disagrees that this sphere cannot be controlled. K.I. Chukovsky notes: "... our largest linguists constantly pointed out that the will of individuals, unfortunately, is powerless to consciously control the processes of formation of our speech." But society has the necessary weapons to fight for the native language! These are the media, which the writer imagines as "... super-powerful levers of enlightenment ...". Since newspapers, radio, television have a certain audience, they are able to educate people, you just need to put such a task before them. The author believes that with the help of the well-coordinated educational work of the media, the negative phenomena occurring in speech culture will become isolated or disappear altogether. So, an ally in the war for the purity of the language has been found.
K.I. Chukovsky also draws attention to the fact that a person should not escape from his personal responsibility, shifting duties to the means of general education. Individual work on oneself is necessary for each member of society: "To improve the quality of your language, you need to improve the quality of your heart, your intellect." A person, developing knowledge, expanding vocabulary, makes a feasible contribution to the people's struggle for the purity of their native language.
The author's reflections on the role of the media in society and on the personal responsibility of each person for their speech literacy are interconnected, as they help the writer show his readers options for saving the purity of the Russian language. Pointing out the serious educational opportunities of newspapers and television, K.I. Chukovsky emphasizes the importance of the individual work of each on his speech.
The writer encourages us not only to fight for the purity of our native language, involving the media in this battle, but also to actively participate in this process for every person through self-development. The penetration of unnecessary elements into our language can be controlled, you just need to be aware of personal responsibility for the heritage that our ancestors gave us.
I agree with the position of the author. The purity of the native language is not only an indicator of the level of education of the society, but also a reflection of the identity of the people. Our language is great, powerful and beautiful. Now the Russian language is under the influence of Western cultures, trying to come to terms with the dominance of Americanisms. Words such as “hype”, “high”, “fresh”, “easy” and many others have firmly entered our lives. Because of fashion trends, people prefer their foreign variants to Russian words. By such behavior we impoverish our speech, deprive it of its national uniqueness. One gets the feeling that a foreign culture penetrates our language and thereby poisons the native source. We note, however, that the language did not give up its position even under the onslaught of the interventionists, because it began to create words similar to the word “google”, and this cannot but rejoice. The task of society is to support him.
In conclusion, I want to note that in society since the time of K.I. Chukovsky, there have been certain changes that have weakened our position in the battle for the purity of the language. We have lost an important ally in this war - the media. From TV screens, people not only absorb a huge stream of elements that disfigure our language, but also learn to pronounce their native words incorrectly. It is noticeable that the leading programs have a low speech culture. Therefore, we now personally bear responsibility for the purity of our speech. In such conditions, it is especially important to preserve the beauty and richness of the Russian language.
Chapter Seven
AGAINST THE ELEMENTS
The one who lives the real life
Who has been accustomed to poetry since childhood,
Forever believes in the life-giving,
Full of reason Russian language.
H. Zabolotsky
Some “lady with a dog”, dressed smartly and tastefully, wanted to show her new acquaintances what a trained poodle she had, and shouted to him imperatively:
- lie down!
this one lie down it turned out to be enough for me to indicate the low level of her spiritual culture, and in my eyes she immediately lost the charm of grace, good looks, and youth.
And I immediately thought that if Chekhov's "lady with a dog" had said to her white Spitz in front of Dmitry Gurov:
- lie down! -
Gurov, of course, could not have fallen in love with her and would hardly even have started the conversation with her that led them to rapprochement.
In that lie down(instead of lie down) is an imprint of such a dark environment that a person who claims to be involved in culture will immediately reveal his imposture as soon as he utters this word.
For example, what good things could I think about that elderly teacher who suggested to first-graders:
Who does not have an inkwell front, wet back!
And about the student who said from behind the door:
Now I shave and get out!
And about that loving mother who, in the most magnificent dacha, shouted to her daughter from the balcony:
- Don't undress your coat!
And about the prosecutor who said in his speech:
Comrades! We have gathered here together with you to end forever the ugliness of our lives. Here here in front of you is a young man...
And about that director of the plant, who repeated several times in his address to the workers:
Need to be accepted virgin measures.
Tambov engineer S.P. Merzhanov tells me about the hostility he felt towards one of his colleagues when he wrote in a memorandum:
“Otsedova can be inferred."
“I also understand well,” Comrade continues. Merzhanov, a student known to me, who immediately lost interest in his beloved girl, having received from her a tender letter with many spelling errors.
