A branch of linguistics that studies the system of rules for the uniform spelling of words and their forms, as well as these rules themselves. The central concept of orthography is spelling.

A spelling is a spelling regulated by a spelling rule or set in dictionary order, i.e., the spelling of a word that is selected from a number of graphics that are possible from the point of view of the laws.

Spelling consists of several sections:

1) writing significant parts of the word ( morphemes) - roots, prefixes, suffixes, endings, that is, the designation by letters of the sound composition of words where this is not defined by graphics;

2) continuous, separate and hyphenated spellings;

3) the use of uppercase and lowercase letters;

4) transfer rules;

5) rules for graphic abbreviations of words.

Spelling morphemes (significant parts of the word) is regulated in Russian by three principles of Russian orthography - traditional, phonetic, morphological (phonemic, morphematic).

Traditional the principle governs the spelling of unchecked vowels and consonants ( tank, pharmacy), roots with alternations ( fold - lay down to live), differentiating spellings ( oh oh oh oh oh oh).

Phonetic the principle of spelling is that in separate groups of morphemes, the writing can reflect the actual pronunciation, i.e., positional changes in sounds. In Russian orthography, this principle is implemented in three spelling rules - the spelling of prefixes ending in s/s (times to beat - dis to drink), the spelling of the vowel in the prefix roses / times / grew / races (ra writing - painting) and the spelling of roots starting with and, after prefixes ending in a consonant ( and history - previous history).

Morphological (phonemic, morphematic) the principle is leading and regulates more than 90% of all spellings. Its essence lies in the fact that phonetically positional changes are not reflected in the letter - reduction of vowels, stunning, voicing, softening of consonants. At the same time, vowels are written as if under stress, and consonants - as in a strong position, for example, in a position before a vowel. In different sources, this basic principle may have a different name - phonemic, morphematic, morphological.

There are many spelling rules related to the spelling of roots, prefixes, suffixes and endings. But the main, leading principle is one. Consider examples.
Why in the word water in the root is written o, and in the word grass - a?
Why different endings in the noun: from the village and to the village?
Why should one write oak but soup? After all, the same sound [p] is heard.
Why is sad spelled with the letter t, and tasty without it?

Seems like there are different spelling rules., however, they can be combined on the basis of the leading principle of orthography, which requires that the writer:

1) did not trust his hearing and did not write as he hears;

2) checked dubious spellings;

3) remembered that verification is possible only in the same morpheme (root, ending, etc.);

4) knew how to choose the correct word.

The main thing is to know strong positions: for vowels - this is the position under stress, and for consonants - before vowels and before l, m, n, p, v.

With this in mind, you can easily check all the above examples: water - water, grass - herbs, from the village - from the river, to the village - to the river, oak - oaks, soup - soups, sad - sad, tasty - tasty.

You can also check the spelling of suffixes and prefixes. What letter (e, i, i) is written in the suffix of the word per..sty? The word per..sty means “consisting of feathers”, “like feathers”. The same suffix is ​​in the words: stony, radiant, granular. Therefore, it is necessary to write the letter and - pinnate. Leaky or Leaky? We check: pine, spruce.

The same is true for attachments. Why is the prefix written through A, a through through O? They say you need to remember that there are no prefixes zo- and pan- (by the way, there is a prefix pa- - stepson, flood, branch pipe). Let's try to check: dark, light - under the stress a; train, funeral, handwriting - under the stress of Fr. The prefix s- in the words make, reset, rot sounds like z, but if you put it in a strong position, it becomes clear that there is no prefix z- in Russian: break, cut, tear, tie.

Thus, all rules have the same basis. They determine the leading principle of Russian spelling. This principle, when the sound is checked by a strong position, is called morphological. This principle is the most convenient for Russian writing.

1. Check the unstressed vowel with stress:

yes lkiy - dl, to lna - dl, le s - ls.

2. Doubtful (paired by deafness / sonority) consonant check by substituting a vowel or l, m, n, p, v: oak -Oak trees

If you hear a paired sound,

Be careful my friend

Double check immediately

Feel free to change the word:

Tooth - to tooth s, ice - to ice s.

Be literate and you!

3. Check the unpronounceable consonant by substituting a vowel: late - be late .

Not wonderful, not great

It's terrible and dangerous

Letter T to write in vain!

Everyone knows how lovely

The letter T is appropriate!

Exceptions: feel (but participate), holiday, happy, neighborhood, staircase (but ladder), clearly (but dishes), regale (but handwriting), peer (but peer), glass (but bottle), flash (but shine), splash (but splash), eyelashes, helper.

What is spelling? Spelling(from Greek spelling) is a set of norms or rules of practical writing: the rules for using letters of the alphabet when writing words, their forms and combinations; and rules for writing words and phrases, regardless of the letters included in their spelling.

The discussion of the principles of Russian spelling should begin with the definition of the principles of graphics, i.e. letters. The principles of graphics govern the ways in which sound speech is conveyed in writing, while the principles of spelling provide rules for the transmission of sound speech by graphic symbols. In other words, graphics are primary in relation to spelling.

A.A. Reformed identifies 6 paired principles that regulate the norms for the use of letters of the alphabet:

a. phonemic and phonetic.

b. Etymological and traditional-historical.

c. Morphological and symbolic.

Phonemic principle of spelling is that each phoneme is expressed by the same letter, regardless of the position in which it falls.

For example, oak-oak, syllable-syllable, garden-garden: phonemes [b], [d], [e] are reflected in the letter in the same way, although they sound differently - in the forms oak, syllable, garden- voiced consonants, in forms oak, syllable, garden- consonants are deafened.

Phonetic principle of spelling is that the actual sounds are displayed by the letters. There are many examples of words in Russian that are spelled the way they sound. The best example is Italian, where alphabetic associations are complex, but the underlying principle of spelling is phonetic:

For example: parlo - parla, Sono di Roma, molto, forte, bene.

Another example of a language whose fundamental principle of orthography is phonetic is German, in which about 80% of words are spelled as they are heard, with due observance of the rules of the alphabet.

Let's return to the phonetic principle in Russian orthography. Considering the above examples, we can say that in a strong position (when the consonant is voiced - oak, syllable, garden) the phonetic and phonemic principles of writing coincide, but not in weak writing.

Let's look at another example:

catfish and myself are written the same way both phonemically and phonetically, but in the phrase catfish caught by myself– spelling is phonemic, since strong positions determine distinction [about] and [a], and phonetically this statement would have the following spelling: paid herself.

In Russian writing, the phonetic principle underlies the spelling of prefixes on [h]: unemployed but hopeless, mediocre, but dumb, repay – sing, beat up – drink. Phonetic spellings s after c: gypsy, chicken, cucumbers, foxes, although according to the phonemic principle it would be necessary to write here and.

A.A. Reformed formulates Russian spelling rules, based on the phonemic principle: write unstressed vowels in the same way as under stress: water, water carrier - water, lumberjack - forest; always write voiced and voiceless consonants in any position, as before vowels, sonorous consonants and [in] and [in']: fruit - fruit, raft - raft, mongrel - mongrels, Mashka - Mashek.

Etymological and traditional-historical principles spellings are based on the fact that the letter does not display the current state, but the past.

Etymological principle really corresponds to the language in its past, for example, spellings with the letter e: bees, wives, went, millet, because in these positions in the Russian language there was once a phoneme [e]. However, in modern language, the phonemic principle applies in such cases: about after a hissing and soft consonant - cf. seam, zhokh, chachotka, ratchet, sword.

Etymological spellings in English:

Traditional-historical principle of spelling preserves the tradition of writing. For example, the Church Slavonic spelling of the word assistant With sch, which etymologically should have been written with h, since the word goes back to Russian help (assistant), and phonemically through sh – assistant. Also writing unstressed adjective endings -th and –th: spare, overseas but under stress -oh – spare, marine.

Pay attention: in Russian writing before the reform of 1917 there were much more words with traditional spelling.

The spelling of proper names with a capital letter in Russian is also based on the traditional-historical principle of orthography.

Morphological and symbolic principles they strive to convey the language not through phonetics, while morphological spellings reflect morphology (grammar), and symbolic spellings tend to distinguish lexical homonyms that are phonetically indistinguishable.

An example morphological spellings in Russian is the use of a soft sign at the end of feminine words after hissing ( night, mouse). The same rule applies to borrowed words: fake, ink.

Example symbolic spellings: distinction in pre-reform Russian spelling of homonyms peace(antonym of war) and peace(synonymous with the universe).

In modern Russian orthography, the combination of morphological and symbolic principles is manifested in such spellings as set fire to(verb with yo) and arson(noun with about), where both grammar and vocabulary differ.

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2016-04-15

13. Spelling and its principles: phonemic, phonetic, traditional, symbolic.

If the alphabet were compiled according to the principle: “the number of letters corresponds to the number of phonemes of the language”, then the question of spelling would be half eliminated. But since there are no ideal alphabets and they evolved historically, reflecting different trends, the use of the alphabet in writing needs spelling rules. In addition to the rules for using letters to convey a language, there are other rules for writing, such as, for example, continuous and separate spelling of words, hyphenation rules.

