NY SHVEDOVA ON THE nationwide and individuality in the writer’s language

NY SHVEDOVA ON THE nationwide and individuality in the writer's language


The tasks set in the works of Stalin on linguistics before Soviet historians of the literary language, and great responsibility. Learning the language of the writer is one of the least developed areas of modern linguistics. Not developed not only the best methods of study, not only is not fully supported by samples of the Marxist-Leninist methodology holistic scientific description of the writer’s language, but not the best delineated range of issues that make up the core, the core of this study. This branch of science is still young, undecided and only seeking ways of its development, now has radically changed its perspective and its methods. The restructuring of this, the path to which is specified in the works of Stalin, will give impetus to new research, based on a new, truly scientific basis and principles.

In recent times we hear the question: Is it right now, after the appearance of the works of JV Stalin on linguistics, the very formulation of the problem: «the language of the writer?» It is certain that every truly national writer, went down in the history of literature and language, and leave a trace in the story, written by a popular language and any of its own, distinct from the whole people, the language did not and could not have. It may be more correct to consider yazyn writer only as a reflection of obscheliteraturnogo language of the era, just as the material for learning the language of that era? For such doubts, however, there is no reason. The need for in-depth, comprehensive study of the writer’s language, the need to develop proper methods of this study there is now more acute than ever before.

The language of literature in the lexical and grammatical relation is a very complex entity: it is in varying degrees and in different forms are reflected a wide variety of side popular language, refracted through the prism of philosophy and skill of the writer and acting in various proportions in the author’s story, in the speech of the narrator, in a dialogue, in double indirect discourse, in various forms of speech characteristics of heroes, in their internal monologues.

Language writer opens up wide possibilities for the study of the interaction of different styles popular language, the laws of their compounds, their interpenetration and mutual enrichment; it provides an opportunity to study the interaction between written and oral speech. No other kind of written language — the language of scientific, journalistic, business — does not provide such opportunities this study. Meanwhile, the interaction of speech and writing in the language of literature is a form of consolidation in the written language of individual aspects of speech. Trace the path of consolidation in writing diverse phenomena previously unique to «live conversation» can not without learning the language of the writer, the language of art. The language of the writer contains direct evidence cases formoupotrebleniya word and that at some point in the life of language were common in some styles of speech, mostly verbal, but for one reason or another are not entrenched, left the tongue. In one form or another reflecting short-lived, sometimes random, language writer preserves for posterity the living traces of the language of the motion; it is the only area of ​​writing, which, in certain stylistic purposes, the written literary language interacts with regional dialects and jargons class. Finally — Last, but not least — without learning the language of the writer can not understand the creative person of the writer, his outlook. All this makes the study of the writer’s language problem is extremely complex and multifaceted.

In this paper an attempt is made to put just one of many aspects of this region — the issue of the relationship between the individual and the whole people in the language of the writer and what content should be put in this case, the term «individual». The material for the article are some of the works of Soviet writers — our contemporaries.


Many studies on the language of the writer, appearing here in recent years, reflected the theoretical confusion that reigned in our linguistics. Their common defect was primarily the fact that the language of the writer understood and studied as a reflection of the «class language» of the social group to which this writer belonged. «Before the advent of Stalin’s works — wrote Academician. Vinogradov — Soviet philologists, considering both the literature and language of the superstructure, loved to write and talk about the noble language of Karamzin, Turgenev, and even Leo Tolstoy, a time-nochinsko-city, petty-bourgeois language of Dostoyevsky, the proletarian Gorky’s language and so on. n. Randomly confuse language and individual style. In the language of the writer accidentally been searched illustrate his social and class relations to the phenomena depicted reality or ideological coloring of its image. «

«Before the Soviet linguistics — wrote Academician VV Vinogradov, —stoit major important task — to reveal in depth and definition of the concept of language, style, language and literature and artistic style of the writer (or literary movement), to determine exactly what categories should be guided by the analysis of the style of the writer as an expression of ideology, t. e. as a superstructure of education, and what, in any language and means of their combinations are expressed in these ideological aspirations or intentions of the artist. «

What is the «language of the writer?» In the definition of the term should be based primarily on the fact that the language material, which is used by the writer, is inseparable from the whole people and obscheliteraturnogo language of his era. The error of many works on the history of Russian literary language was direct or covert opposition to the language of the writer language «popular», «popular», «common literary», «national» and so on. N. The language of the writer is often seen as a closed and isolated system, one way or otherwise interacting with a common «national» language, approach him or moving away from him, draw from it those or other «elements», «features». Evaluation language writers often determined by the degree of his «closeness» to the «national» language, or «distance» from him.