Previously, forty-five years ago, it would have been a sin to be angry with the Russian people for such perversions of speech: they were forcibly kept in the dark. But now that schooling has become universal and illiteracy has been eradicated once and for all, all these lie down And urinate deserve no mercy.
“In our country,” Pavel Nilin rightly says, “where the doors of schools, both daytime and evening, are wide open, no one can find an excuse for their illiteracy” [ P. Nilin, The danger is not there. "New World", 1958, No. 4, p. 2.].
Therefore, in no way should Russian people be allowed to continue to keep in their everyday life such ugly verbal forms as bulgahter, I like it, I rush, I want it, worse, worn out, wants it, calidor. Or more recent weeds: reservation, incident, I'll drop by for a couple of minutes etc.
True, our language is still felt by many as a kind of blind element, with which it is impossible to fight.
One of the first to approve this idea was the brilliant scientist W. Humboldt (Brother of the famous naturalist and traveler Alexander von Humboldt - Wilhelm (1767-18535) - was a very versatile person - a philologist, philosopher, linguist, statesman, diplomat. . - V.V. )
“Language,” he wrote, “is completely independent of the individual subject... Before the individual, language stands as a product of the activity of many generations and the property of an entire nation, so the strength of the individual is insignificant compared to the strength of the language.”
This view has survived to the present day.
“No matter how much you say reasonable words against stupid and impudent words, how boyfriend or dancer, they - we know this - will not disappear from that, and if they disappear, it will not be because the aesthetes or linguists were indignant, ”one astute and gifted scientist wrote back in the twenties [ D.G. Gornfeld, Torment words. M. - L., 1927, pp. 203-204.].
“That’s the trouble,” he said with anguish, “that no one wants to hear the zealots of the purity and correctness of their native speech, as well as the zealots of good morals ... Grammar and logic, common sense and good taste, euphony and decency speak for them.” , but nothing comes out of all this onslaught of grammar, rhetoric and stylistics on reckless, ugly, reckless living speech” [ D.G. Gornfeld, Torment words. M. - L., 1927, p. 195.] Having given samples of all kinds of speech “ugliness”, the scientist embodied his sadness in a bleak and hopeless aphorism: “Arguments from reason, science and good tone affect the existence of such words no more than courses geology for an earthquake. In the past, such pessimism was completely justified. There was no point even thinking about how to intervene in unison, systematically, with united forces in the ongoing linguistic processes and direct them along the desired channel.
Old Karamzin very accurately expressed this general feeling of humble submission to the elemental forces of his language: "Words enter our language autocratically." At that time, people imagined that: as if a mighty river of speech flows past them, and they stand on the shore and, with impotent indignation, watch how much rubbish and rubbish its waves carry on them.
There is no need, they said, to boil and fight. Until now, there has not yet been a case where the attempt of the guardians of the purity of the language to correct the linguistic errors of any significant mass of people was crowned with even the slightest success.
But can we agree with such a philosophy of inaction and non-resistance to evil?
Can it be that we, writers, teachers, linguists, can only mourn, be indignant, horrified, watching how the Russian language is deteriorating, but do not even dare to think about subordinating it to our collective mind with powerful efforts of the will?
Let the philosophy of inaction have its meaning in the past eras, when the creative will of people was so often powerless in the fight against the elements - including the element of language. But in the era of the conquest of space, in the era of artificial rivers and seas, do we really not have the slightest opportunity to at least partially influence the elements of our language?
It is clear to everyone that we have this power, and one should only be surprised that we use it so little.
After all, there are in our country such super-powerful levers of education as radio, cinema, television, ideally coordinated with each other in all their tasks and actions.
I'm not talking about the multitude of newspapers and magazines - district, regional, all-Union - subordinated to a single ideological plan, fully in control of the minds of millions of readers.
All this purposeful complex of forces has only to unite, systematically, resolutely rise up against the deformities of our current speech, loudly stigmatize them with national disgrace - and there is no doubt that many of these deformities, if they do not disappear completely, then, in any case, will lose their mass mass forever. , epidemic character *.
In vain, the fighters for the purity of the language still feel like loners, without the slightest support in the environment that surrounds them, and too often fall into despondency.
“Hands drop,” the village teacher F.A. writes to me. Sharabanova. - No matter how I interpret the guys that you can’t say what time is it?, my last name, ten chickens, he came from school, I undressed my boots, they stubbornly refuse to part with these terrible words. Are there really no ways to make the speech of the younger generation cultural?”
There are ways, and quite good ones. There is a serious magazine “Russian language at school”, where there are many ways offered. The journal very well reflected the ardent attempts of advanced teachers to improve the speech culture of children.