So the spelling (spelling - from Greek orthos-"correct" and grapho-"writing". Spelling (Greek word orthography corresponds to Russian tracing paper spelling) - is a set of norms or rules of practical writing consisting of:

rules for the use of letters of the alphabet when writing words, their forms and combinations,

rules for writing words and phrases, regardless of the letters included in their spelling.

The norms of such writing are regulated by various principles.

For spelling, which is associated with the use of letters of the alphabet, six principles can be established, which are combined in pairs.

The first principle is phonemic and second - phonetic.

1) Phonemic principle writing is that each phoneme is expressed by the same letter, regardless of the position in which it falls: for example, oak and oak are spelled the same, although they are pronounced differently: in the form oak -[b], that is, a voiced consonant, but in the form oak at the end of a word, this consonant is stunned.

2) On the contrary, phonetic principle letters consists in the fact that letters represent actually pronounced sounds; thus, phonemic and phonetic spellings coincide in strong positions, but do not coincide in weak positions. So, catfish and myself are written in the same way both phonemically and phonetically, but in the case catfish caught herself - in Russian, phonemic spelling, since strong positions suggest a distinction between [o] and [a], and phonetically the same statement would receive such a spelling: she caught herself - and where is the “fish” and where is the “fisherwoman” - you can’t make out. In Russian writing, exceptions to the phonemic principle may occur:

or according to the composition of the alphabet: this is that there are twice as many vowels as it should be, and 12 less consonants than it should be; in addition, there is no letter for the consonant [g];

either because there are special spelling rules; for example, in writing prefixes on [h]: unemployed, but non-stop, browless, but careless and finally tasteless where the letter z is used, although z sounds like [s] in this case. However, when these consonants sound like “hissing”, for example in words silent, ruthless, inhuman, h and s remain according to the rule: “Before the letters b, c, d, e, f, h, l, m, n, r written with z, and before the letters l,f, k, t, w, s , h, c, x spelled with. In addition to this “rule” (which is rather an “exception” in Russian orthography), the spelling of the letter s after c (gypsy, chicken, cucumbers, foxes, Lisitsyn), whereas it would be necessary to write in these cases after c basic letter and, cf. surnames Lisitsian, Tsitsin, where the spelling is more phonemic.

The basic rules of Russian spelling are based on the phonemic principle: “Write unstressed vowels in the same way as under stress”, for example: water, water carrier, because water; arborist, because forest, and fox grower, because foxes".“Write voiced and deaf consonants always in any position as before vowels, sonorant consonants and before [in], [in "]", for example: fetus, because fetus, and raft, because raft; give away because tear off, but file, because undermine; cur, because mongrels, but Masha, because Mashek; climb, because I climb but carry, because carry, swim with “yerem” (b), since bathe; therefore smoke, smoke and smokes, smokes spelled differently."

3) The third and fourth principles of spelling - etymological and traditional-historical - are based on reflecting in the letter not the current state, but the past, and etymological principle really corresponds to the language in its past; these are the spellings of words with a letter e: bees, wives, went, millet, you lie, since in these cases there was once a phoneme [e] in Russian, but for the modern Russian language here [o], i.e. “o after a soft consonant or after a hissing”: cf. seam, zhokh, sword, cloak, ratchet, chachotka, rustle etc., where the phonemic principle of writing is correctly applied.

4) On the same principle of the transfer of the past is based traditional-historical principle , the most “unprincipled”, blindly preserving any tradition of writing. These are the Church Slavonic spellings in the Russian letter: assistant with a letter sch, although the Russian word does not come from Church Slavonic help, but from Russian help, that etymologically it would be necessary to write through h (helper), and phonemically through sh (assistant), writing unstressed adjective endings th, -th (reserve, overseas, though under stress -oh: spare, sea), writing an unstressed prefix times - with a, although under the stress [o], cf. meditation, but rest, flourish etc.

In Russian orthography before the reform of 1917. there were many more of these traditional spellings (her, instead of her, unstressed adjective endings -ago, -yago; the use of the letters fita and izhitsa, etc.). Trying to distinguish between spellings: bee, took into account, lye with e, a rustle, rustle With about, because h, w - soft consonants, w, w - hard, cannot be justified, because the hissing consonants in Russian do not form pairs in hardness and softness; therefore, after the hissing ones, it is necessary to write the main letters, and not the doublets, i.e. a , but not I ; about , but not yo ; at , but not Yu ; and , but not s ; and, oddly enough, one should write uh , but not e , cf. tea(but not tea), pike(but not pike), fat, awl(but not zhyr, shyl), but wool(but not wool).

The fifth and sixth principles can also be compared: this morphological principle and symbolic. What they have in common is that they strive to convey the language not through phonetics, while

5) morphological spellings reflect grammar (morphology), bypassing phonetics and even contradicting it, a

6) symbolic spellings seek to distinguish between lexical homonyms that are phonetically indistinguishable.

An example of morphological spellings can serve as the use of a soft sign at the end of feminine words after hissing (night, where b is useless, cf. Ray, or mouse, where b is written after a hard [w], which is a clear contradiction); the fact that in such spellings it is not a matter of etymology is shown by examples of foreign words to which this rule applies (fake, ink, cf. carcasses masculine without o).

A good example of symbolic writing there was a distinction in the pre-reform Russian spelling of two homonyms: peace(antonym wars) and peace(synonym universe).

In modern Russian orthography, spellings such as set fire to(verb with ё) and arson(noun with o), show a combination of morphological and symbolic principles, because they differ in both grammar and vocabulary. Close to symbolic and spellings such as company and campaign, overpass and trestle, although the spelling differences in these cases are based on a foreign etymology. The symbolic principle should include the use of large (capital) letters in proper names (cf. french and General French, frost and Father Frost); these examples show that the symbolic principle is associated with the manifestation of a kind of ideography.

In any orthography, one or another combination of different principles can be observed, but each orthographic system is determined by the leading principles; Thus, for the Russian spelling system, the leading principle is the phonemic one, on the basis of which the basic spelling rules are built, while for most Western European spellings, the leading principles are etymological and traditional-historical (for example, for English or French spelling).

While mechanization of the writing process is the ideal,
but only up to a certain limit,
beyond which the process of writing must still be conscious.
Attention must linger on certain forms of language,
analyze them quickly and accordingly
solve some spelling problem.
It already follows from this that the mechanization of the writing process
in no way will give absolute literacy,
and even more - it will certainly lead to semi-literacy,
because it will not create habits when writing
analyze linguistic forms.
L.V. Shcherba

Writing is one of the types of speech activity, along with speaking, listening and reading. A letter is a product of speech using special graphic characters (letters of the alphabet). This type of speech activity unfolds in space and time. Space is paper (there were papyrus, parchment, birch bark, etc.) or a monitor screen (pager, cell phone, etc.). In order to imprint language units on a suitable fragment of space, some time is needed. And a set of graphic signs suitable for conveying the author's exciting meanings embodied in linguistic units. However, written communication in any culture in any of the languages ​​of the world is characterized by another important feature: correct spelling, i.e. compliance with the rules of written speech established in a given society using a certain national language. The rules of speech behavior in writing are regulated primarily by spelling and punctuation.

The main goal of our work is to reveal the psychological content of writing in accordance with the rules of Russian spelling. We will try to establish what kind of intellectual work is required for literate writing, what mental operations are necessary for the error-free use of various spelling rules, and whether there are linguistic patterns behind the spelling rules, and if so, which ones.

The set goal can be achieved by consistent solution of specific tasks. First, it is necessary to discuss the principles of Russian orthography in relation to the laws inherent in the language. Secondly, it is required to characterize writing as a functional system, as an activity. Finally, thirdly, it is necessary to determine the mental operations “responsible” for writing the word in accordance with different spelling principles.

Let's start in order.

Characteristics of the principles of Russian spelling

The discussion of the principles of Russian spelling should begin with the definition of the principles of graphics, i.e. letters. The principles of graphics govern the ways in which sound speech is conveyed in writing, while the principles of spelling provide rules for the transmission of sound speech by graphic symbols. In other words, graphics are primary in relation to spelling.

In Russian letter(Russian script) the main one is phonemic principle: most of the letters of the Russian alphabet denote a phoneme in writing. Meanwhile, not all phonemes have a special letter. However, the alphabet also contains letters denoting allophones, or variants of a phoneme. Recall the definitions of phoneme and allophone.

Phoneme- minimum language unit, capable of acting as the only distinguisher of the plan of expression of morphemes and words. In speech phoneme represented sounds. Consider an example. The word bak consists of three phonemes /B,A,K/, which are represented by three sounds [b, a, k]; if this word is pronounced in a whisper, then the phonemic composition will not change, but the first consonant will change in the sound composition: voiced consonants are impossible in whispered speech and the phoneme /B/ will be presented as [n]. In turn, the words bak and buk differ in vowels: their phonemic composition is /Б,А,К/ and /Б,У,К/, respectively. However, the first consonant phoneme is presented differently in these words: in the word beech, under the influence of the subsequent rounded vowel /U/, we pronounce [b°]. Such a sound expression of a phoneme dependent on “neighbors” (i.e., on a phonetic position) is called an allophone (or a variant of a phoneme).

