Our language is still felt by many. Fairy tales

My unedited notes on essay topics in the Unified State Examination in the Russian language, maybe they will help someone.

Text 9

(1) Our language is still felt by many as a kind of blind element which 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 an individual subject ... (4) 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.”

(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 longing, “that the zealots of purity and correctness of native speech, like the zealots of good morals, no one wants to hear ... (8) 3A of them is mentioned by grammar and logic, common sense and good taste, blessing and decentness, but from all this on a grammar, rhetoric and stylistics, ugly, ugly. Nothing. " (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 manners affect the existence of such words no more than geology courses on an earthquake.”

(10)In the past, 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 powerful 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, will forever lose their mass, 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 *)

* Korney Ivanovich Chukovsky (real name - Nikolai Vasilyevich Korneichukov, 1882-1969) - Russian Soviet poet, children's writer, literary critic, publicist, journalist, literary critic, translator.

Each of us is responsible for our language and everyone can contribute to its development, or at least not spoil anything!

Arguments

1. There are many people whose personal contributions are historically recorded.

1) Cyril (his worldly name Konstantin, nickname Philosopher), created tracing-words: all roots, suffixes, endings are Slavic, but they are composed according to the model of the Greek word that needs to be translated. they are used as in Greek.

εὐ - ψυχ - ία

[ef] [crazy] [ia]
good - soul - ie

εὐ - φων - ία
[ef] [background] [ia]
good - sound - ie

good choking, good image, good honor, good molding, good mind, good fasting, good sound, good angry, good hoot, good act, good detail, good gift. By the way, the Greek “good-” sounds like “eu” or ev, ev, ef ... Therefore, Evdokia, Eugene, eucalyptus ... understandable

Lomonosov traced the terms of Western European science, invented new words, or even simply borrowed

"Thermometer", "refraction", "balance", "diameter", "horizon", "acid", "substance" and even "square" and "minus"

Lomonosov created the names of the parts of speech: verb, adverb, noun, adjective - Russian words

glory. verb = word = speech, the meaning of the part of speech of the word "verb" comes from Lomonosov.

VC. Trediakovsky -"art"(in Old Slavonic the word "iskous" meant experience) society, reliable, probable, impartiality, gratitude, spitefulness, respectfulness, indiscretion, foresight and even publicity.

Karamzin N.M. "impression", "influence", "touching", "entertaining", "moral", "aesthetic", "focus", "industry", "epoch", "stage", "harmony", "catastrophe", "future". A very impressive set, isn't it.

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky - “shrink”, “lemon”.

Saltykov-Shchedrin - - "bungling" and "stupidity",

intelligentsia - Petr Boborykin created on the basis of English intelligence From Russian the word "intelligentsia" has passed into many European countries, and is considered in the West to be a purely Russian phenomenon.

and Severyanin Airplanes with his light hand began to be called "aircraft", and untalented people - "mediocrity".

V. Khlebnikov"pilot" and "exhausted".

Word "alien» was invented by a Soviet science fiction writer Alexander Kazantsev , author of the famous science fiction novel Planet of Storms.

2. Everyone can enter the history of the Russian language by creating a new substance or a new apparatus

cubic zirconia (stone in jewelry) - suit. diamond, named after the abbreviation FIAN (Physical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR

kirza - Leather-Imitating Rubber Substitute - saved during the war, when there was a catastrophic shortage of leather for soldiers' shoes.

satellite, astronaut, helicopter, snowmobile

3. V. Aksenov, who learned to write in English in exile, was asked which language he liked best. He said that in English many words, and Russian is flexible.

We are all constantly forming new words without noticing it ourselves.

Someone first “pro-vacuumed”, and someone “from-sandblasted”, i.e. cleaned with a sandblaster...

We consciously play with language for a red word, wanting to show our mind.

Privatization

Many joked about the Unified State Examination, the enrolled Unified State Examination students, the Unified State Examination assignments ...

someone said "cute"

4. Poets create figuratively capacious words, like A. Voznesensky:

"Fly away
beautiful fall trees,

but if they fall to the ground,
their human beings will gnaw…”

5. We invent jargons to isolate our group of peers from all other people who are not so “advanced”: parents, all adults in general, another group from another quarter ... For most, this game goes like a childhood illness, and for some it gets too far, it prevents them from growing up ... Some particularly witty expressions come into general use.

6. But absolutely everyone can use the Russian language carefully, without distorting it or clogging it

M. Krongauz "The Russian language is on the verge of a nervous breakdown" writes that it is possible to borrow words, but competently, not stupidly, that the language itself selects and grinds borrowed words

If only there were no distorted words and phrases, as in tasks 4-7, nonsense, as in 20 ... It is even worse to turn the language into a garbage dump and a means of aggression, filling your speech with abuse.