But can the school - alone - exterminate the remnants of lack of culture?
No, what is needed here is the united efforts of all the disparate fighters for the purity of the language - and can there be any doubt that if we all together and passionately get down to business, we will succeed in the near future, if not completely, but to a large extent, to clear our language of this filth.
Last year I published a short article in Izvestia, which outlined several practical measures for the public struggle against perversions and ugliness of speech. In this article, I proposed, among other things, to hold annually on an all-Union scale a "Week (or Month) of Struggle for the Purity of Language" under the auspices of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Union of Writers.
This project evoked lively responses that struck me with their extraordinary passion. Letters from readers poured in to me in an avalanche from Leningrad, from Moscow, from Kyiv, from Ufa, from Perm, from Pereslavl-Zalessky, from Novosibirsk, from Dzhambul, from Gus Khrustalny - and only then did I truly understand how tenderly and the Soviet people devotedly love their great language and what a nagging pain those distortions inflict on them that disfigure and spoil it>
In almost every one of these letters (and there are eight hundred and twelve of them!) some specific means of eradicating this evil are indicated.
A resident of the city of Riga, K. Barantsev, suggests, for example, printing lists of incorrect and correct words on the covers of penny school notebooks that are distributed among millions of children.
Valeriy Uzhvenko, a student at Lviv University, suggests, for his part, “to indicate the words that cripple your tongue on postcards, on envelopes... While watching films,” he writes, “the film magazine “Why do we say that?” or "Learn to speak correctly." How not to talk should be printed on matchbox stickers, on candy and cookie boxes.”
“I am convinced,” writes A. Kulman, a teacher at the university, “that the mass media, especially Komsomolskaya Pravda and the Ogonyok magazine, will be of great benefit if they establish a permanent department “How not to speak and write.” Such publications will be useful to a wide range of people, especially to us, educators.”
“I propose,” writes engineer-colonel A.V. Zagoruiko (Moscow), - to establish the All-Union Society of Lovers of the Russian Language. The society must have republican, regional, regional, city, settlement branches and primary organizations at all institutions, enterprises, schools, universities, etc. without exception. The society must be a mass organization, and access to society members is unlimited.”
“We need an organizing committee or an initiative group,” writes E. Grinberg from the city of Vendors, “in a word, an organization that would have the ability to set up and steadily conduct its business according to a premeditated plan. Probably not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of active fighters for a high speech culture will come to such an organization.
Graphic artist Mikhail Terentiev proposes to establish an annual holiday - following the example of the Bulgarian Day of Slavic Literature. “You can keep its name and date - May 25th. This holiday will be celebrated on the collective farm, and in the sanatorium, and on the ship, and “in the factory, and in the family. Belarusians and Ukrainians will celebrate it together with the Russians...”
Hauler of mine No. 51 F.F. Shevchenko writes: “We have a gigantic network of red corners, which should become centers for planting the culture of the native language at enterprises, construction sites, and in agriculture ... To burn out obscenity with a red-hot iron, which still exists in some places in our speech ... With the eyes of love look at the matter of educating the younger generation...”
Engineer M. Hartmann shares his long experience in “fighting illiteracy”.
“Eight years ago,” he says, “we started compiling and distributing at work a list of the words most often distorted in spelling and pronunciation. From year to year the list increased and by the end of construction it was brought to 165 words. Everyone showed interest in him - from ordinary workers to major specialists. Workers and lower technical personnel easily came and asked for blueprints of the list, but more qualified comrades, unable to overcome the “barrier of modesty”, obtained lists through others, and sometimes under a plausible pretext - for their son or granddaughter.
Attached to the letter is a large table "Correct Spelling of Words", skillfully and sensibly compiled.
All these projects, wishes, and advice should be carefully considered in some authoritative group, and when the best of them are put into practice, one might think they will turn out to be not entirely useless.
True, I understand very well that all these measures are not enough.
After all, the culture of speech is inseparable from the general culture. To improve the quality of your language, you need to improve the quality of your intellect. It's not enough to keep people from talking choice but or i like it. Another writes and speaks without errors, but what a poor vocabulary he has, what filthy phrases! What an anemic mental life is expressed in those musty patterns that make up his speech!
Meanwhile, only that speech can truly be called cultural, which has a rich vocabulary and many different intonations. This culture cannot be achieved by any campaigns for the purity of the language. Other, longer, broader methods are needed here. These methods are being applied in our country, where the people have created so many libraries, schools, universities, institutes, academies of sciences, etc., for their genuine and all-round education. By raising their general culture, the Soviet people are thereby raising the culture of their language.