The letters denoting allophones in writing “work” in accordance with a different principle of writing - in accordance with syllabic principle letters. Let's take an example. The words onion and luk differ in their phonemic composition by the first consonants: /L/ and /L’/, respectively. Nevertheless, in writing, the first consonants are transmitted by the same letter. But different letters are used to convey a vowel. In the word luk, the letter Yu conveys the allophone of the phoneme /U/ in position after a soft consonant. Thus, this letter also denotes the softness of the preceding consonant. As a result, in writing, all iotized vowels represent a whole syllable: a soft consonant + an allophone of a vowel phoneme occurring in position after a soft consonant.

Recall that in the Russian alphabet there is a letter that conveys the sign of a phoneme: b conveys only the softness of the preceding consonant. It can be said that in Russian writing the same phoneme (soft consonant) is transmitted either by a digraph: sol; or a sign for the corresponding solid consonant in combination with a special (iotized) vowel. There is also an “extra” letter, denoting a “morphemic seam” between the prefix and the root in writing: this is b.

So, Russian writing is based on phonemic and syllabic principles. The signs of Russian writing - letters - correspond to phonemes or allophones of phonemes. There are isolated cases of letters that correspond to a sign of a phoneme or a boundary between morphemes. According to the fair remark of L.R. Zinder, “thanks to the witty use of letters, the Russian alphabet, consisting of 33 letters, provides an adequate representation of 41 phonemes” (Zinder 1996: 19).

Let's move on to discussing the principles of Russian spelling. In a classic work on the theory of writing, Lev Rafailovich Zinder, a representative of the Shcherbov linguistic school, defines eight principles of spelling. These are (1) phonemic, (2) morphematic, (3) grammatical, (4) differentiating, (5) traditional (historical), as well as (6) citation, (7) transliteration and (8) transcriptional principles (Zinder 1996: 22-24).

From the point of view of how the principles of spelling correlate with the laws of the language and the peculiarities of the speech activity of native speakers, they can be represented as motivated by language laws and not motivated by language laws. Principles based on patterns inherent in the language itself are comprehended by native speakers as motivated and can be learned consciously (Zinder 1996: 25). Strictly speaking, the principles of spelling, not motivated by linguistic laws, are motivated by speech activity, i.e. features of the written form of communication. Let's discuss all the principles that determine the correctness of the transmission of the sound composition of a morpheme and a word in writing, in the aspect of their motivation by the laws of the language.

Let's start with the phonemic principle. Phonemic principle“suggests the motivation for writing the designated word or morpheme by the sound image without taking into account their word-formation connections” (Zinder 1987: 92). In accordance with this principle, we write a rally, although the root -games- in words that do not have proper Russian prefixes begins with the letter I. We convey the same root morpheme, which has the same lexical meaning, with different letters only because that we are trying to accurately reflect the sound of the first vowel. Similarly, a soft sign is written at the end of the numeral five, conveying the softness of the final consonant, although the same root in the word pyatak does not have the softness designation /T/ in writing, since the final consonant of the root in the word pyatak is hard /T/. In accordance with the phonemic principle, we allow different spellings of the same morpheme for the sake of accurately reflecting its sound composition. Thus, the phonetic principle is motivated by the variability of the sound composition (plan of expression) of the morpheme, which is actually represented in the languages ​​of the world, including Russian. The spelling of a word according to the phonemic principle reflects the phonetic reality: the real sound composition of the word.

In the works of representatives of the Moscow Linguistic School, this principle is called phonetic. The disparity in terminology is due to the difference between the Moscow phonological school and Shcherbovskaya.

Let us pass to the characterization of the morphematic principle. Morphematic principle associated with lexical and grammatical meanings, it reflects "the desire to show the identity of the morpheme ..., the spelling does not reflect the live alternations characteristic of this morpheme" (ibid.: 94). The composition of the morpheme is transmitted by a strong phonetic position: zdraVie - hello. In the words health and hello, the root morpheme will coincide, however, in the first word, the final consonant of the morpheme is /B’/, and in the second - the vowel /А/. Meanwhile, in writing, differences in the sound composition of the same root morpheme in different words are not transmitted: in both cases, we write V at the end of the root. In accordance with the morphematic principle, the phonemic composition of the morpheme is always transmitted in writing in the same way (according to a strong phonetic position).

The morphematic principle is motivated by the law of linguistic sign stability. The law of stability is manifested in the fact that in the languages ​​of the world a certain plan for expressing a sign (a segment of a speech chain) causes a certain image in the mind of a native speaker (a plan for the content of a sign). The relationship between the plan of expression and the plan of content is stable, and this ensures the reliability of communication: by conveying a certain meaning by a sequence of sounds, the speaker expects the listener to activate this meaning in his mind. Thanks to the morphematic principle of spelling, the writer has the right to count on the same: the same meaning (lexical for the whole word, grammatical for the morpheme) is actualized in the mind of the reader. A linguistic unit in written speech is even more stable than in oral speech: the morphematic principle neglects the variability of the plan of expression of a morpheme as part of various lexemes. Note that this principle is the most common in Russian orthography.

The morphematic principle in the works of representatives of the Moscow Linguistic School correlates with phonemic and morphological principles.

Consider grammatical principle. If the morphematic principle is associated primarily with the lexical meaning, then the grammatical principle is associated with the grammatical meaning. The grammatical principle reflects the desire to convey the grammatical and some other metalinguistic features of the word in writing. In accordance with this principle, grammatical meanings are conveyed in writing within the framework of such grammatical categories as gender, number, case, person, belonging to a certain part of speech. At the same time, the way of transmitting grammatical features is in no way connected with the sound composition of the word. For example, in Russian words rye and knife, the final consonant is the same. To write a word according to the morphematic principle, the final consonant is determined by its strong position: over the abyss in the rye, on the edge of a knife. Therefore, in both cases we write Zh. However, the word rye also has a soft sign after the consonant, although /Ж/, like /Ш/ and /Ц/, does not have any softness in any of the phonetic positions. The soft sign in this case indicates that the word rye belongs to feminine nouns. Note that instead of a soft sign, the belonging of a word to the feminine gender could be conveyed by any other designation. As well as the presence of a soft sign could signal the masculine, and its absence - the feminine gender of the noun. So, the soft sign after the hissing consonant as a “signal” that a noun in the nominative case belongs to the feminine gender reflects not the peculiarities of the language, but the established tradition of written Russian speech.

Is the grammatical principle of Russian spelling motivated by the laws of the language? Certainly motivated. In accordance with this principle, the essential characteristics of the content plan of the linguistic sign are conveyed in writing. True, the choice of a means of fixing grammatical meanings in writing is arbitrary (see the example of rye - a knife).

As we can see, the relation of the grammatical principle to being motivated/unmotivated by the laws of the language is ambiguous. The ambiguity is due to the fact that, in contrast to the phonemic and morphematic principles, the grammatical principle provides for the fixation in writing not of the expression plan, but of the content plan of the linguistic sign. In fact: the phonemic principle insists on the maximum possible correspondence of the oral form of the plan of expression of the sign with the written one, the morphematic principle insists on the stability of the written form of the plan of expression of the sign. In contrast, the grammatical principle does not determine the choice of the written form of the plan of expression, "using" what is suggested by the phonemic or morphematic principles. This principle insists on the need in one way or another to fix in writing a change in one of the aspects of the content plan, namely, grammatical meaning. We can call the grammatical principle dependent, dependent on the basic - phonemic and morphematic - principles.

Let's move on to the characteristics differentiating principle. Note that this principle has a small radius of action, determining the spelling of homonyms. In accordance with this principle, writing reflects the desire to distinguish between homonyms, fully conveying their sound image in different graphic ways: burn - burn; ball - ball, etc. The first pair of homonyms are homoforms (the sound of lexemes does not coincide in all word forms) related to different parts of speech. In this case, the distinction between homoforms in writing corresponds to the grammatical principle: the vowel E is written in verbal word forms, the vowel O is written in noun word forms. The words of the second pair are not opposed by grammatical meanings, the words bal - balL are spelled differently in accordance with the differentiating principle. This principle is secondary, like the grammatical one: it does not determine the graphic appearance of the word, but “layers” on the phonemic and morphematic principles. According to the differentiating principle, a morpheme has a constant plan of expression in writing (as the morphematic principle implies), but the sound compositions of morphemes that coincide in oral form are transmitted in writing in different ways (which limits the scope of the phonemic principle) in order to reflect differences in lexical meaning.

The differentiating principle is connected with the laws of the language only insofar as homonymy (coincidence of the plans for the expression of linguistic signs when their meanings do not coincide) is the result of the principle of economy. The very way of conveying differences in terms of content is due to the presence of different graphical possibilities for fixing the sound composition of the morpheme. The distribution of graphemes reflecting matching sounds is arbitrary: it is necessary to remember that the same sequence of sounds in a letter is fixed in different ways: either as a company - (“a group of people spending time together”, etc.), then as a campaign - (“work or action carried out in a certain period and aimed at solving a certain problem”).