Meanwhile, of course, that the language of the writer can not be artificially separated from the popular language, to oppose him. Language «… national language, its structure, its vocabulary is a property of all people. Using diverse spheres of social life in its basic communicative function that language forms a complex and extensive system of varieties — a style popular language. This includes all kinds of literary language — business, scientific, journalistic, artistic and literary, oral and spoken, — This includes professional and vernacular speech. The richer the spiritual and social life of the people, the richer system of styles popular language, the wider circle of his stylistic branches. The writer has a whole system of diverse styles of popular language, creatively selecting and combining common language means that in different styles popular language get kind of functional use and understanding. In his unpublished article «Problems of studying the language of the writer in the Soviet era,» citing the words of Turgenev that the language of the people is the sea, the waves of which shall be sent on a particular channel writer, academician. Vinogradov writes: «The task of learning the language of the writer is to determine how the individual use of folk language of the waves and the laws of stylistic construction of the new building or verbal works which with the help of these waves are created.» In his creative work on the language of art, for the purpose of ideological education and artistic and aesthetic impact, in order to create the image, a writer can go beyond the styles of popular language, he may apply to the territorial dialect, jargon, the individual techniques of individual rechetvorchestva.

Any truly national writer is therefore part of the history of literary language, he writes in the language of his people, improving, polishing and processing of the language. Based on the system of national language in its «masters treated» form, ie. E. In the form of a literary language, a writer at the same time produces a constant and focused selection of linguistic resources. Of the variety of styles popular language (and sometimes beyond — in dialect), the writer selects words, shapes, structures that are most brightness and fullness able to convey the idea, the image, the idea of ​​his work. On the other hand, from the variety of sustainable linguistic wealth of its people and also the writer selects what may disappeared from modern use, but can be used as a means of expression, of course bearers of the language. The writer writes on popular language of his era in its more processed form — in the form of a literary language, and in this sense the writer is not his, a special language, opposed to the system of popular language. But the writer comes to the language of their time creatively, he produces a careful selection, screening of linguistic resources of different styles popular language. This selection is entirely due to ideological and aesthetic representational function-language literature. Language is the material means that the writer embodies the images of their ideas, their worldview. Therefore, the higher the skill of the writer than the more successful they selected expressive means of popular language, the more his images, the clearer his ideas. General communicative function of language in literature is complicated educational and representational functions, and this — the specificity and uniqueness of the language of literature.

The language of the writer, so there is a kind of creative concentration expressive means popular language, underwent a special literary processing; This is a reflection of the era of popular language, but is a reflection of where the common language tools are selected and are connected individually, the ratio of refracted through the prism of ideology, skill, the author of the tasks of the writer. Language reflects the writer’s national language in a separate, private, its manifestation. This reflection has specific features. Firstly, it can never be exhaustively complete: in a single work of fiction can not be reflected as in a mirror, the whole complex system of popular language in the diversity of its oral and written varieties. Secondly, it is a reflection of the individualized: common language tools are selected and used originally, according to the artistic challenge, containing the product, the overall outlook of the author, his individual taste.

All the above confirms that learning the language of the writer is a scientific problem of paramount importance. Learning the language of the writer is, in essence, the study of the literary language of his time in one of the most striking and sophisticated of its manifestations.

When Stalin called the language of the largest Russian classic writer as a milestone in the history of the Russian language, it directly determines this ratio to the national language of the writer and obscheliteraturnogo language of his era.

Pushkin’s language can serve as a material source for the study of the norms of the literary language of the period. But the language of Pushkin at the same time infinitely peculiar and unique. This originality and uniqueness of individual artistic achieved using general language resources, their creative rethinking their new poetic synthesis.

How to define the notion of «individual» in the language of the writer? It can be personalized in two ways. His character is determined by the ratio of the language of the writer to the system of styles popular language and linguistic resources are outside these styles.