But, of course, this does not exempt any of us from doing what we can in the fervent struggle to improve our verbal culture.
Comrades! We have gathered here together with you to end forever the ugliness of our lives. Here here in front of you is a young man...
And about that director of the plant, who repeated several times in his address to the workers:
Need to be accepted virgin measures.
Tambov engineer S.P. Merzhanov tells me about the hostility he felt towards one of his colleagues when he wrote in a memorandum:
“Otsedova can be inferred."
“I also understand well,” Comrade continues. Merzhanov, a student known to me, who immediately lost interest in his beloved girl, having received from her a tender letter with many spelling errors.
Previously, forty-five years ago, it would have been a sin to be angry with the Russian people for such perversions of speech: they were forcibly kept in the dark. But now that schooling has become universal and illiteracy has been eradicated once and for all, all these lie down And urinate deserve no mercy.
“In our country,” Pavel Nilin rightly says, “where the doors of schools, both daytime and evening, are wide open, no one can find an excuse for their illiteracy” [ P. Nilin, The danger is not there. "New World", 1958, No. 4, p. 2.].
Therefore, in no way should Russian people be allowed to continue to keep in their everyday life such ugly verbal forms as bulgahter, I like it, I rush, I want it, worse, worn out, wants it, calidor. Or more recent weeds: reservation, incident, I'll drop by for a couple of minutes etc.
True, our language is still felt by many as a kind of blind element, with which it is impossible to fight.
One of the first to approve this idea was the brilliant scientist W. Humboldt (Brother of the famous naturalist and traveler Alexander von Humboldt - Wilhelm (1767-18535) - was a very versatile person - a philologist, philosopher, linguist, statesman, diplomat. . - V.V. )
“Language,” he wrote, “is completely independent of the individual subject... Before the individual, language stands as a product of the activity of many generations and the property of an entire nation, so the strength of the individual is insignificant compared to the strength of the language.”
This view has survived to the present day.
“No matter how much you say reasonable words against stupid and impudent words, how boyfriend or dancer, they - we know this - will not disappear from that, and if they disappear, it will not be because the aesthetes or linguists were indignant, ”one astute and gifted scientist wrote back in the twenties [ D.G. Gornfeld, Torment words. M. - L., 1927, pp. 203-204.].
“That’s the trouble,” he said with anguish, “that no one wants to hear the zealots of the purity and correctness of their native speech, as well as the zealots of good morals ... Grammar and logic, common sense and good taste, euphony and decency speak for them.” , but nothing comes out of all this onslaught of grammar, rhetoric and stylistics on reckless, ugly, reckless living speech” [ D.G. Gornfeld, Torment words. M. - L., 1927, p. 195.] Having given samples of all kinds of speech “ugliness”, the scientist embodied his sadness in a bleak and hopeless aphorism: “Arguments from reason, science and good tone affect the existence of such words no more than courses geology for an earthquake. In the past, such pessimism was completely justified. There was no point even thinking about how to intervene in unison, systematically, with united forces in the ongoing linguistic processes and direct them along the desired channel.
Old Karamzin very accurately expressed this general feeling of humble submission to the elemental forces of his language: "Words enter our language autocratically." At that time, people imagined that: as if a mighty river of speech flows past them, and they stand on the shore and, with impotent indignation, watch how much rubbish and rubbish its waves carry on them.
There is no need, they said, to boil and fight. Until now, there has not yet been a case where the attempt of the guardians of the purity of the language to correct the linguistic errors of any significant mass of people was crowned with even the slightest success.
But can we agree with such a philosophy of inaction and non-resistance to evil?
Can it be that we, writers, teachers, linguists, can only mourn, be indignant, horrified, watching how the Russian language is deteriorating, but do not even dare to think about subordinating it to our collective mind with powerful efforts of the will?
Let the philosophy of inaction have its meaning in the past eras, when the creative will of people was so often powerless in the fight against the elements - including the element of language. But in the era of the conquest of space, in the era of artificial rivers and seas, do we really not have the slightest opportunity to at least partially influence the elements of our language?
It is clear to everyone that we have this power, and one should only be surprised that we use it so little.
After all, there are in our country such super-powerful levers of education as radio, cinema, television, ideally coordinated with each other in all their tasks and actions.
I'm not talking about the multitude of newspapers and magazines - district, regional, all-Union - subordinated to a single ideological plan, fully in control of the minds of millions of readers.