Note that the grammatical and differentiating principles have much in common. Often they are combined into one principle (Russian language 2001: 443). Both principles "insist" on the transfer in writing of a certain component of the plan of the content of a linguistic sign: grammatical - on the transfer of grammatical meaning, differentiating - on the transfer of lexical meaning. Both principles are not independent, since, according to the laws of Russian graphics, the plan of expression of the word is fixed in writing: behind the written form there is a certain phonetic reality. That is why both principles are implemented in combination with morphematic and/or phonemic principles.

Let's characterize traditional (historical) principle spelling. This principle reflects the established tradition or history of the word. In accordance with the traditional principle, it is customary to write RED, BLUE, although such spelling does not reflect either phonetic reality or grammatical or lexical meaning. Rather, in a certain period of the history of the Russian language, the endings of full adjectives in the singular form of the genitive case were pronounced [th] and [him], their spelling corresponded to the phonemic principle. However, the oral form of the language changes much faster than the written one, since oral speech changes spontaneously, while “the spelling norm is created consciously, changes are made to it only when the contradiction between spelling and pronunciation becomes obvious” (Zinder 1996: 23). For this reason, languages ​​with a long written tradition often retain spellings that are not justified by the current state of the language.

The traditional principle of spelling is not motivated by the laws of language. It reflects the tradition that has arisen in written communication.

Finally, we turn to the discussion quotation, transliteration and transcription principles Russian spelling. These principles determine the ways in which borrowed words, usually proper names, are transmitted in writing. The transliteration principle involves the transfer of the literal composition of a borrowed word in the source language by means of the alphabet of the borrowing language, for example: English. London - Russian London; English marketing - Russian marketing. The transcription principle reflects the desire to convey by means of the alphabet of the borrowing language the phonemic composition of the word in the source language, for example: German. Marx - Russian Marx; English fast food - Russian fast food. Usually the transcription principle is combined with the transliteration principle, for example: German. Hegel - Russian Hegel, where the last Russian letter does not correspond to the letter of the original word, but reflects the pronunciation features of the German /L/; as a result, the whole graphic image of the word is determined by the "cooperation" of transcription and transliteration principles. The quotation principle is most often used when the borrowing language lacks the necessary graphic means to convey the literal or sound composition of the borrowed word. In other words, the citation principle is resorted to if it is impossible to apply the transliteration and transcription principles. In the modern Russian-language press, especially in electronic versions of printed publications, the quotation principle is widely used for writing Americanisms and Anglicisms: PR, on line, as well as foreign brands: BMW, D @ G, etc.

Let us sum up the discussion of the principles of Russian spelling in the aspect of their motivation by language laws.

1. The basic law of Russian graphics - to fix the phonemic composition of a language unit (its plan of expression) in writing - implements two basic principles of spelling: phonemic and morphematic. The phonemic composition of a borrowed word reflects the spelling in accordance with the transcription principle.
2. The elements of the content plan of the language unit are reflected in writing in accordance with the grammatical and differentiating principles. The spelling of a morpheme/word according to these principles does not reflect any phonetic reality. In essence, such a spelling is consistent with hieroglyphic writing, in which the written form is oriented towards the transfer of meaning, and not sound.
3. Neither grammatical, nor differentiating, nor traditional principles are able to independently determine the written form of a morpheme/word. These principles are implemented in an ensemble with phonemic or morphematic principles. The need for an ensemble is due to the impossibility of using the Russian alphabet directly to reflect the meaning of a language unit.
4. Usually a word is written in accordance with several simultaneously applied spelling principles.
5. Three principles of spelling - phonemic, morphematic and grammatical - reflect the laws inherent in the language, motivated by the laws of the language. This motivation is most clearly manifested in the case when the spelling reflects the phonetic reality.
6. The principles of spelling reflect the following language laws:

Variation of the plan of expression of a linguistic sign, subject to the stability of its content (phonemic principle);
. striving for the stability of the relationship between the plan of content and a certain plan of expression (morphematic principle; differentiating principle; citation and transliteration principles);
. the law of the symmetry of the linguistic sign (which coexists with the principle of the asymmetry of the sign): in a tendency, any element of the content plane tends to manifest itself in the expression plane; in other words, meaning tends to be expressed. This law motivates the grammatical and differentiating principles of orthography;
. the law of the stability of language (as opposed to the variability of speech). This law is most clearly reflected in the traditional principle.

Obviously, in order to successfully master the rules that embody a certain principle, it is necessary to have an idea of ​​the linguistic patterns behind this principle.
7. Establish principles motivated by the traditions of written communication. Strictly speaking, the traditions of written communication reflect all principles, since they are all based on a traditionally established schedule. In this case, we mean the priority of tradition over other possible motivations. First of all, it is only by tradition that the traditional principle is motivated. Traditionally, the principles of transferring borrowed words in writing are motivated. The differentiation principle is clearly motivated by tradition, according to which the grapheme that delimits homonyms is chosen arbitrarily and its use is fixed by tradition. Finally, it is worth mentioning the grammatical principle, in the implementation of which the means for expressing the grammatical meaning is chosen arbitrarily, and then it is reproduced according to tradition.
8. It is advisable to present the relationship of the principles of orthography to the reflection of phonetic reality and linguistic patterns graphically. The graphic representation will inevitably turn out to be inaccurate, since quantitative estimates of the measure of reflection of phonetic reality or linguistic patterns are not clear. Nevertheless, we will try to depict the phenomenon of interest to us on the diagram (see diagram 1).

Scheme 1. What do the principles of Russian spelling reflect

Let's comment on the diagram. Each of the spelling principles is numbered according to the order in which they are discussed in our article: (1) phonemic, (2) morphematic, (3) grammatical, (4) differentiating, (5) traditional (historical), and (6) quotation, (7) transliteration and (8) transcription principles. All eight principles are inscribed in a large oval, designated as "Traditions of Written Communication", since all the principles in one way or another reflect the established tradition in the use of signs of Russian graphics. Two small ones are inscribed in the large oval, designated as “Phonetic Reality” and “Linguistic Patterns”, respectively. Differentiating, traditional, citation and transcription principles (numbers 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively) are located outside the small ovals. This means that the spelling of a word in accordance with these principles does not directly reflect either the phonetic reality of the modern Russian language or its inherent patterns. The transcription principle (number 8 in the diagram) is inscribed in the small oval “Phonetic Reality”, since the spelling of a borrowed word in accordance with the transcription principle reflects its sound appearance. The grammatical principle (number 3 in the diagram) is inscribed in the center of the small oval “Linguistic patterns”, since the spelling of the morpheme in accordance with this principle reflects its specific grammatical meaning. Finally, the phonemic and morphemic principles (numbers 1 and 2, respectively) are inscribed in both small ovals: the spelling of morphemes or words in accordance with these principles reflects both phonetic reality and linguistic patterns. The morphematic principle reflects the phonetic reality of the morpheme, regardless of which variant of the morpheme is represented in the given word. Its more indirect attitude to phonetic reality compared to the phonetic principle is conveyed in the diagram: the number 1 is located in the center of the “Phonetic reality” oval, and the number 2 is noticeably closer to the border of the “Phonetic reality” oval and to the center of the “Linguistic patterns” oval.
9. The principles that have the greatest scope and regulate the spelling of three-quarters of all word forms (phonemic, morphematic and grammatical) reflect the laws inherent in the language.
10. Obviously, when teaching literate writing, it is necessary to use various techniques and methods. To master the rules based on the principles motivated by the laws of the language, a conscious analysis of the linguistic facts is necessary: ​​the phonemic and morphemic composition of the word, its inherent grammatical meanings, etc. meaningful memorization of the correct graphic appearance of the word.

Writing as an activity

Like any activity, writing is a complex organization of interrelated and interdependent operations. At the same time, private operations in the system of activity are aimed at solving particular problems that bring the achievement of the main goal closer. In turn, the achievement of the main goal satisfies the motive that is relevant for the individual, without which the individual would not have begun to carry out activities (Leontiev 1977). Therefore, in order to master writing, as well as the rules of spelling and punctuation, a native speaker must form a strong motive for achieving a certain goal, which is unattainable without the ability to write correctly.

Writing is a conscious form of speech activity. The founder of neuropsychology and neurolinguistics, Alexander Romanovich Luria, formulated the main difference between the assimilation of written speech and oral speech: “If oral speech is acquired purely practically, by “living adaptation” to the speech of adults, and its articulation remains unconscious for a long time, then writing from the very beginning is a conscious act, arbitrarily constructed in the process of special conscious learning” (Luriya 2002: 13).

A necessary condition for the formation of a conscious attitude to speech and mastery of writing is the psychophysiological readiness of the child. The characteristics of a child's psychophysiological readiness for learning to write are given both in special university textbooks (Dubrovinskaya, Farber, Bezrukikh 2000; Semenovich 2002) and in scientific publications by physiologists, teachers, and neuropsychologists. The researchers note that the difficulties in the initial period of mastering writing (up to dysgraphia) are due to the variety of operations - the functional components of writing.