On the one hand, the individual in the language of the writer may be to create a new means of expression — words, their meanings, at least — their forms. Based on the system of national molded and word-word artist can create, invent their own new, unknown to him, and to form those words or other forms of words that are in general use these forms do not have; building on the existing system of meanings, it can create new values, to expand already existing in terms of language, semantic connections and relationships of words. This — the first type of individual. It is possible mainly in the field of word formation, vocabulary, phraseology and semantics.

We are not talking about the type of rechetvortsah Khlebnikov, whose language was almost entirely artificial, contrived, totally incomprehensible, t. E. Was actually a kind of «personal jargon.» The value of a well-defined rechetvorchestva AI Beletsky, «Benedictine, referring to the poet, wrote:

To express the desperate flour to all your fire in the words of your İznik invent unheard sounds that invented tongues!

And he invented. But his linguistic innovation, after criticism of Belinsky, became a laughing stock, and the term «benediktovschina» long remained in common parlance to refer to the literary bad taste. Benediktovschina has been and gone, as the later are gone sophistication Balmont, «perfume fornication» and «tweet» egofuturistov and Igor Northerner, word creation Klebnikov, glossolalia Andrei Bely, and all sorts of «destruction» of art Ukrainian panfuturistov, Russian and Ukrainian Constructivists, advocates of «literature of fact «and so on.. All this proved transient jargon Kruzhkova dialects, scum.»

However, the creative development of new means of linguistic expression is characteristic for many realistic writers whose language is close and understandable to the people. It is their rechetvorchestvo should be the subject of study. There are words invented and made in the literary language Karamzin, Dostoevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin, and a number of other writers, as well as individual figures of Russian literature and education XIX-XX centuries. However, the scope of our knowledge is limited, mainly words, re-created on the existing word-formation models (industry, non-profit, attainable, future, efface, bungler, penkosnimatel and so on. N.). It is much wider than the other — and even less studied — the area of ​​word creation associated with the expansion of the range of values ​​of an existing word (cf., For example, the creation of new words Radishcheva filled with new socio-political content of the words of everyday speech and church-book archaisms).

There is no doubt that the words and phrases invented and put into circulation by individual writers, in the vocabulary of the Russian literary language is not enough. It is necessary to study the internal laws and common ways to build in the literary lexicon of words and values ​​that are the product of individual rechetvorchestva. These neologisms are heterogeneous. On one side are the words by the writer as a response to the pressing need to obscheliteraturnogo language designation of new concepts. That this was the role of many words invented Karamzin; such neologisms may remain in the vocabulary of the language and even enter his basic vocabulary. On the other hand, the individual may be established neologisms writer for transmitting an image from an aesthetic, artistic challenge. Designed for the living laws of word formation, these words can be bright, imaginative and memorable; but the overall system of the literary language they come with more restrictions. For example, neologisms Mayakovsky, most of them are very successful and by word-formation models of the whole people, are not included in the common vocabulary of our language; words like Prozasedavshiesya not included in the free hand, and the images, as quotations.

When a large master invents new words and new forms in accordance with the internal laws of the whole people of word, these words or enter into a living system usage, or remain in the arsenal of language as a direct and clear evidence of the creative possibilities of this language. When one or the other a writer begins to engage in word creation simply «for originality,» in contradiction with the norms of the whole people of word, that is creation of new words, not justified by the artistic challenge and the internal laws of language, inventing for inventing turns not to the enrichment of the language and its damage, breaking.

The writer, working on the language of his works inevitably comes to the rejection of such an artificial creation of words, the language of clogging and makes it incomprehensible. In this respect, it is of interest F. Gladkov work on the language of the novel «Cement». Comparing the publication of the novel in 1927 and 1950. We see a complete upgrade of its language, the consistent exception of artificial tumors that do not exist in the standard language words. Wed .:


Gleb went to the secretariat. There bath Butor: again, tol-pёzhnaya all (VI, 1, 96).

Again glides through the consciousness shorknula rope, and again — a heavy hand fell upon the dead body on his shoulder (VIII, 2, 134)

I saw there the flour in her eyes, burning through, or nyur-kinyh heard muffled cries of reproach — rvakom stood up (X, 2, 165).

1950 Gleb was in the secretariat. There — again turn (VI, 1, 188).

Again somewhere near shorknula rope, and again — a heavy hand fell upon his shoulder (VIII, 2, 220).

He saw in her eyes the flour or nyurkinyh cries heard reproach — quickly rose from his chair (X, 2, 242).

