The concept of dialect. What is a dialect? Grammar Dictionary: Grammar and linguistic terms

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia gives the following definition of the concept of a dialect (from the Greek diblektos - conversation, dialect, dialect) - this is a variety of this language used as a means of communication with persons connected by a close territorial, social or professional community [Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1972, p. . 227-228].

A territorial dialect is always part of a whole other dialect of a given language, part of that language itself, so it is always opposed to another dialect or other dialects. Small dialects are combined into larger ones. The largest ones can be called adverbs, the smaller ones - dialects. Territorial dialects have differences in sound structure, grammar, word formation, and vocabulary. These differences may be small, so that speakers of different dialects of a given language can understand each other (for example, dialects of Slavic languages); dialects of other languages ​​can be so different from each other that communication between speakers is difficult or impossible (for example, dialects of German or Chinese). Modern dialects are the result of centuries of development.

Very often, however, between the concepts of language and dialect, an intermediate value is established - an adverb, consisting, therefore, of several dialects closest to each other: a language is composed of a set of adverbs, in turn consisting of dialects.

An exact theoretical criterion that would allow in all cases to make an unconditional distinction between the concept of a dialect of one and the same language and the concept of related languages ​​(and even more so between a dialect and an adverb) is in fact absent. In practice, here they are often content with a sign of mutual intelligibility or incomprehensibility: if representatives of two given (related) language systems can, despite the existing differences between these systems, mutually understand each other (without resorting to studying the interlocutor's language system and speaking each in their own dialect) , then these two systems are considered permissible to define as two dialects (or as two adverbs) of the same language; otherwise (i.e., if mutual understanding is impossible, but if there are still a number of similarities), we will be dealing with two "related languages".

Usually, when classifying linguistic varieties that make up areas in which the degree of independence of local varieties is unclear, factors of objective reality are taken into account - both within linguistic (structural similarity or dissimilarity, close or distant relationship of these local units), and functional and extralinguistic (the entry of a given area into one or more state associations; belonging of the carriers of these local linguistic varieties to a single ethnic group or to different ones; orientation of carriers to a single or different literary languages, or to a single and different languages ​​of communication or other languages ​​prestigious in a given area); the presence or absence of a written tradition and literature for a given linguistic variety and their functioning in a given historical period, etc. tradition that has developed in each particular branch of linguistics.

For a speaker of a particular linguistic variety, there is no question whether it is a language or a dialect. He owns a certain language system, calling it a language and distinguishing it from the language of another locality or people (an observant native speaker also notes slight differences among neighbors, if they exist, and the presence or absence of complete mutual understanding). The concept of "dialect" does not arise in the everyday life of the speaker.

A clear demarcation between the concepts of "language" and "dialect" is necessary for the sociolinguistic or functional characteristics of a given local unit associated with its role in the communicative process on the scale of a particular community.

Before turning to the definitions of the concepts "language" and "dialect" that exist in scientific use and to their application in relation to specific material, it is appropriate to consider the material itself, which is subject to analysis, and the criteria that are usually used in the practice of specific studies. When describing and classifying the components of the linguistic world, the following set of criteria is taken into account - linguistic and social:

1) The presence or absence of mutual understanding between speakers of speech forms representing different local units is essentially a reflection of the degree of linguistic differentiation (at different levels of the language), the presence or absence of that “integration threshold” (B.A. Serebrennikov’s term), beyond which impossible dialect mixing [Serebryannikov B.A., 1970, p. 296-297]. In the absence of mutual understanding, direct communication with these forms of speech is no longer possible, and their carriers are forced to resort to some third one.

Ultimately, the criterion of mutual intelligibility, obviously, can be considered as socially determined, although closely related to the degree of structural differentiation of local units (at all levels, including lexical), which is the only factor of a purely linguistic, more precisely, historical-linguistic nature. These factors are closely related to external causes that created or did not create at one time the prerequisites for a significant discrepancy between different forms of speech. The reasons for this discrepancy can be the boundaries of communication between the respective ethnic groups, associated both with physical and geographical conditions (mountain ranges, deserts) and with social conditions (the presence of various state or tribal formations with their own borders, a foreign language environment, etc.). Due to the presence of these boundaries, certain changes in the language system apply only to a certain part of the area, and not to the entire area as a whole.