The letter is characterized by a complex psychological content, i.e. involves a series of interrelated operations with images of morphemes and words stored in the mind. This is a complex functional system consisting of many links - functional components. A.R. Luria defined the psychological content of the letter as follows: “Its psychological content necessarily includes a sound analysis of the word to be written, clarification of the phonemic composition of this word, and preservation of the order of the sounds included in it. This process is largely reduced to the transformation of individual sound "variants" into clear stable phonemes and to the analysis of their temporal sequence" (ibid.: 74).

The sound analysis of a word implies a conscious attitude to one's speech, i.e. the ability to abstract from the meaning of a word and concentrate on its plan of expression - a sequence of sounds. On the basis of sound analysis, there is an awareness of the standard stored in the mind of the “sample”, formed as a result of the perception of the speech of others; on the basis of similarity with the standard, the sound image of morphemes and words is identified. The primary task of mastering writing is to establish a stable mutual association between the units of sounding speech and their designations in writing. For a child mastering alphabetic writing, this is the association phoneme ↔ letter (combination of letters): “... a child who needs to write a word always deals primarily with the sounds that make up this word, and with those letters with which he must write it. Consequently, the subject of his awareness from the very beginning should be the ways in which he must designate the desired word, and the set of sounds that distinguishes this word from other, close words" (ibid.: 13).

In other words, the primary task is the assimilation of the alphabet and graphics. The solution to this problem takes more than one month: “The entire first period of initial learning to read and write is different in that the student is forced to devote his attention to mastering the technical prerequisites of writing for a very long time - ways to decompose a word into sounds and write them down in letters” (ibid.). This means that the child may not have “free” psychophysiological and intellectual resources for solving more complex problems, in particular, orthographic ones already known to him (separate spelling of words, writing a capital letter at the beginning of sentences and proper names, etc.).

So, the psychological content of the letter is determined by its functional components. Writing as a functional system includes an ensemble of operations. In the works of student A.R. Luria, neuropsychologist Tatyana Vasilievna Akhutina (1998, 2001a, b; 2002), discusses the importance of all operations that organize writing as a functional system for the successful mastery of writing. These are the operations:

On the processing of auditory information (sound analysis);
. on the processing of motor (kinesthetic) information (analysis of articulatory movements and movements in the graphic representation of an object);
. on the processing of visual and visual-spatial information (analysis of the visual image of a letter, its location on a sheet, the proportionality of the details of a single letter, the relative position of the details of the letter and the letters themselves; the visual appearance of the written word);
. according to the serial organization of movements (sequence of movements when writing both a single letter and a word and a whole sentence);
. on programming (planning) and activity control (comparison of the result - the written part of a letter, a whole letter or a word with what he planned to write);
. on selective activation (the ability to arbitrarily focus attention and activity on individual components of activity) (Akhutina 2002).

T.V. Akhutina notes that “all those identified by A.R. Luria, the components of the structural and functional organization of the brain are involved in the process of writing a child mastering a new type of activity” (Akhutina 2001b: 10).

The components of the structural and functional organization of the brain develop unevenly. Naturally, the formation of operations that support writing also turns out to be multi-temporal and uneven. In particular, the processing of auditory information and the analysis of articles (the establishment of correspondence between the movement of the organs of speech and some auditory image) are usually already formed by the beginning of schooling. As for other operations, they usually continue to form at school age. The processing of motor information when writing letters and words, the processing of visual and visual-spatial information are the technical prerequisites for writing that make up the content of the initial stage of learning. In a neuropsychological examination of pupils of the first - fourth grades of secondary schools in Moscow, O.A. Velichenkova, O.B. Inshakova and T.V. Akhutin reveal significant problems in the technical prerequisites for writing among younger students. Accordingly, even if a persistent association “phoneme ↔ its graphic designation” is formed and when recognizing the sound of oral speech, the image of the letter and the sequence of movements necessary for writing it appear in the child’s mind, failures in the organization of serial movements are likely. Regulatory prerequisites for writing, programming and control of activities suffer.

The formation of the function of programming and control is completed only in adolescence. Moreover, the various links of the functional system "writing" develop unevenly, the level of their development is distinguished by wide individual variability. Thus, individual differences in the development of the serial organization of movements are manifested in the fact that many adults (very successful in other respects) are not able to learn how to dance well, knit complex patterns - in a word, perform those types of activities that consist of a sequence of voluntary actions performed simultaneously by different organs. movements.

It should be noted that the listed functional components of writing determine the success of solving not only the primary (mastering the technical prerequisites of writing), but also subsequent more complex tasks. In particular, "failures" in the programming and control of written speech lead to spelling, punctuation, grammatical and stylistic errors. In writing as a speech activity of each native speaker, the selective activation operation plays a key role. As an illustration, one can cite errors that occur in the written speech of secondary school students, and even adult native speakers, to the rules they know: for various reasons, the writer “does not work” with the automatism of writing (or simply has not developed a skill), and attention to the solution a specific spelling task was not selectively activated.

So, let's summarize the discussion of writing as a type of speech activity.

1. Writing is a consciously mastered type of speech activity.
2. The functional system "writing" as components includes operations that are formed at different ages and develop unevenly.
3. Mastering the letter occurs in stages. The initial stage involves mastering the technical prerequisites for writing.
4. Mastering the rules of speech behavior in writing, spelling, first of all, occurs in elementary school in parallel with the automation of the "technical prerequisites" of writing.
5. A person seeks to master written speech when he has a motive for this. Mastering any activity without formed motivation is not very successful. Therefore, it is impossible to teach literacy to someone who does not consider literacy a necessary condition for language competence. It is advisable to teach a child to write at a time when he has reached psychophysiological readiness.

On the psychological content of literate writing

Let us turn to a discussion of the relationship between the functional components of writing and the simplest rules of behavior in written speech - spelling.

What is the psychological content of writing a word in accordance with the basic principles of spelling? What role do the various functional components of writing play in writing a word according to different spelling principles? In other words, let's try to answer the following questions: what operations underlie the literate spelling of a word in accordance with the phonemic principle; what operations turn out to be leading for the literate spelling of a word in accordance with the grammatical principle, etc.

Naturally, the correct spelling of a word requires all the functional components of writing, all the operations described in the works of neuropsychologists (for example, in the articles of T.V. Akhutina). I would like to recall that for many schoolchildren, right up to adolescence, writing is an extremely difficult technical task.

Researchers talk about the pre-grammatical and grammatical stages of mastering writing (Kornev 1997). The ability to formulate a spelling problem is formed at the grammatical stage on the basis of certain experience in written communication and spelling generalizations made (Kornev 1999: 101). A well-known specialist in the field of children's speech and speech therapy, Alexander Nikolayevich Kornev, experimentally established that after the first year of study, a significant part of schoolchildren studying in general education schools remain at the pre-grammatical stage of mastering writing (ibid.: 102). Within the framework of one exercise, first-graders regularly encounter different spellings of the same word form, inconsistency in the transmission of the sound composition of the same morpheme in different words. A.N. Kornev believes that first-graders mainly “rely on phonemic analysis, mechanical memory or the principle of analogy. With such an organization of writing, the result is largely dependent on the level of wakefulness, the state of attention and memory” (ibid.: 102-103). Apparently, many children have mastered the technical side of writing, but their communicative experience is still insufficient for spelling generalizations. In this case, those morphemes are correctly transmitted in writing, the spelling of which is regulated by the phonemic principle. Proper spelling of morphemes in accordance with other principles is random.

Recall that in order to solve the current spelling problem, first of all, a conscious analysis of the sound composition of the morphemes included in the word is necessary. In other words, the subject of analysis is phonetic reality. Successful determination of the sound composition of morphemes is a prerequisite for competent spelling in accordance with the phonemic principle. On the basis of practice, a skill is formed - mechanically, or automatically, to analyze phonetic reality. The automation of the analysis of the sound composition of a word is said in the case when the child does not need additional pronunciation of the word: its sound composition is updated “by itself” at the moment of listening, regardless of the possible distortion of the phonetic appearance of the word in a particular speech act. Sometimes automatism is developed spontaneously, due to such individual characteristics of the child as well-formed phonemic hearing, a relatively high level of selective activity, planning and control of activities. Automatism spontaneously developed in some children gives researchers reason to assert that “the child himself is able to learn a lot of the existing rules that regulate the writing process - before learning, and often regardless of learning ...” (Tseitlin 1998: 49).

So, initially writing is formed on the basis of phonetic reality; this is sufficient for the competent writing of morphemes in accordance with phonemic and transcriptional principles. Let us make a special reservation that such a spelling will be literate provided that there is a stable association between a phoneme and a grapheme (a letter or a combination of letters), as well as with the formation of motor skills in the image of a grapheme. The phonemic (and transcriptional) principle of writing requires a relatively simple program of activity: the plan includes a motor (motor) program of a sequence of graphemes, derived from an analysis of phonetic reality, and control of the incoming kinesthetic visual-spatial information (is the letter depicted correctly, is the sequence of letters correct), “checked” with phonetic reality (whether all sounds and their characteristics are reflected in the letter).