The other — and most important form of «individual» — a selection of methods and techniques of linguistic material, its creative processing. The study of «individual» in this respect is the greatest difficulties and the greatest interest. Selection, using the primary IPT other nationwide language means determined by the individual person the writer — the master of the language. This is a profound and correct definition of the relation of the literary language of the whole people and makes very carefully approach the issue of what is meant by this treatment produced by craftsmen.

As a result of centuries of collective work of the masters of the word linguistic riches people create and improve our literary language. Hundreds of these artists — large and small — have invested a share of their labor to the cause of its formation, development, enrichment. And the literary language as a whole, in all its diversity and complexity of its structure, has absorbed the entire amount of the individual skills of its founders and has developed into a unified and coherent system. But every artist, precisely because he is the master, the creator, the artist, rather than a simple craftsman — has its own «style of work,» his face, his creative style, and feature all of the standard language is that in their private manifestations, some of its cells and the cells of the system retains the features of the individual style of the master, his creative «brand.» This especially applies to the language of writers, creators of artistic expression.

From the writer draws his linguistic resources from which it chooses? He can select expressive, bright of old, forgotten language material from regional dialects, rarely — from jargons. But its main source of his material — is diverse styles popular language of his era. The selection and processing of linguistic resources from this source manifests and individual style of the writer’s language. This very variety of heterogeneous, not homogeneous and its results. On the one hand, this choice may be innovative, that determines the further development of the standard language more or less prolonged period of time. Going this route, the writer refers to the language actively, «works in the language.» What is this work? It lies in the development and enrichment of the hidden features of the language in accordance with the living tendencies of its development, to attract into the language of literature not previously used them nation-wide linguistic resources. Correctly identifying the development obscheliteraturnogo language, understanding its nascent, can not yet be found for other opportunities, writer releases new from under a bushel of old, sometimes from under the bushel traditional written language, developed and developing this new, activates it, showing his contemporaries inherent in the different styles of language capabilities of the new expression. At first, these new, rooted in the national language means act as «individual» in the language of «finder» of the writer. For in the future they may enter into the literary norm. The active, creative attitude of the writer to the living processes of popular language can cause binding «found» their language means in the literary language of his age; «Open» and developed by writer words, shapes, designs can permanently enter into the norms of written language, and even define the processes of further stylistic development. That this was the role of Pushkin in the history of the Russian literary language. Brilliant by understanding the laws of development of the literary language of his people, he guessed right way to update it to use the living resources of the richest styles of popular language, Pushkin «created in the language» is not in conflict, and in full accordance with his living trends and domestic laws. Something new that brought Pushkin in syntax, in language, in usage, was laid in those styles popular language, which until then or not allowed in the literature or were admitted with big their limits. Pushkin opened the creative possibilities of language, developed and processed them, made them a common literary norm and thus predestined for a long time the further development of the literary language of his people.

But the creative renewal of literary language can be carried out only a brilliant writer, at the appropriate point of the historical development of the language. Usually, however, the artist selects a word of the language means that the already entered, stuck in the literary language. The richer the language, the wider the field of activity of the writer, the more it opens to the creative possibilities of selection. Multiple means of vocabulary, syntactic constructions methods, variations in word order used by different writers in different ways, in different ways are used to express the world of the writer, his attitude towards what he describes, his skill, ability and taste.

Writer not mechanically sorts the language material; selecting, sifting, it is at the same time, processes, refines, polishes obscheliteraturnogo means of linguistic expression. His work has two side- this individual creativity and collective at the same time the further development and enrichment obscheliteraturnogo language. Therefore, all the masters of artistic expression of their collective work gradually and steadily enrich and update the system of literary language in general, and by acting on it in their own way, all together are the common cause of its perfection.

The method of learning a second language in the form of the individual writer can only be comparative: when comparing similar phenomena in the language of the writers identified several ways and means of individual creative selection and use general language resources.

With the study of the language of the writer inextricably linked to the study of his style. The issue of the writer’s style is very complex, and its resolution can not be beyond the scope of this article. The general indication of the ways to solve this problem is given in the article by Academician. Vinogradov «Problems of studying the language of the writer in the Soviet era.» It develops an understanding of the individual style, which in general have been scheduled by the author in his article «On problems of style.» Talking about one of the possible ways of studying the individual style of the writer, academician. Vinogradov writes that «the style of a literary work can be studied, starting from general concepts and categories of literary and linguistic system, of its elements, and delving into the techniques and methods of their individual stylistic use.»