2) The presence or absence of a single supradialectal norm in the form of either a written or unwritten literary (for example, folklore) language that arose on the basis of one of these linguistic varieties, or on the basis of another closely related variety. In the presence of such a single supra-dialectal norm (usually associated with the existence of a single cultural center), the linguistic varieties of the area appear in the form of subordinate units - dialects, united by the supra-dialectal norm into a single whole - the language. The absence of this norm contributes to the isolation of individual forms of speech and their awareness as independent units - non-written languages. This criterion can be defined, apparently, as a criterion of socio-cultural order.

3). The presence or absence of ethnic unity among the speakers of various local linguistic varieties of this area, which is revealed in their common self-consciousness and self-name of their nationality (or - at the highest stages of the development of society - the nation). This criterion of referring themselves as carriers of a linguistic unit to one or another ethnic community can be defined as a criterion of socio-ethnic unity.

Such a classification is based on principles that, despite the relatively long development of this problem, only recently received an explicit formulation in the theoretical literature [Serebryannikov B.A., 1970, p. 452].

Naturally, these criteria are by their nature ambiguous. The first of them is closely related to the purely linguistic factor of the degree of differentiation of the linguistic structure, the other two are of a more pronounced social nature.

However, as rightly pointed out in the work of Kalnyn L.E. [Kalnyn L.E., 1976, p.37], the gradation factors of this linguistic proximity and mutual intelligibility cannot be decisive, since they still do not give an unambiguous answer to the questions: what degree of intelligibility, how many common elements at all levels of the language are necessary and sufficient to consider different forms of speech as variants of the same language. It is also not entirely clear what intrastructural linguistic criteria can be decisive for dividing a multi-dialect area into larger units, etc. [Gleason G., 1959, p. 436-439].

Apparently, more unambiguous evidence is given in this regard by the criteria of the social plane, i.e., the factors of a single supradialectal norm (especially in the presence of a literary language) and the unity of ethnic self-consciousness. The following statement by R.I. Avanesova: "As for the question of the dialectal division of a language and the allocation of closely related languages, it is not directly solved by structural commonality or differences (although, of course, languages ​​in general have more structural differences between themselves than dialects, and the latter are more than their more small divisions - subdialects and dialects).

Ethnic and national self-consciousness, historical and cultural orientation, for which, along with other features, the sign of commonality or differences in language is important, the service of a given territory with a single literary language or different literary languages ​​- this is what generally determines the allocation of related languages ​​and within them - large territorial-linguistic arrays (dialects)" [Avanesov R.I., 1962, p. 26].

As quite rightly points out in his article L.E. Kalnyn, "the problem of "language and dialect" acquires different content depending on what meaning is invested in the term" language "[Kalnyn L.E., 1976, pp. 34-36]. Having analyzed the various definitions of the terms" language "and" dialect" in various terminological and encyclopedic dictionaries, where the first is defined by functions, the principle of structure and by formal criteria (such as "language is a means of expressing thoughts, feelings", "language is a means of communication", "language is a sign system", etc. .), while the second is qualified as a variety of the first (“a dialect is a variety of a language”, “a dialect is a form of a common language”, etc.), the author comes to the conclusion that in all these definitions “there is one thing in common: the same linguistic status, as well as language in its general ontological meaning" [Kalnyn L.E., 1976, p. 39] and that within the framework of these definitions "the difference between a language and a dialect can be defined as a difference between the general and the specific. The definition of a dialect is a specification of the concept of "language".

This concretization is achieved by introducing an extralinguistic characteristic into the definition of a dialect - namely, by pointing to territorial limitations, to the specifics of the group of speakers.