Of course, writing in accordance with the phonemic principle does not always lead to the correct spelling of a word: the spelling of a Russian word is usually regulated by different principles. For example, in the word pyatak, displayed in "phonetic writing", an error in the transfer of the first vowel [and] is inevitable, since the morphematic principle is "responsible" for its spelling.

Let us turn to operations that ensure the correct spelling of a word in accordance with the morphematic principle. It is believed that "the construction of a morphological system should precede the construction of an orthographic system" (Tseitlin, Rusakova, Kuzmina 1999: 189). In other words, based on the analysis of his own speech experience, the child establishes analogies and associations, determining the identity of the meaning hidden behind the variable sound. Thus, the child notices that the lexical meaning “domestic mammal from the family to which the tiger, lion and others belong” (of course, represented in the mind of the child as “fluffy funny meowing animal”) is associated with the sound [kot], [kΛt], [kosh], [kΛsh], [cat '], [kΛt ']; in the mind of the child, an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe morpheme is formed; this representation is realized in a single graphic image of the morpheme cat in the words and word forms cats, cat, feline, cat, kitten.

The spelling of words in accordance with the morphematic principle relies on a higher level of auditory information processing: it is necessary to analyze not only the “current” phonetic reality, but also update the sound image of other words containing this morpheme. Naturally, the program of activities becomes much more complicated. This kind of activity needs an "additional subprogram" for the analysis of speech experience in order to establish morphemic boundaries. Before planning a motor program for a sequence of graphemes, it is necessary to establish the composition of graphemes, updating all known words containing a given morpheme in a different environment and making a decision about the "reference" appearance of the morpheme (according to a strong position). In turn, selective activation is required. Selective activation suggests that some components of the activity proceed without the control of consciousness, “by themselves”. Obviously, the technical premises of the letter should go into the shadows. Recall that many of the difficulties in mastering writing by younger students are based precisely on failures in various parts of the “technical prerequisites” for writing. With the complexity of the activity program for such students, naturally, the number of errors that are not directly related to spelling will increase (incorrect display of boundaries between words and sentences, omissions of letters, mixing letters to designate paired consonants in terms of deafness / sonority, mixing letters to designate vowels, mixing letters similar in spelling, etc.). Errors like these show that the mind-controlled components of writing are not automated. Without conscious control over the processing of visual information, kinesthetic information, a series of sequentially performed movements, the writing program is distorted.

One of the consequences of the distortion of the writing program in accordance with the morphematic principle is errors of the type of hypercorrection (writing zem instead of winter, motroz instead of sailor, etc.). It has been noted that hypercorrection occurs longer and much more often in the works of children with certain psychophysiological characteristics and experiencing difficulties in mastering writing (Letter and Reading 2001). The child notices that “it is spelled differently than it is heard” and, starting from this principle, tries to build his own writing system. Such errors indicate that the child has already mastered the opposition of strong and weak positions of phonemes in the composition of a morpheme, but so far he is not able to present a morpheme as a unit, an abstract unit that unites all its variants, regardless of their real sound.

Discussing the formation of writing in accordance with the morphemic principle, one of the most authoritative specialists in children's speech, Stella Naumovna Zeitlin, notes: “At some certain moment, based partly on the reader’s experience, partly on the developing metalinguistic instinct, suggesting the possibility of identifying different allomorphs of one morpheme into a single structural unit (“they searched for mushrooms”, “found a mushroom”, “mushroom soup”, etc.) in the linguistic consciousness, an idea arises of a certain single graphic standard corresponding to a certain morpheme” (Tseitlin 1998: 50). The child needs to establish the absence of an analogy between the device of oral and written speech: the variability of the plan for expressing a morpheme in oral speech can be “overcome” in writing. Such a generalization is possible due to a metalinguistic instinct (interest and desire to analyze linguistic facts: for more details see Ovchinnikova 1998) on the basis of rich communicative experience, it is no coincidence that S.N. Zeitlin mentions the reader's experience. S.N. Zeitlin believes that “a lot is learned by the child independently (“spontaneously”) and is associated with the processes of not only writing, but also reading, and the wisdom of the pedagogical system lies mainly in being in harmony with this spontaneous process” (Tseitlin 1998: 49 ). As a rule, the formation of “morphemic writing” (Tseitlin, Rusakova, Kuzmina 1999: 188) occurs in the process of purposeful school teaching of written speech with the help of an adult professional teacher.

So, "morphemic writing" is provided by the development of cognitive experience (the ability to generalize), metalinguistic intuition (the ability to observe speech and analyze speech material), automation of the technical prerequisites for writing, and selective activation.

Let's move on to a discussion of the functional components and basics of writing in accordance with the grammatical principle. Since the grammatical principle reflects the desire to convey in writing the grammatical meaning inherent in a given word form, in order to master writing in accordance with this principle, it is necessary to be able to identify the transmitted meanings. The psychological content of the application of the grammatical principle includes the analysis of the grammatical meanings of the word form, which have their own plan of expression in writing. This is a very complex cognitive operation. The cognitive complexity of this task determines the greatest number of errors made on the rules reflecting the grammatical principle, compared with those that occur on the rules reflecting the morphematic, and even more so the phonemic principles. Grammatical meanings, unlike lexical ones, are not consciously chosen by the speaker and are not consciously analyzed by the listener. Consequently, in order to reflect the grammatical meaning of a morpheme in writing, it is necessary to learn how to analyze the unconscious in one's speech activity, to learn how to "display into the window of consciousness" directly unobservable facts of the language.

Recall that spelling according to the grammatical principle does not directly reflect the phonetic reality; the child needs to determine the sound composition of the word form, set the meanings of morphemes and identify one of them for which a special grapheme is provided. For example, writing b after the sibilant nominative singular of a noun conveys the grammatical meaning of "feminine". This grammatical meaning (however, like any other) is formal, it is not motivated by the gender of the signified, since both animate and inanimate nouns have grammatical gender. Meanwhile, at first, schoolchildren deliberately write “doctor Ivanov”, proving the legitimacy of writing b at the end of the word doctor by referring to the gender of a particular representative of a noble profession mentioned in the sentence. In this case, the grammatical category "gender of a noun" in the child's mind merges with one of the signs of the referent. The use of b in writing is recognized as a marker of both the formal gender of inanimate nouns and the gender of animate nouns. To master the rules of writing, regulated by the grammatical principle, it is necessary to develop linguistic competence and metalinguistic flair. Indeed: to write a vowel O or E before hissing and C in suffixes and endings, it is important to determine the part of speech of the word, to know its origin (borrowed or non-borrowed); for the correct spelling of the particle not and the prefix not, it is also necessary to represent different parts of speech and a number of other, including syntactic, characteristics of the word; for writing -nn-, in addition to knowledge of parts of speech, it is important to have an idea of ​​morphemic boundaries and syntactic dependence, etc.

Consequently, the functional writing system is complemented by an independent program for analyzing the semantics of grammatical forms. This program involves the establishment of the lexico-grammatical class to which the word belongs; updating the grammatical categories of this lexico-grammatical class; analysis of grammatical meanings within these categories and identification of those that have an independent plan of expression in writing; actualization of the grapheme, reflecting the grammatical meaning in writing. As we can see, it is necessary to turn to long-term memory, to process the “obtained information” in operative memory, to keep the locus of control on the spelling problem until it is satisfactorily solved and graphically implemented. And, of course, the processing of auditory information, kinesthetic information, visual information remains an urgent task until the writing skill has been formed. Until the “technical prerequisites” of writing are automated, the solution of “technical problems” occurs in parallel with the solution of the spelling problem.

So, the writing of morphemes and words in accordance with the grammatical principle just represents the limit beyond which, according to L.V. Shcherba, “the process of writing must still be conscious,” and complete “mechanization” will certainly fail, depending on a variety of circumstances. In particular, we did not touch upon the problem of planning the meaning of a written message at all (however, a number of other very complex problems of the formation of written speech: see Zhinkin 1998).

Thus, the psychological content of the writing process in accordance with various spelling principles is not the same. It turns out to be the most difficult in accordance with the principles that reflect the laws inherent in the language, but do not directly reflect the phonetic reality. In this case, the experience of oral communication is insufficient for competent written speech. Literacy is formed on the basis of communicative experience in writing, some linguistic erudition, metalinguistic competence, arbitrary control over one's activities. Recall that in the process of writing a child mastering this new type of activity for himself, all components of the structural and functional organization of the brain participate. Competent writing is a super task in relation to mastering writing. It should be staged and solved by adequate methods.

Finally, like any activity, writing begins with a motive. It is impossible to master competent writing without formed motivation.

The work is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 02-06-80227: “Individual strategies for constructing discourse in ontogeny”)
. The appeal to the works of representatives of the Shcherbovskaya linguistic school is due to the desire to discuss the theoretical foundations of the basic provisions for teaching the Russian language. The Shcherbov school is less known to a wide range of readers associated with the methodology and practice of teaching the Russian language. Usually in textbooks, teaching aids and didactic materials there are references to the works of scientists of the Moscow Linguistic School. Meanwhile, a complete understanding of the principles of Russian graphics and spelling can only be obtained as a result of their analysis from various points of view and in various aspects.