Selecting certain funds from the treasury of popular language, or creating new words and their meanings, a writer at the same time produces a combination of these linguistic resources, uniquely combines them with each other. Selecting a writer at the same time picks connects. The uniqueness of individual style of the writer-master lies in the creative selection, connecting them to selected words, shapes, designs t. E. In his style.

Advanced Acad. VV Vinogradov understanding of individual style as the methods and techniques of different combinations of language means as a creative method of synthesizing the artistic use and is undoubtedly fruitful. In connection with the study of the writer’s style in this direction raises a number of questions: what the language means the writer joins in his work; how it connects them; What are the principles of selection and the ratio of these linguistic resources in the author’s narrative; some artistic problems are resolved by this compound. Even a simple list of these questions suggests that learning the language of the writer almost inseparable from the study of his style. It would be wrong to consider the work of the writer on language and style as two isolated process: first, the writer selects something from which he will build the edifice of his work, and then selected accepted mix and match separate language «chunks.» The choice of language and means of selection, the connection can not be separated from each other, are two sides of the same process. Therefore, learning the language of the writer, t. E. Describing the means popular language which he chose for his creative work, we will immediately raise the question of how to use a writer these funds, how to combine them with each other, embodying his artistic and ideological plan, which he has achieved this creative, purposeful choice and selection. Whatever type of individual in the language of the writer we may have studied, we have inevitably stand style questions. But naturally, with the greatest breadth of these issues arise in the study of what we have called above the second type of individual: after all, the individual rechetvorchestva, «inventing» in the language of the writer is very often not at all, and if there is, as a rule, it takes infinitely less space than with the creative selection and comprehension of nation-wide linguistic resources.


To illustrate such a creative selection and judgment turn to an analysis of individual aspects of the language and style of some modern novelists. The study of some aspects of the use of different obscheliteraturnogo language on a material of modern prose is facilitated by the fact that an individual design of advanced Soviet writers do not have to look for different reflection of class outlooks of antagonistic ideas. Their works are united by a common method of socialist realism, one pathos struggle to build a communist society; Writers our common friends and common enemies. However, these are not erased the individual characteristics of language and style: the originality of the writer’s artistic manner, the individual techniques of narrative, its own system of images, a method for identifying and assessing the author’s attitude cause individual creative use of diverse parties to popular language.

Do not set the task to an exhaustive description of the language and style of any individual writer’s attempt to give a comparative description of different, peculiar use of certain obscheliteraturnogo language means different authors.

1) In the modern literary language is widely extending from the beginning of the XIX century. and for the first time developed a deep Pushkin special reception so-called double indirect discourse consists in the combination of subjective plans of the author and protagonist. It is on behalf of the author, with an appropriate design of its grammatical structure; but the overall content of the statements, its modalities, selection of vocabulary, word usage, as well as frequent and time schedule are transferred to the subjective «field» speech and thinking hero. Double indirect discourse is a phenomenon intermediate between strictly linguistic categories and stylistic device. In general, the narrative introduction of double indirect discourse necessarily related to the change of language means «moving» in the subjective plan of his hero, the author fits all set of syntactic, lexical, morphological sometimes proper forms to the manner of speech; to the stylistic «face» of his hero. But at the same time double indirect discourse and therefore can be separated as a special welcome, it is revealed, it is detected by a combination of different sometimes dramatically different linguistic means, but in a «neighborhood». Here ends the selection and begins to synthesize, mix, selection of different means of language with a certain stylistic task.

Forms of double indirect discourse a great opportunity compressed «samoharakteristika» combining copyright narrative subjective going assessment of the hero of the events. Different writers in different ways, individually using the existing language in the form double indirect discourse, methods of its combination with the author’s speech and speech of characters straight. We associate with the use of double indirect discourse in some of the works of K. Fedin, V. Panova, V. Nekrasov and B. Gorbatov. In the language of V. Nekrasov and V. Panova double indirect discourse is represented in its simplest, most typical and clear forms. Author eliminated most of the subjective evaluation plan of the narrative, giving place to the hero; respectively moved modal color, shape time, the whole structure of speech, vocabulary. The presence of the author of a story appears only in the forms of pronouns; the joints of the author, and double indirect discourse easily felt, the whole structure of all — clear and simple.