In some, but not all, definitions of a dialect, some form of reference is made to the correlation of a dialect with a common or national language. In this case, one concretization of the concept of "language" is included in another" [Kalnyn L.E., 1976, p.39].

Thus, Kalnyn L.E. from the very beginning emphasizes the extralinguistic nature of the opposition under consideration. If the definition of a dialect is given as an extralinguistic characteristic of this variant, then the very concept of "language" in the opposition "language" - "dialect" acquires an extralinguistic definition. and L.E. Kalnyn quite rightly notes further:

"Within the framework of the problem of "language and dialect", usually discussed in linguistic literature, the term "language" is used not in its general original meaning, but in the meaning of some specifying generalization (or generalizing specification) - in the meaning of a national, national language, the language of a people, nationality, etc.

The national language as a generalizing language category covers a collection of dialects common in the territory occupied by a given nation, a literary language and forms of speech intermediate between dialectal and literary ones" [Kalnyn L.E., 1976, p.36].

So, in the opposition "language" - "dialect" we are talking about the relationship of the dialect (or, in the words of L.E. Kalnyn, "the language of the dialect" [Kalnyn L.E., 1976, p. 34], or, in the words of R I. Avanesov, "dialect language" [Avanesov RI, 1962, p. 9]) with a common language, in which the dialect language is included as one of the components. A dialect is always part of something larger, and the term "dialect" itself has a precise socio-historical confinement [Kalnyn L.E., 1976, p.39].

Summarizing what has been said, it is natural to assume that overcoming the inconsistency in the interpretation of individual local units as independent languages ​​or dialects subordinate to some more generalized system should be sought in the ways of the consistent application of all three of these criteria. With equally positive indications of these criteria: mutual intelligibility and mutual linguistic closeness; the presence of a common literary language or other supra-dialectal norm that unites them; the unity of the ethnos and the awareness of this unity by the speakers of local linguistic varieties - these forms of speech are rightfully considered as dialects of one language.

The study of dialects provides invaluable and truly inexhaustible material not only for penetrating into the deepest sources of the language, its historical past, but allows you to sensibly, without bias and one-sidedness, evaluate and understand the features of the formation and development of the literary norm, various social and professional dialects, as well as language variants. Only taking dialect data into account opens up the possibility of understanding not only the so-called "deviations" from the rules of pronunciation and grammar, but also these rules themselves, and can serve as a solid basis for studying the formation and development of word meanings.

There is a point of view that dialects are "vulgar speech" used by "uneducated" sections of society. However, such a judgment is anti-historical and factually incorrect, since, firstly, the literary norm, as a rule, is formed on the basis of one or several local dialects; secondly, the linguistic features of any local dialect are due not to the "carelessness" of the speech of its speakers, but to strict historical patterns.

It would be primitive and wrong to imagine the speech of dialect speakers as completely homogeneous and consisting entirely of dialectisms at all language levels (phonetics, grammar, vocabulary) and in all speech situations. Language is a complex social phenomenon, it exists in human society, in the real everyday speech practice of people belonging to various social, professional, territorial formations.

The wide distribution of the literary standard throughout the United States, inter-dialect contacts, the influence of professional and social language patterns inherent in certain layers of speakers, the impact of radio and television - all this ultimately determines the speech of individual speakers of a dialect, which is also within a single territory to the same extent. heterogeneous, as in different areas. Even the speech of individual dialect speakers within the same village or community has its own specific features. It should be especially noted that the inexorable process of urbanization to a large extent narrows the boundaries of the distribution of territorial dialects and the possibilities of their development.

During long journeys, travelers often had to note how the pronunciation, vocabulary, and even grammar of a language changes depending on the territory, even if the language itself is considered to be one single throughout the vast earth. Why this happens, and what historical background contributed to this - the question is complex and ambiguous. Philologists and linguists have been trying to answer it for centuries. In this case, we will try to figure out not how dialects, dialects and adverbs arose, but what they are and how they differ from each other.