All this purposeful complex of forces has only to unite, systematically, resolutely rise up against the deformities of our current speech, loudly stigmatize them with national disgrace - and there is no doubt that many of these deformities, if they do not disappear completely, then, in any case, will lose their mass mass forever. , epidemic character .
In vain, the fighters for the purity of the language still feel like loners, without the slightest support in the environment that surrounds them, and too often fall into despondency.
“Hands drop,” the village teacher F.A. writes to me. Sharabanova. - No matter how I interpret the guys that you can’t say what time is it?, my last name, ten chickens, he came from school, I undressed my boots, they stubbornly refuse to part with these terrible words. Are there really no ways to make the speech of the younger generation cultural?”
There are ways, and quite good ones. There is a serious magazine “Russian language at school”, where there are many ways offered. The journal very well reflected the ardent attempts of advanced teachers to improve the speech culture of children.
But can the school - alone - exterminate the remnants of lack of culture?
No, what is needed here is the united efforts of all the disparate fighters for the purity of the language - and can there be any doubt that if we all together and passionately get down to business, we will succeed in the near future, if not completely, but to a large extent, to clear our language of this filth.
Last year I published a short article in Izvestia, which outlined several practical measures for the public struggle against perversions and ugliness of speech. In this article, I proposed, among other things, to hold annually on an all-Union scale a "Week (or Month) of Struggle for the Purity of Language" under the auspices of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Union of Writers.
This project evoked lively responses that struck me with their extraordinary passion. Letters from readers poured in to me in an avalanche from Leningrad, from Moscow, from Kyiv, from Ufa, from Perm, from Pereslavl-Zalessky, from Novosibirsk, from Dzhambul, from Gus Khrustalny - and only then did I truly understand how tenderly and the Soviet people devotedly love their great language and what a nagging pain those distortions inflict on them that disfigure and spoil it>
In almost every one of these letters (and there are eight hundred and twelve of them!) some specific means of eradicating this evil are indicated.
A resident of the city of Riga, K. Barantsev, suggests, for example, printing lists of incorrect and correct words on the covers of penny school notebooks that are distributed among millions of children.
Valeriy Uzhvenko, a student at Lviv University, suggests, for his part, “to indicate the words that cripple your tongue on postcards, on envelopes... While watching films,” he writes, “the film magazine “Why do we say that?” or "Learn to speak correctly." How not to talk should be printed on matchbox stickers, on candy and cookie boxes.”
Or more recent weeds:
True, our language is still felt by many as a kind of blind element that cannot be controlled.
One of the first to approve this idea was the brilliant scientist W. Humboldt.
“Language,” he wrote, “is completely independent of an individual subject ... Before an individual, language stands as a product of the activity of many generations and the property of an entire nation, therefore the strength of an individual is insignificant compared to the strength of a language.”
This view has survived to the present day.
“No matter how much you say reasonable words against stupid and impudent words, how boyfriend or dancer, they - we know this - will not disappear from that, and if they disappear, it will not be because aesthetes or linguists were indignant, ”one gifted scientist wrote back in the 1920s.
“The trouble is,” he said with anguish, “that no one wants to hear the zealots of the purity and correctness of their native speech, as well as the zealots of good morals ... Grammar and logic, common sense and good taste, euphony and decency speak for them, but nothing comes out of all this onslaught of grammar, rhetoric and style on reckless, ugly, reckless living speech.
Having cited samples of all kinds of speech "ugliness", the scientist embodied his sadness in a bleak and hopeless aphorism:
"Arguments from reason, science, and good manners have no more effect on the existence of such words than geology courses on an earthquake."
In the past, such pessimism was completely justified. There was no point even thinking about how to intervene in unison, systematically, with united forces in the ongoing linguistic processes and direct them along the desired channel.
Old Karamzin very accurately expressed this general feeling of humble submission to the elemental forces of the language:
"Words enter our language autocratically."
Since then, our leading linguists have constantly pointed out that the will of individual people, unfortunately, is powerless to consciously control the processes of formation of our speech.
Everyone imagined that: as if a mighty river of speech flows past them, and they stand on the shore and, with impotent indignation, watch how much rubbish and rubbish its waves carry on them.
There is no need, they said, to boil and fight. Until now, there has not yet been a case where the attempt of the guardians of the purity of the language to correct the linguistic errors of any significant mass of people was crowned with even the slightest success.
But can we agree with such a philosophy of inaction and non-resistance to evil?