— That is, meet with your boss trains. Dr. Belov. Danilov looked at Chief: inferior. Growth is invisible, thin face. Head has not had time to change into a war: trousers, shoes, ah-ah-ah / What happened to him, so do?

Danilov said aloud, encouraging the old man: — Never mind, Comrade Chief, worked. (Panova, satellites, 1, I, 21).

It mobilized. Let / His poor health! Well, he will serve a hospital train. But he is not a surgeon. He does not know how to extract the bullets and cast plaster! … It will make others; and he will carry the wounded and look after them in a way that does not hurt to recover. And let it not worry — if necessary, it will learn to extract the bullets … But he did not want to be crippled! He is afraid of the bombs! Afraid of suffering!

— Povoyuem Pavlik, nothing; we must fight — his mother murmured, gathering it. (Ibid 1, III, 53).

They say several other people. Then I. For me — Abrosimov. He is short. He believes that the tanks could only take a massive attack. That’s all. He demanded that the attack took place. Combat cherish the people, so do not like to attack. The tanks could only take the attack. And he’s not my fault that people are treated unfairly in this, scared …

— Chickened out? — Is heard from somewhere in the depths of the pipe. (V. necro owls, In the Trenches of Stalingrad, II, 25, 242).

Such construction of double indirect discourse is related to the overall style of the narrative called the Writers — concise, succinct, avoiding the detailed descriptions, author estimates based on the principle of maximum «activity» heroes.

Another character is double indirect discourse in the novel B. Gorbatov «Unconquered». Its structure and shape are difficult. This complexity is intentional; it is due to the general upbeat tone of epic narrative: estimates enduring public verdict author invariably accompanies the reader. Therefore, in the double indirect discourse here dramatically collide subjective psychological and speech plans of the author and the hero; respectively occurs deliberate, emphatic combination of stylistically the opposite of vocabulary, word usage, syntax. The double indirect discourse introduced rhythmically organized syntagmas, repetition, giving the entire building a festive, upbeat sound.

Family and plant — that’s what life was like Taras. Nothing more was not. Family and factory. What’s left? Family? Where are my sons, my apprentice? None of the children. Some of the women were. «Surezny garrison.» Factory? Where he works, my shop, my peers? No plant. Ruins. Crow’s Nest. What’s left? One faith remained. My hands built, collapsed mine, mine and revive. The Germans, as a disease as hard times, torment and disappear. This is a temporary. (B. Gorbatov, Unconquered, 1, 2, 8).

All you can heal, restore, correct — he thought (Taras), looking at the information in the patient grimace girl’s face. The war is over, and all wounds zarubtsuyutsya, all factories to rebuild, renew the whole of life, but the cure bloody, mutilated, bruised child’s soul?

— Where are you, my sons? Where are you? (Ibid. 1, 11, 29).

Characteristically, in pursuit of the same objective of permanent underscores the author’s attitude and public scrutiny, B. Gorbatov introduces features of its author’s language is not only in the double indirect discourse, but also directly into the inner voice of the hero:

And now for the first time Taras thought with horror: «What, how long? …» And immediately dismissed the thought. «Togo can not be!» But she persistently climbed to the soul: «What, like this forever? And the factory puffed, as before? And maybe even show up Hartmann or his heirs? And as if there was nothing, no Klim nor Parkhomenko or acute Graves nor echelon war eighteenth or twenty-first rage of hunger or assault nights thirty-first. » He walked around the room, thinking about all the same. (Ibid, 1.2, 8).

This creates a kind of «personal» connection between different linguistic means distinguishing double indirect discourse in the works Gorbatova from similar constructions in language B. Panova and V. Nekrasov.

The language of the novel Fedin «No Ordinary Summer» techniques for building double indirect discourse even more complicated and individualized. In describing one or another hero — mostly related to the heroes of the negative, but not only them — Fedin introduces in the language of their author’s narrative individual words, momentum, at least — syntactic structures, specific to the speech of the hero. This creates a special flavor of the narrative. Describes the events as if the phenomenon of refracted through the prism of a hero who stands next to the author, as it were, with him to observe and describe. Fedin used method of introducing the vocabulary specific to the language of the hero, almost blurs the line between double indirect speech and author. It turns out the subtle interweaving of different linguistic means — the original and effective stylistic device characteristics of the hero, his thinking, mental outlook, attitude to reality. This is particularly evident in the description of one of the main villains Novels — Meshkov.