Adverb

The largest subdivision of the language is adverb. It combines groups of dialects and dialects that have certain common features. Adverbs, as a rule, bear the names of territories: North Great Russian, Low German, Polish dialect of the Masurians (a Polish tribe living in East Prussia and Mazovia), etc. Adverbs, in contrast to the subdialects and dialects that they absorb, are distributed over fairly large areas of the territory. For this reason, there is still debate whether some modern European languages ​​are dialects in relation to their neighbors. For a long time, for political reasons, the Slovak language was considered only an dialect of the Czech language, despite significant differences between the two languages ​​and the codification of literary Slovak by Anton Bernolak as early as 1790. If no Slovak language existed before then, what would Bernolak codify?

Dialect

However, even if various political and social factors are not taken into account, the differences between language and dialect are very often very vague. As for the dialects, things are somewhat better here. Dialect is a kind of language with its own vocabulary and often different grammatical rules from the literary norm. A certain dialect is spoken among themselves by people living in the same territory, but not having their own state or autonomous entity. Most often, dialects arise in a rural environment, although there are not so few examples of urban dialects. A dialect can also unite a certain social group of the population: the black urban population of the United States considers dialects to be their distinctive features and is often proud of them, like the inhabitants of the former French colonies.

Dialects in most European countries are opposed to the literary language, which is considered a model. Television broadcasts in the literary language, most books are published. It plays the role of a link between numerous local dialects. This is especially true in countries where there are quite a lot of dialects (for example, in Germany, France, Poland), and where they are sometimes strikingly different from each other. Thanks to dialects, we can sometimes get an idea of ​​what a particular language was like many centuries ago. What is forced out in the literary language is reformed and changed by linguists and continues to live on the outskirts of the country. In modern Russian, for example, there is only one past tense. But in the Arkhangelsk region, one can still hear phrases of the following nature: "There used to be a church here." Long-gone time, which the inhabitants of Moscow and St. Petersburg have long forgotten.

Over time, the dialect becomes the language spoken by the national community, cut off for one reason or another from the state where this language is spoken. Hungary is a good example in this case. The Magyars, once scattered throughout the vast territory of the Austrian Empire, actively interacted with their neighbors. It often happened that the population of certain regions had a mixed composition, where the dominant was not always Hungarian. Over time, many Hungarians were completely isolated from the main part of the country. In some areas of Romania and Moldova, the Hungarian minority of Csangos still lives. Having separated from the Kingdom of Hungary in the 13th century, they retained a language that modern Hungarians hardly understand. Their dialect is so archaic that many linguists believe that its very existence is already a miracle. The western neighbors of the Csangos, the Székelys, are another sub-ethnic group of Hungarians. Their dialect is considered much less obsolete than the Csangos, although they were constantly in contact with Romanian influences.

Oddly enough, but the main enemy of dialects is the literary language. The desire to unify, to bring together numerous ethnic groups of the population, the desire to bring everyone to a common denominator is characteristic of many political forces. Thus, in Slovakia, for example, the result of the struggle against numerous dialects was the proclamation of one of them as a literary norm. The rest, as many philologists believe, must eventually disappear, no matter how sad it may seem to us.

Undermined the position of dialects and the introduction of universal literacy: people began to explain how to write and speak correctly. The literary norm supplanted the dialects. But still not to the end. And there is hope that they will still live and delight the ears of those who have long been accustomed to the beautiful literary norm.

dialect

If a dialect is a major subdivision of a language, then dialect is a kind of dialect and is the smallest language unit. It is used in communication by a small territorially connected group of the population. Grammatically, the dialect does not differ from the main language. Its differences from the established norm are most often phonetic in nature. There may also be some lexical discrepancies between the dialect and the literary norm. However, they are not as significant as in the case of the dialect: for example, many people note that in St. Petersburg you will never hear the word “loaf”, instead of it there will always be “bun”, instead of “mobile phone”, or “telephone” there will be "pipe", etc. This, of course, is not a dialect, but definitely an urban specific dialect. In the Russian language, there are also “shocking” (for example, Moscow), “okaying”, “clattering” dialects. In the Romanian language, there are Moldavian, Transylvanian and some others. In addition, linguists note the existence of class and professional dialects, since the language of various social and professional groups may differ due to their special jargon, cultural level, etc.