A. D. Shmelev, article "False alarm and real trouble"

In other words, swearing, by its very nature, expresses a cynical view of the world, and there are meanings that simply cannot be expressed in swear language. Therefore, the expansion of the scope of the use of foul language leads to the fact that the circle of people who an appropriate outlook on life is imposed, and that can be worrisome. (However, the problem of swearing also has a legal aspect. There are quite a significant number of people who do not want to listen to foul language or read printed swear words en toutes lettres, and their rights must be respected. Therefore, the ban on swear words in the media can be welcomed.

7. D.S. Likhachev "Letters about the good and the beautiful"

Letter nineteen

HOW TO SAY?

Sloppiness in clothes is, first of all, disrespect for the people around you, and disrespect for yourself. It's not about being smartly dressed. There is perhaps an exaggerated idea of ​​one's own elegance in foppish clothes, and for the most part the dandy is on the verge of being ridiculous. You must be dressed cleanly and neatly, in the style that best suits you and depending on your age. Sportswear will not make an old man an athlete if he does not play sports. A "professor's" hat and a black formal suit are not possible on the beach or in the forest picking mushrooms.

And what about the attitude to the language we speak? To a greater extent than clothing, language testifies to a person's taste, his attitude to the world around him, to himself.

There are all sorts of slovenliness in the language of man.

If a person was born and lives far from the city and speaks his own dialect, there is no slovenliness in this. I don’t know about others, but I like these local dialects, if they are strictly sustained. I like their melodiousness, I like local words, local expressions. Dialects are often an inexhaustible source of enrichment for the Russian literary language. Once, in a conversation with me, the writer Fyodor Aleksandrovich Abramov said: Granite was exported from the Russian North for the construction of St. Petersburg and the word-word was exported in stone blocks of epics, lamentations, lyrical songs ... To “correct” the language of epics - to translate it into the norms of the Russian literary language - is simply to spoil the epics.

It is another matter if a person lives in the city for a long time, knows the norms of the literary language, but retains the forms and words of his village. This may be because he considers them beautiful and proud of them. It doesn't bother me. Let him and Okok and retains its usual melodiousness. In this I see the pride of my homeland - my village. This is not bad, and it does not humiliate a person. It is as beautiful as the now forgotten blouse, but only on the person who wore it since childhood, got used to it. If he put it on to show off in it, to show that he is “truly rural”, then this is both funny and cynical: “Look what I am: I didn’t care that I live in the city. I want to be different from all of you!”

Flaunting rudeness in language, as well as flaunting rudeness in manners, slovenliness in clothes, is the most common phenomenon, and it basically indicates a person’s psychological insecurity, his weakness, and not at all strength. The speaker seeks to suppress a sense of fear, fear, sometimes just fear with a rude joke, harsh expression, irony, cynicism. With rude nicknames for teachers, it is the weak-willed students who want to show that they are not afraid of them. It happens semi-consciously. I'm not talking about the fact that this is a sign of bad manners, lack of intelligence, and sometimes cruelty. But the same background underlies any rude, cynical, recklessly ironic expressions in relation to those phenomena of everyday life that injure the speaker in some way. By this, rudely speaking people, as it were, want to show that they are above those phenomena that they are actually afraid of. At the heart of any slang, cynical expressions and swearing is weakness. “Spitting words” people demonstrate their contempt for traumatic phenomena in life because they worry, torment, excite them, because they feel weak, not protected against them.

A truly strong and healthy, balanced person will not needlessly speak loudly, will not swear and use slang words. After all, he is sure that his word is already weighty.

Our language is an essential part of our overall behavior in life. And by the way a person speaks, we can immediately and easily judge who we are dealing with: we can determine the degree of intelligence of a person, the degree of his psychological balance, the degree of his possible “complexity” (there is such a sad phenomenon in the psychology of some weak people, but I don’t have the opportunity to explain it now - this is a big and special question).

It takes a long time to learn good, calm, intelligent speech - by listening, remembering, noticing, reading and studying. But even though it is difficult, it is necessary, necessary. Our speech is the most important part not only of our behavior (as I have already said), but also of our personality, our soul, mind, our ability not to succumb to the influences of the environment, if it is “dragging”.

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 wistfully, “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 lively 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 was flowing past them, and they were standing on the shore and, with impotent indignation, watching how much rubbish and rubbish its waves carried.