This news vostorgla Meshkov to enlightenment, precisely because it freed. (18, 310).

(18, 304).

(5, 51).

(5, 53-54).

(5, 56). About Shubnikov:

(24, 410).

About Parabukin:

He. . (13, 201).

On the occasional hero — priest:

(13, 194). Acceptance of this is common in the language of the novel, and used it very subtly and skillfully.

Thus, the existing language in the literary reception of a special double indirect discourse used by different writers in different ways, in different forms and manifestations. This peculiarity in the use creates one of the individual characteristics of language and style of these writers.

Of the variety of existing types of proposals every writer chooses those that are most relevant to the content and the general thrust of his work

In modern Russian language literature, mainly in its oral form widely called connecting structure. It — reflecting the living intonation division of complex constructions, consisting of several «incomplete» sentences, immediately adjacent to the first pivotal proposal grammatically dependent on it and is a kind of handed down in separate deals, the most isolated syntagmas — major or minor members of the first sentence. Different writers have different use these structures and allow the use of these various stylistic problems.

The language of the novel V. Nekrasov «In the Trenches of Stalingrad» is based on the spoken language. Copyright narrative is largely built on constructive forms of dialogue; it sounds lively conversational tone. Therefore, the bulk of syntax in the language of the novel — it is the design of speech. We hardly find here grammatically complex whole, period. But «prisochinenie» accession represented here is very broad. Here are some typical examples: Somewhere high up in the sky rumbles «corncob», a night to ~ overview. Above the «barricades» lit «lights». Our «lights», not German. There is no one really light them from the Germans. Yes and no reason. (II, 30, 264).

Come wounded. Singly, in pairs. The gray, dusty, with indifferent, tired faces. (1, 17, 91).

On the streets with bales of people with trolleys. They run, stumble. With carts all falls. Stop, shift. Silently, without swearing, with advanced, staring eyes. (1, 13, 69).

I crawl. Higher and higher. I try not to breathe. Why — I do not know. As if anyone hears my breath. (II, 10, 162).

The constant use of such constructions, consisting of the main structural and offers several «incomplete», complement each other and together create a single complex whole, achieved great strength and dynamism of speech. Separate syntagmas, getting isolated intonation, decorated on the letter as a proposal, highlights, concentrating on the attention. Intonation of the sentence on the isolated segments, the author makes the reader to dwell on all the details of the events and record them in their minds; the use of such constructions in the most stressed areas of the narrative creates a special language style characteristic of «individually» feature of the author’s speech, the specific manner of description: short, concise, extremely short build well-suited for a truthful, unvarnished, sometimes approaching the protocol describing the heroic everyday life of war for graphic transmission dynamics phenomena.

If we compare the use of the connecting structures of V. Nekrasov with the use of the same structures K. Fedin, a language whose works complex and diverse threads associated with the traditions and stylistic norms of classical literature and is based mainly on the rate of writing, we see that K . Fedin mounting design uses primarily in direct and double indirect discourse of heroes, and in a speech expressive colored, hard, rough:

Now. To me, the office. (Fedin, Neobykn. Summer, 8, 108).

Night. Like a thief. With us, the power of the Cross! (Ibid, 6, 70).

3) Individual methods of selecting and combining language means pronounced in the construction and forms of dialogue. Dialogue — one of the most effective forms of living and the right characteristics of the hero. At the same time in the form of construction of the dialogue is usually clearly revealed the writer’s attitude to the rules of oral sounding speech: the speech, or may be carried in a dialogue with all of its specific features and forms, or subjected to appropriate treatment, in part subject to the rules of written literary language. Interesting materials provides a comparative study of methods of construction of the dialogues in the novels of Vladimir Nekrasov and Fedin.

In Fedin basic dialogues are often built on strict and complicated laws of combination of independent parts and consist of a number of deployed and closed replicas equipped with the author’s remark. The syntactic structure of the replica is usually difficult. Wed, such as dialogue and Cyril Annochka during their last meeting before the departure of Kirill to the front:

(Fedin, Neobykn. Summer, 37, 683).