Thus, any language is a “living substance”, which is constantly developing and changing depending on the groups of people speaking it. The peculiar historical, economic and cultural way of life of this or that human community, isolation and processes of merging with the ways of life of other communities, are also reflected in the language. Often, thanks to dialects, dialects and adverbs, we can trace the evolution of a particular language. They enrich the language and add variety to it. Thanks to them, various groups of the population living in limited territories in various parts of our planet retain their identity.

Kurkina AnaTheodora

Traditionally, dialects were primarily understood as rural territorial dialects. Recently, a lot of work has appeared on urban dialects; in particular, they include the speech of the Negro urban population of the United States, whose English language differs significantly from other varieties of American English. French linguists, along with the term "dialect" (dialecte), use the term "patois" (patois), which also denotes locally limited speech of certain population groups, mainly rural.

Functional understanding

Within this understanding, there are standard dialects (or literary languages) and traditional (or non-standardized) dialects. Their main difference is the fact that the former are used in writing, are supported by special institutions, are taught in schools, and are considered a more “correct” form of the language. Some languages ​​have multiple standard dialects. In such a case one speaks of a polycentric language or a diasystem.

On the one hand, dialects can be combined into adverbs or dialect groups, and on the other hand, divide by dialects. The definition of the taxonomic status of an idiom depends on the general dialect fragmentation in a given linguistic community and is determined for each language individually.

Language or dialect

There is no single understanding and, accordingly, common criteria for distinguishing between a language and a dialect, therefore, when saying that a given idiom is a language or a dialect, it is necessary to specify what is meant by this or that term. In the case when it is necessary to avoid choice, linguists usually use the term idiom, denoting any kind of language that is more or less different from others.

• it is not a standardized literary language;
• its carriers do not have their own state or autonomous entity;
• it is not a prestigious form of communication.

Notes

see also

• Vertical language continuum (acrolect - mesolect - basilect)
• Some articles about dialects:

Links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Dialect" is in other dictionaries:

- (Greek dialektos, from dialegesthai to talk). An adverb is a set of features in a language that are found among various tribes of a people who generally speak the same language. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Cm … Synonym dictionary

In the doctrine of comparative linguistics, a set of dialects (see) of any language that are closely related to each other, i.e. e. a unit of higher order in the dialectological fragmentation of the language. Quite often, however, between the concepts of lang. and D. is installed ... ... Literary Encyclopedia

DIALECT- (from the Greek dialektos - dialect, dialect). A variety of a national language, determined by a limited number of people, connected by territorial (territorial dialect), social (social dialect), professional (professional dialect) ... ... A new dictionary of methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of teaching languages)

dialect- a, m. dialecte m. lat. dialectus gr. dialektos. 1. A variety of a national language used by a limited group of people connected by a territorial, professional or social community. Territorial dialect. Social… … Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

A local or regional form of a language that is distinct from its other territorial varieties. In English: Dialect See also: Dialects Languages ​​Financial Dictionary Finam … Financial vocabulary

- (from the Greek dialektos dialect, dialect), a variety of this language, used as a means of communication by persons connected by a close territory, professional or social community, and having specific features in sound ... ... Modern Encyclopedia

- (from the Greek dialektos dialect adverb), a variety of this language used as a means of communication by persons connected by a close territorial, professional or social community ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

DIALECT, dialect, masculine. (Greek dialektos). Local dialect, dialect (ling.). North Russian dialects. || The same as language, speech (obsolete and jocular). Spoken in French dialect. Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