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 - subordinated 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 not completely disappear, then, in any case, will forever lose their mass, 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 else 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 has 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 many 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, here we need 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 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 in to me in an avalanche from Leningrad, from Moscow, from Kiev, from Ufa, from Perm, from Pereslavl-Zalessky, from Novorossiysk, from Dzhambul, from Gus-Khrustalny - and only then did I truly understand how dearly and devotedly the Soviet people love their great language and what nagging pain the distortions that disfigure and spoil it inflict on them.

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 cheap school notebooks that are distributed among millions of children.

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 longing, “that zealots of purity and correctness of native speech, like zealots of good morals, no one wants to hear ... (8) 3A of them is mentioned by grammar and logic, common sense and good taste, blessing and decentness, but from all this on a grammar, rhetoric and stylistics, it is not obscene, ugly. Nothing. " (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 manners 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 rise up together, systematically, resolutely 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 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)

(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...

Composition

We rarely think about what role we can play in the fate of future generations. Our entire culture, our speech, mannerisms, even tastes and preferences - all this, one way or another, can affect our future and the future of our children. Does it make sense to control your speech? And who should do it? Who is responsible for the fate of the native language? These questions are asked in his text by K.I. Chukovsky.

The author's reasoning consists of two completely opposite truths, each of which complements each other. The essence of the first is that a person, as a separate subject, no matter how cultured and educated he may be, can in no way influence the fate of the entire language, since the opinion of the majority usually wins. However, the writer draws our attention to the fact that "in the past such pessimism was completely justified", but now everything has turned in a completely different direction. The writer presents the second truth from the point of view of the rejection of the philosophy of "inaction and refusal of non-resistance to evil." And here he draws the reader's attention to the fact that in the era of the conquest of space, in that age when such levers of influence as radio, cinema and television are of exceptional importance, a person must feel for himself a completely different power and use the powers given to him to the right degree.

The idea of ​​K.I. Chukovsky is as follows: the responsibility for the fate of the native language lies not only with society as a whole, but also with each person individually. And therefore the writer believes that "in order to improve the quality of your language, you need to improve the quality of your heart, your intellect."

It is impossible not to agree with the author. I also believe that a person underestimates his own contribution to the present and future of his country. The general cultural level of the whole society is made up of the efforts of each individual person. The responsibility for the fate of the native language lies with us, with each individual person, and therefore it is very important to constantly monitor our own level of culture and education, develop ourselves and encourage others to do so.

In the poetry of I.S. Turgenev, there is a well-known poem "Russian language". In it, the author's words are addressed directly to the language itself as to a free element, however, it becomes clear to the reader that the author is aware of both his personal contribution and the contribution of his people to the greatness of the Russian language. “But you can’t believe that such a language was not given to a great people!” exclaims I.S. Turgenev, emphasizing that the language and the people who speak it are closely interconnected and complement each other. And just as the language can be a support and support for a person, the latter can constantly develop and improve his speech, thereby raising the general cultural level of his country.

A.S. wrote about how very quickly negative trends in language change are being established in society. Griboyedov in the comedy "Woe from Wit". Famus society, in contrast to the educated Chatsky, was full of vulgarity and illiteracy. These people had wealth as a priority, they, as it was fashionable, neglected Russian culture and language, and very often used French words, which one of the main characters of the work, Alexander Chatsky, reproached them with, but his efforts could not be crowned with success. The Famus society could not be corrected and put “on let it be true”, however, A.S. Griboyedov leads the reader to the idea that the fate of the Russian language is not lost as long as there are such responsible people as Alexander Chatsky, who are able to maintain self-control in any situation, in any society.

Thus, we can conclude that the Russian language is, of course, a free and great element, but it is so only thanks to the efforts of the Russian people. Through the efforts of each of us, we can preserve our own language, we just have to not bend under fashion trends and trends of an uneducated crowd.

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 wistfully, “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 lively 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 manners affect the existence of such words no more 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 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 not completely disappear, then, in any case, will forever lose their mass, 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, here we need 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 take up the matter, we will succeed in the near future, if not completely, but to a large extent, to cleanse 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 out to me in an avalanche from Leningrad, from Moscow, from Kiev, from Ufa, from Perm, from Pereslavl-Zalessky, from Novosibirsk, from Dzhambul, from Gus Khrustalny - and only then did I truly understand how dearly and devotedly the Soviet people love their great language and what aching pain those distortions that disfigure and spoil it inflict on them>

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 point out words that cripple your tongue on postcards, on envelopes... While watching films,” he writes, “we should show the film magazine “Why do we say that?” or "Learn to speak correctly." How not to talk should be printed on matchbox stickers, on boxes for sweets and biscuits.

“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 on 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 the members of the society 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 agriculture... With a red-hot iron, burn out the obscenity that 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 our workplace 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 A or i like it. Another writes and speaks without errors, but what a poor vocabulary he has, what messy 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 enlightenment. 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.