Literature

1. Akhutina T.V. Neurolinguistics of norms // I International conference in memory of A.R. Luria: Collection of reports. M., 1998.
2. Akhutina T.V. Neuropsychological approach to the diagnosis and correction of difficulties in learning to write // Modern approaches to the diagnosis and correction of speech disorders. SPb., 2001a.
3. Akhutina T.V. Difficulties in writing and their neuropsychological diagnostics // Writing and reading: learning difficulties and correction. Textbook (Edited by O.B. Inshakov). Moscow - Voronezh, 2001b. pp. 7-20.
4. Velichenkova O.A., Inshakova O.B., Akhutina T.V. An integrated approach to the analysis of specific writing disorders in younger schoolchildren. School of Health. 2002. No. 3. S. 20-35.
5. Gvozdev A.N. How preschool children observe the phenomena of language // Children's speech: Reader. Part III. SPb., 1999.
6. Dubrovinskaya N.V., Farber D.A., Bezrukikh M.M. Psychophysiology of the child. M., 2000.
7. Zhinkin N.I. Development of written speech of students of grades III - VII // Language. Speech. Creation. M., 1998. S. 183 - 319.
8. Zinder L.R. Theory of writing. M., 1987.
9. Zinder L.R. Introduction to the theory of writing // Applied Linguistics. L., 1996. S. 15 - 25.
10. Kornev A.N. Psychological analysis of spelling skills of unstressed vowels at the initial stage of their formation // Problems of children's speech - 1999. St. Petersburg, 1999. P. 100 - 103.
11. Kornev A.N. Reading and writing disorders in children. - St. Petersburg, 1997.
12. Leontiev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. 2nd ed. M., 1977.
13. Luria A.R. Essays on the psychophysiology of writing // Letter and speech. Neurolinguistic Research. M., 2002.
14. Ovchinnikova I.G. Language and metalinguistic competence of a schoolchild // The system of formation of developmental education in education in Perm: Materials of a scientific and practical conference. Perm, 1998. S. 28-43.
15. Writing and reading: learning difficulties and correction. Textbook (Edited by O.B. Inshakov). Moscow - Voronezh, 2001.
16. Russian language / Ed. L.L. Kasatkin. M., 2001.
17. Semenovich A.V. Neuropsychological diagnostics and correction in childhood. M., 2002.
18. Chuprikov. N.I. Mental development and learning. M., 1995.
19. Zeitlin S.N. To the analysis of letter substitutions in the written speech of preschoolers and younger schoolchildren // Problems of children's speech - 1998: Reports of the All-Russian Scientific Conference. Cherepovets. 1998.S. 48 - 53.
20. Zeitlin S.N., Rusakova M.V., Kuzmina T.V. Rules of Russian writing in the aspect of their ontogenetic development // Problems of children's speech - 1999. St. Petersburg, 1999. P. 186 - 190.
21. Zeitlin S.N. Language and child. Linguistics of children's speech. M., 2000.
22. Shcherba L.V. On the parts of speech in the Russian language // Selected works in the Russian language. M., 1957. S. 63 - 84.
23. Shcherba L.V. Illiteracy and its causes // Selected works on the Russian language. M., 1957. S. 56 - 62.

Each of the sections of Russian spelling is a system of rules based on certain principles - the patterns that underlie the spelling system. The principles of spelling are the general grounds for writing words and morphemes given the choice provided by graphics; these are the basic, initial beginnings on which specific rules are built, as well as a generalization of these rules. Each spelling principle combines its own group of rules, which are the application of this principle to specific linguistic facts, and all principles indicate the way to achieve the goals of orthography - the uniform spelling of words.

The principles of Russian spelling have been written about for more than two hundred years, but there is still no generally accepted interpretation of them. This is primarily due to the fact that the content of the term "principle" in relation to orthography has not been established. Even if we consider the principles of spelling the basic regularities underlying a particular spelling system, as is usually meant, then this definition still cannot be considered sufficient. It does not indicate the psychological laws of the writing process. It will not be sufficient to define the principle of spelling as a two-sided phenomenon: on the one hand, certain patterns underlying a particular spelling system, and on the other, the principle of describing this system. An indication of such a two-sided content of the term "principle" is, of course, very important and essential, since the description of the principles of Russian orthography really changes depending on the direction and development of linguistic theory.

Phonemes that are in weak positions can be variably marked on the letter. A weak position is a position that does not use the phonemic opposition that occurs in a comparable strong position. Thus, not all of the alternating phonemes are used in the weak position. So, in the positional alternations of phonemes within the same morpheme, the stressed phoneme<о>with unstressed<а>, voiced phoneme<з>with deaf<с>. Phonemes in weak positions can be designated in different ways, but the choice of letters for their designation is limited by certain guidelines or orthographic principles. Thus orthographic principles are guiding ideas for the choice of letters where the sound can be denoted variatively.

The principles of spelling, on the one hand, are determined by the material provided by spelling, and on the other hand, by the direction of linguistic thinking in the field of spelling. These principles are not static and may be different depending on the state of science, on the direction of scientific schools. To understand the principles of spelling means to perceive each of its individual rules as a link in the overall system, to see each spelling in the interconnection of all aspects of the language.

Based on the principles of orthography, different types of orthograms are subject to morphological (phonemic), phonetic, traditional, semantic (differentiating) and other principles. Within the framework of this article, we will consider the morphological and phonemic principles of Russian spelling.

The concept of the phonemic principle in relation to spelling was introduced in 1930 by R.I. Avanesov and V.N. Sidorov.

In the study of the phoneme within the Russian scientific school, two main directions have been outlined: Leningrad (S.I. Abakumov, Ya.V. Loi, S.P. Obnorsky, M.V. Ushakov, N.S. Chemodanov, L.V. Shcherba) or Shcherbovskoe, and Moscow (R.I. Avanesov, P.S. Kuznetsov, A.A. Reformatsky, V.N. Sidorov, etc.). The existence of several phonological schools (Moscow, Leningrad, Prague and some others) is due to the complexity and versatility of the linguistic material itself and the differences in the initial theoretical positions of phonologists. First of all, these are different approaches to understanding the phoneme.

The infinite variety of speech sounds is reduced to a small number of sound types - phonemes. So, qualitatively different sounds [a] in the words mat [mat], mint [m "at], mother [mat"], mint [m "at"] are combined into one sound type [a], that is, a phoneme<а>; sounds [o] in the words that [that], roofing [thol "], aunt [t "otka], aunt [t" from "a] - into type [o], that is, a phoneme<о>; sounds [y] in the words tuk [tuk], cloud [cloud "], bale [t "uk], tulle [t" ul "] - into type [y], that is, a phoneme<у>etc. If the difference between the sounds [a], [o], [y] is clearly audible, then not everyone can catch the differences between different [a], different [o], different [y] in the given words. Most, however, are well aware of the differences between the sounds [a], [o], [y] in the first and last words of the above rows ([ma] t - [m "a] t, [that] t - [t" o] cha, [tu] k - [t "y] l).

Sound types in the above examples are distinguished not only by their acoustic proximity, but also by their social function, that is, by the function of semantic distinction: due to the presence of different phonemes - [a] and [o], [a] and [y] - they differ, for example , the words stan and ston, as well as the forms of words: tables and stolum. Phoneme<а>, thus, is opposed in Russian to phonemes<о>, <у>, <э>, <и>, <ы>; phoneme<у>- phonemes<а>, <о>, <э>, <и>, <ы>etc. With this in mind, M.I. Matusevich gives the following definition of a phoneme: these are “sound types that, being opposed to all others in a given language, can take part in the semantic differentiation of words or in the difference in morphological forms” .

The phonemic principle of spelling, based on this understanding of the phoneme, determines the spelling of all morphemes of the word: prefixes, roots, suffixes, endings. In the word, the glass holder is pronounced [pjts-], but the prefix under- is written, since the check shows the phoneme<помд>: p [om] dpol, by [d] water. In the suffixes of the words birch, aspen, it is pronounced [b], but it is written o, since in a strong position in the same suffix it is pronounced [o] - oak. In the forms of the word from pumla and about pumla, the final vowel sound is the same - [and], but in the first case it refers to the phoneme<и>- from the earth [im], in the second - to the phoneme<э>- about earth [em]. After soft consonants, a phoneme<и>denoted by letter and, phoneme<э>- the letter e.

The theory of the phonemic nature of Russian spelling was first detailed in the article by I.S. Ilinskaya and V.N. Sidorov “Modern Russian Spelling” in 1953. According to the authors, “phonemic writing is one in which the same letters of the alphabet designate a phoneme in all its modifications, no matter how it sounds in one or another phonetic position. At the same time, modifications of the phoneme are indicated in writing by its main sound, which is found in phonetic positions where the sound quality of the phoneme is not determined. As a result, it turns out that each morpheme, as long as it contains the same phonemes, is always written the same way. It is spelled the same even if it is pronounced differently in oral speech, due to the fact that the phonemes that make up the morpheme, due to changing phonetic conditions, are realized in modifications that are different in their sound. According to A.I. Moiseev, it is very difficult to be guided by the phonological principle, since it will require the writer to work hard to translate specific speech sounds - variants of phonemes - into phonemes. In addition, the question of the phonemic composition of the word does not yet have an unambiguous solution. Therefore, if the same facts of writing can be interpreted both from the point of view of the phonemic and from the point of view of the morphological principle, then it is easier to interpret them morphologically, and the principle itself can be considered morphological.