Can it be that we, writers, teachers, linguists, can only mourn, be indignant, horrified, watching how the Russian language is deteriorating, but do not even dare to think about subordinating it to the collective mind with powerful efforts of the will?
Let the philosophy of inaction have its meaning in the past eras, when the creative will of people was so often powerless in the fight against the elements - including the element of language. But in the era of the conquest of space, in the era of artificial rivers and seas, do we really not have the slightest opportunity to at least partially influence the elements of our language?
It is clear to everyone that we have this power, and one should only be surprised that we use it so little.
After all, there are in our country such super-powerful levers of education as radio, cinema, television, ideally coordinated with each other in all their tasks and actions.
I'm not talking about the multitude of newspapers and magazines - district, regional, city - subordinate to a single ideological plan, completely owning the minds of millions of readers.
All this purposeful complex of forces has only to unite, systematically, resolutely rise up against the deformities of our current speech, loudly stigmatize them with national disgrace - and there is no doubt that many of these deformities, if they do not disappear completely, then, in any case, will lose their mass mass forever. , epidemic character.
“In the history of literary languages,” recalls the scientist V. M. Zhirmunsky, “the role of grammar-normalizers, the conscious efforts of language theorists who advocated a certain language policy and fought for its implementation, were repeatedly noted. The struggle of Tredyakovsky and Lomonosov, Shishkovites and Karamzinists in the history of the Russian literary language and Russian grammar ... and many more. etc. testifies to the repeated influence of the creators of language policy on language practice.
Back in 1925, Professor L. Yakubinsky wrote:
“It is hardly necessary to sit back and wait for the weather by the sea, relying on the “natural” course of things. Necessary lead unfolding process, taking into account all its features ... The task of the state in this regard is to provide real support for the research work of linguists”, etc.
Such was the opinion of another scientist in the 1920s, Professor G. Vinokur.
“In the possibility of a conscious active attitude to the linguistic tradition,” he wrote, “in the possibility household style- in the broadest sense of this term, - and therefore, the writer of these lines does not doubt the possibility of language policy ...
Language policy is nothing more than the guidance of social linguistic needs based on an accurate, scientific understanding of the matter.
Many years have passed since then. The “linguistic policy” of the state first of all expressed itself in the fact that its two hundred million people learned to read and write in an amazingly short time.
The main thing is done. And now, I repeat, our public faces another task - it would seem easier: to raise by all possible means the culture of our everyday and writer's speech.
It cannot be said that our society has not shown proper activity in the struggle for the purity of the language: as we have seen, many books and pamphlets, as well as newspaper and magazine articles, are being published that attempt to fulfill this task. Countless schools in our country are working especially hard and persistently to fulfill it. But there is still a lot of work, and it is so hard that even the best of our teachers sometimes become discouraged.
“Hands drop,” writes me the village teacher F. A. Sharabanova. - No matter how I interpret the guys that you can’t say what time is it, my name, ten chickens, he came from school, I undressed my boots, they stubbornly refuse to part with these terrible words. Are there really no ways to make the speech of the younger generation cultural?
There are ways, and quite good ones. There is a serious magazine "Russian language at school", where all sorts of ways are offered. In the journal, for all its shortcomings, which we have already spoken about, the ardent attempts of advanced teachers to improve the speech culture of children were very well reflected.
But can the school - alone - exterminate the remnants of lack of culture?
No, what is needed here is the united efforts of all the disparate fighters for the purity of the language, and can there be any doubt that if we all together and passionately set to work together, we will succeed in the near future, if not completely, but to a large extent, to cleanse our language of this filth?
About eight years ago I published a short article in Izvestia, which outlined several practical measures for the public struggle against perversions and ugliness of speech. In this article, I proposed, among other things, to hold annually on an all-Union scale a "Week (or Month) of Struggle for the Purity of the Language" under the auspices of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the Writers' Union.
This project evoked lively responses that struck me with their extraordinary passion. Letters from readers poured out to me in an avalanche from Leningrad, from Moscow, from Kyiv, from Ufa, from Perm, from Pereslavl-Zalessky, from Novorossiysk, from Dzhambul, from Gus-Khrustalny - and only then did I truly understand how tenderly and the Soviet people devoutly love their great language, and what an aching pain those distortions inflict on them that disfigure and spoil it.
In almost every one of these letters (and there are more than eight hundred of them) some specific means of eradicating this evil are indicated.
A resident of the city of Riga, K. Barantsev, advises, for example, to print lists of incorrect and correct words on the covers of penny school notebooks that are distributed among millions of children.