DIALECT, a, husband. A local or social variety of a language. territorial dialects. Social e. Speak in a dialect. | adj. dialectal, oh, oh. Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

- (from Greek dialektos dialect) eng. dialect; German Dialect. 70 A local or regional form of a language that differs from its other territorial varieties. see ARGO, JARGON. Antinazi. Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2009 ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

Books

• Grammar of the Coptic language. Said dialect, Elanskaya Alla Ivanovna, This book is the first systematic description of the grammar of the Coptic literary language (Said dialect), made by a Russian author. The choice of the Said dialect… Category: Linguistics and Linguistics Publisher: Nestor-History, Manufacturer:

• Ladoga-Tikhvin group
• Vologda group
• Kostroma group
• Interzonal dialects
  • Onega group
  • Lach dialects
  • Belozersko-Bezhetsky dialects

Southern dialect

Groups of dialects of the South Russian dialect:

• Western group
• Upper Dnieper group
• Upper Desninskaya group
• Kursk-Oryol group
• Eastern (Ryazan) group
• Type A interzonal dialects
• Interzonal dialects of type B
  • Tula group
  • Yelets dialects
  • Oskol dialects

Central Russian dialect

The Central Russian dialect is specific for the Pskov, Tver, Moscow, Vladimir, Ivanovo, Nizhny Novgorod regions.

• Western Central Russian dialects
  • Western Central Russian bordering dialects
    • Gdovskaya group
    • Novgorod dialects
  • Western Central Russian Akaya dialects
    • Pskov group
    • Seligero-Torzhkov dialects
• Eastern Central Russian dialects
  • Eastern Central Russian bordering dialects
    • Vladimir-Volga group
      - Tver subgroup
      - Nizhny Novgorod subgroup
  • Eastern Central Russian Akaya dialects
    • Department A
    • Department B
    • Department B
    • Dialects of Chukhlomsky Island

Linguistic characteristic

The linguistic characteristics of dialects include phonetics, vocalism, syntax. The northern and southern dialects have their own dialectal features. Central Russian dialects combine certain features of the northern and southern dialects.

The phonetics of Russian dialects shows the difference between adverbs in the pronunciation of consonants (long consonant), fricative sound, softening of consonants, yakane, etc. In the dialects of the Russian language, five-form, six-form and seven-form systems of vocalism and “okane”, “akanie” are distinguished as types of unstressed vocalism . The difference in the syntax of dialects is associated with the use of different cases in the construction of phrases, different combinations of prepositions with nouns, and the use of different forms of the verb. The difference can be traced in the construction of simple sentences: changing the order of words, using particles, etc.

What is a dialect, or rather, what exactly can be attributed to dialects, and what to dialects or adverbs - is still controversial among modern linguists and small, but very proud peoples. There are both territorial and social dialects.

The main thing

So what is a dialect? The dictionary-reference book of linguistic terms says that it is:

Variety of common language

For modern researchers, the main importance and value of studying dialects is that such specific features of the language directly reflect the culture of a particular social or territorial group. At the same time, in the conditions of an open and accessible society, supported by the development of the Internet, in most cities and countries, dialects and local dialects are blurred over time, new words and expressions appear, and old ones are slowly becoming obsolete.

Dialects emphasize the diversity of the language and its cultural significance, allow you to go beyond the accepted norm. Russia has a huge number of peoples, and hence dialects. But such a linguistic phenomenon appears not only among individual peoples, but even simply in individual cities and villages. The formation of linguistic features is influenced, among other things, by historical and territorial factors. They compose entire collections of words and expressions, dictionaries for dialects, such that they are not inferior in importance to ordinary explanatory ones.

Social dialects with examples

In addition to division on a territorial basis, social dialects are also distinguished. They include jargon and slang. That is, this is all that applies to individual linguistic dialectal subgroups: teenage, computer, criminal, gaming, army slang, network jargon, automotive, and so on. Getting from one communication group to another, a person who was not previously familiar with a different communication format can fall into a stupor, not understanding what is at stake.