According to most researchers, modern Russian writing is built mainly on the morphological principle.

The morphological principle has developed historically. As the theoretical basis of Russian spelling, it was proclaimed in the Russian Grammar by M.V. Lomonosov (1755) and finally approved by the Russian Academy in the grammar issued by it (1802). According to this principle, the same letters are currently written that were once written in accordance with the pronunciation, although the pronunciation has already changed. There are two points of view on the reasons for the preservation in writing of those letters that were written in pronunciation earlier, but now do not correspond to it.

The well-known defender of the letter in pronunciation R.F. Brandt believed that in morphological writing, the advantage is an indication of the relationship between related words, which is completely useless. What is the need to emphasize the relationship between the words shop and shopkeeper, putting the letter v in both, if even the most illiterate shopkeeper, able to write the word shop through f or v, is well aware of the close connection that exists between him and his shop. Indeed, a clear connection between the words shop - shops - shopkeeper, house - brownie suppresses in our minds the differences in the pronunciation of root morphemes: they remain in the mind, like the morphemes "shop", "house", although individual sounds in them can be replaced by others.

The morphological type of spellings, therefore, exists primarily as a result of the awareness of the "kinship" of certain roots, prefixes, suffixes, endings. This is the second point of view on the causes of morphological writing. Words are written depending on the understanding of the writer of their composition. Changes in the sound composition of morphemes, caused by different positions of their constituent sounds, do not destroy the unity of the morpheme (more precisely, its meaning) and the awareness of this meaning by native speakers. The morpheme remains a certain semantic unit in consciousness, hence the spontaneous, unconscious desire to designate the sounds that have changed under the influence of conditions in the same way as possible. In those cases when one or another sound of a morpheme changes under the influence of certain phonetic conditions, two tendencies always struggle in writing: one is to designate this sound as it is pronounced: shopkeeper, but lafka; the other is not to destroy the unity of the morpheme “lavk”, which is felt as “one and the same”. With the victory of the first tendency, a phonetic letter is formed, with the victory of the second, a morphological one.

The spontaneously formed morphological writing is further supported consciously for a practical purpose: for uniformity in the spelling of related words, their parts and morphological forms. An important proof of the influence of morphological associations on writing is the fact that letters are written not by sound, but by associations only when the writer is aware of the etymological composition of the word. Precisely because today the dismemberment into morphemes of such words as where, here, everywhere, if, they are written phonetically, and not “where”, “here”, “here”, “there is”, as they should be written if our linguistic consciousness singled out their constituent parts.

Morphological, therefore, is such a letter in which a separately designated language unit is a morpheme - a meaningful part of a word (for comparison: phonetic - a letter in which a separately designated language unit is a sound actually pronounced in each case, or a sound combination). In this case, the same morphemes are always written the same way, regardless of how they are pronounced. So, in Russian writing, the root -vod-, in accordance with the morphological principle, is always denoted by these three letters, although it is pronounced differently in different phonetic positions. Compare: water-am - [vad] am, vomd-ny - [vomd] ny, water-yanomi - [vod] yanomi, water - [here]. The same with prefixes (from-: to attribute, cut off), suffixes (-ok: copse, oak), endings (-e in the dative and prepositional cases: along the river - on the river).

Spelling, based on the morphological principle, outwardly diverges from pronunciation, but only in certain morphological units of speech: at the junction of morphemes and at the absolute end of a word for consonants and within morphemes for vowels. The discrepancy between spelling and pronunciation in morphological spelling is carried out on the basis of a strictly defined relationship with pronunciation, and not in isolation from it, not chaotically. Morphological spelling, therefore, is a consequence of the understanding by native speakers of the structural division of the word into its significant parts (morphemes) and results in the most uniform transmission of these parts in writing. The way of writing with a uniform graphic transmission of significant parts of the word makes it easier to read the "grasping" of the meaning.

Consequently, in Russian writing, the significant part of the word has a single graphic image, and the morphological principle of spelling facilitates the quick understanding and comprehension of the text, because attention does not linger on the designation of pronunciation details, that is, phonemic alternation. To master spelling based on the morphological principle, it is necessary, firstly, to understand the composition of words (correctly decompose words into component meaningful parts) and, secondly, to know the sound system of the language (patterns of positional alternations of vowels and consonants) and its relationship with graphics system.

The morphological principle covers certain types of spellings. In the history of Russian spelling, for a very long time they were not classified as morphological spellings such as herbs, twig (M.N. Peterson). This was first done by V.A. Bogoroditsky in 1887 (Course of grammar of the Russian language). In the 30s of the XX century. the scope of morphological spellings was significantly expanded. M.V. Ushakov proposed to consider both basic spellings and unverifiable spellings as morphological, motivating this by the fact that in both cases the graphic uniformity of morphemes (thunder, thunder) is preserved [ibid, p. 38]. M.V.'s proposal Ushakov was supported by A.N. Gvozdev, according to whose calculations the percentage of morphological spellings in Russian writing is more than 96 (of which 71.4% are reference spellings, 20.2% are indirectly verified by pronunciation, and 8.4% are unchecked). This percentage coincides with the percentage of phonemic spellings, according to I.S. Ilinskaya and V.N. Sidorov: 96%. These authors also include spellings like thunder (absolutely phonemic, in their terminology) and ax like (relatively phonemic) in their count.

According to V.F. Ivanova, only indirectly verified spellings are covered by the morphological principle. It excludes spellings like thunder from any spelling principles, since there are no spellings here. L.B. is in the same position. Seleznev, distinguishing between the concepts of a graphogram and a spelling. L.R. Zinder, on the contrary, believes that spellings such as thunder correspond to the phonemic principle of spelling, since “the writer always faces the choice of a letter sign ...”, and where there is a choice, there is spelling” . L.R. Zinder is categorically opposed by V.F. Ivanova: “It is difficult to agree with this. Between which letters does the writer choose letters to write the word thunder? To make this word sound like thunder, only these letters can be used: any other letters will not create the necessary reading. Here, of course, the phonemic principle, but not spelling, but graphics and writing in general.

Thus, if we take morphological spellings at the formative and word-forming levels, into the circle of morphological spellings, according to V.F. Ivanova, today the supporting spellings are also included, that is, the spellings directly determined by the pronunciation: house, thunder (M.V. Ushakov believes that “the spellings in the word thunder, directly determined by the pronunciation, can at the same time be characterized as morphological, since unity is observed here in the designation of the same root morpheme": thunder, thunder), and phonetic and non-phonetic spellings that are indirectly verified by pronunciation, and unchecked spellings (both phonetic and non-phonetic: saramy, topomr, dog).

So, morphological spellings retain a single graphic image of morphemes that are carriers of certain lexical and grammatical meanings, which is convenient for written communication, since when reading words are practically perceived not by sounds, but by significant, semantic elements of the word, by morphemes.

spelling morpheme phonemic

Notes

• 1. Ivanova V.F., Osipov B.I. Principles of spelling and their pedagogical significance // Russian language at school. 1996. No. 5. S. 69-77.
• 2. Difficult questions of spelling / V.F. Ivanova. 2nd ed., revised. Moscow: Education, 1982. 175 p.
• 3. Avanesov R.I., Sidorov V.N. Spelling reform in connection with the problem of the written language // Russian language in the (Soviet) school. 1930. No. 4. S. 110-118.
• 4. Matusevich M.I. Introduction to General Phonetics: A Student's Guide. 3rd ed. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1959. 135 p.
• 5. Ilyinskaya I.S., Sidorov V.N. Modern Russian spelling // Uchenye zapiski of the Department of the Russian Language of the Moscow City Pedagogical Institute. V.P. Potemkin. M.: Publishing House of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute, 1953. Vol. 22, no. 2. S. 3-40.
• 6. Brandt R.F. On the pseudo-scientific nature of our spelling (public lecture) // Philological Notes. 1901. Issue. 1-2. pp. 1-58.
• 7. Tlyusten L.Sh. The leading principle in Russian and Adyghe spelling and its role in teaching Russian spelling to Adyghe students // Bulletin of the Adyghe State University. Ser. Pedagogy psychology. Maykop, 2009. Issue. 4. S. 210-217.
• 8. Gvozdev A.N. On the basics of Russian spelling. In defense of the morphological principle of Russian spelling. M.: Izd-vo APN RSFSR, 1960. 64 p.
• 9. Ivanova V.F. Modern Russian spelling: textbook. allowance. M.: Higher. school, 1991. 192 p.
• 10. Zinder L.R. Essay on the general theory of writing. L., 1987. 168 p.
• 11. Ushakov M.V. Spelling technique: a guide for teachers. 4th ed., revised. and additional M.: Uchpedgiz, 1959. 256 p.