Basically, a social dialect unites groups of people with certain hobbies and hobbies, age signs or a forced communication environment. A manifestation can be not only words in a dialect, but also whole expressions. What is a dialect in the social sphere was well described by the famous linguist Vinogradov in his works.

Social dialects, examples:

• "Yes, you are persecuting" (to lie, to deceive).
• "Throw a lasso" (arrest).
• "Collect loot" (collect dropped items in the game).
• "Let's go balabasit" (go to eat).

Speech in the professional field

Professional jargon differs from social jargon and also belongs to the dialect. Vivid examples of a professional dialect include legal, medical, and maritime.

It brings together a group of people of the same or related professions who are able to understand each other in working terms, even while working in different companies or places. For example, by "nut" ordinary people understand a fruit with an edible core, but electricians will immediately think that we are talking about an electrical clamp. Or "South Aurora", few people will understand that this is the aurora borealis, and sailors all over Russia immediately understand where their legs grow from.

The most famous dialects are territorial. If you ask any schoolchild what a dialect is, he will remember exactly about them, and maybe even give an example. In fact, all of us are well aware of dialects and adverbs of this type, there are words of this kind in almost every city. In another way, they can still be called regionalisms, but the meaning remains the same.

For example, in Siberia, an extension to buildings is called the word "attachment", and an ordinary file for storing sheets of paper "multifora". "Kulema" is a person who is definitely not in a hurry, slow and imposing, and "shanezhki" are called buns. Here you can "close" the door, not close it, and go for a walk in "shoes", as Siberians call shoes.

In the Far East, which borders Asian countries, it is normal to suggest that a company go to "chifanka", a small Chinese food establishment. Life on the coast also makes itself felt, lovers of freebies are called "seagulls" here, and the embankment is briefly called "nabka".

As for the southern peoples, in the Krasnodar Territory, for example, it is customary to call apricots "zherdeloy", and pumpkin "garmelon". The Kubans call their walk "shkandyby", socks "boots". Well, if suddenly someone gets bored with stupid chatter, then it will be unpleasant to hear in your address "you already broke my head."

Pronounced difference in the use of dialectal words in the example of two capitals

The Central and North-Western regions differ in the number of inhabitants, greater mobility. Thus, the fact of a huge number of colloquial differences in the speech of residents of Moscow and St. Petersburg is surprising.

When for Petersburgers "entrance" is an action, for Muscovites the word "front door" causes a smile. In Moscow, "chicken", and in St. Petersburg "chicken", in the metropolitan region "curb", and in the northwestern "curb". If in St. Petersburg they eat "shawarma" in badlons, then in Moscow they get by with "shawarma" dressed in turtlenecks.

The "side road" in Moscow is a St. Petersburg "pocket", and if you have to use public transport, then you need to buy a Moscow "travel card", and in St. Petersburg a "card", after which you can drive along the St. Petersburg "viaducts" and "overpasses" Moscow. "Irga" in St. Petersburg is called "karinka", and "bread" in the "tent" is called "bun" from the "stall". "Disorder-toe" from St. Petersburg motorists in Moscow will call "toe-toe". A "sugar tube" in Moscow is called a "waffle cone", and a "ladle" is more often used here as a "ladle". "Spans" in Moscow fasten their jackets with a "zipper", and "gopniks" in St. Petersburg use a "snake".

Conclusion

As can be seen from the examples, the cultural and historical features of the regions can be seen from individual words from the pronounced dialect, which certainly makes the dialect a valuable linguistic manifestation. From it, as from an open book, you can read and learn new information about the surrounding social environment in society.

So what is a dialect? These are varieties of the generally accepted language norm, differences that can be traced among a whole group of people, in cities or professions. A separate speech of an individual cannot be called a dialect, it is already an idiolect. The dialect is distinguished by the use of words and expressions by a large number of people.

The use of dialect words and expressions in other regions can confuse others and cause misunderstanding. It is necessary to carefully use doubtful words in speech.