In V. Nekrasov dialogue is always as it moved into a book in its immediate, live sound, with all the laws of speech. One characteristic of this dialogue is to repeat in the next cue — approval or issue — the last words of the interlocutor. This creates a kind of buckles that turns question and answer into a coherent whole:

— Beautiful, is not it? — Lucy asked. — Beautiful, — I say. — You like to sit and watch? — I like. — You are in Kiev, is also likely to sit with someone on the bank of the Dnieper in the evening and take a look? — We sat and watched. — You have a wife there in Kiev? — No I am not married. — And who are you sitting? — With Lucy sat. — With Lucy? How ridiculous — Lucy, too. — Lucy, too. And she’s just like you, hog hair. On the piano, however, did not play. (I, 11, 59).

…Newspaper, and it probably does not have time to read. What do you think, Kerzhentsev, manages or not? — I do not know. I think it still has time. — In time, do you think? Oh, I think it does not have time. (II, 19, 202, 203).

Accepted forms of building dialogue writer are usually transferred in monologues. In the novel V. Nekrasov monologue built as a living reflection of sounding speech, organized on their own, different from the written, literary norms. As the most vivid sample consider a major indictment of Borodin to the court of honor (II, 25, 240- 242). This monologue is divided into several parts, combined thematically, lexical and syntactic. Each piece is a grammatically organized whole. This grammatical and semantic integrity is created first, mentioned above syntagmas isolation of an independent proposal, secondly — advanced techniques repeat reflecting the gradual development and complication of thought. The first part of the monologue (let’s call it «the trust»):

It is impossible in a war without confidence — he says — a little courage. And knowledge is not enough. We need more faith. Faith in the people with whom you are at war with. Without this, no way.

This is the first, closed part of the monologue (lexical and syntactic characteristic of a common origin and end of it), all built on a living intonation partitioning and repeats, and we have the characteristic repetition of a word with a further opening of its content, reflecting the gradual development of ideas: the belief in the faith … people … and so on. d.

The second part of the monologue is a specialization, opening of the first part and thematically adjacent to it. Transferred from speech communication methods — the same as in the first part:

With Abrosimov we have come a long way. Big battle your way — Eagle, Kastornaya, Voronezh … There has been much sitting … And I believed him. He knew that he was young, inexperienced, maybe the war is just learning, he knew that he could make mistakes — who has not made mistakes — but believe — I believed him. It is impossible not to believe his chief of staff …

Just like the first part of this section of the two sides closed words of one common value (Abrosimov … Chief of Staff) and is an impersonal construction with can not develop the whole monologue.

The third part of the monologue («Responsibility and authority in the war»):

— I know that he is guilty. For the people I say, not the chief of staff. And for this operation I say. And when the colonel shouted today Abrosimov, I knew it was him and yells at me. And he’s right. There is no war without casualties. On this war. But what happened in the second battalion of yesterday — that’s not a war. This extermination. Abrosimov exceeded its authority. He canceled my order. And he overturned twice. In the morning — on the phone, and then himself, drove the men to attack.

We drop a fourth of the monologue dedicated to a brief description of the attack and the events associated with it, and give the latest, the final part («The orders for war»):

— Order in the holy war. Failure to comply with order — a crime. And always holds the last command. And his men carried out and are now facing our trenches. A Abrosimov sitting here. He lied to his commander. He exceeded the authority. And people have died … Everything. I think that’s enough.

Monologue, based on the norms of speech, opposes the monologue, constructed according to the norms of oratorical speech, moving closer to the writing. Here, as an example, we are facing the Red Army Izvekova, announces victory at Voronezh. Despite the fact that this speech several times interrupted by the audience, it retains the overall structure of the oratory monologue, intonation and syntax integrity.

— Comrades! Just received by telegraph the news of our great victory on the Southern Front. (Fedin, Neobykn. Summer, 34, 621-622). 4) Those or other means selected by the writer of the total wealth in the language depending on the tasks it has set itself, depending on the general thrust of his work. IV Nekrasov and B. Gorbatov describe the events of the war years, but describe them differently. Nekrasov, while leading the first person avoids copyright assessments, a detailed description. In the busiest places in his narrative language as simple and neukrashen as in the description of the details of everyday military life. Language Arts V. Nekrasov — in its artlessness. We have already seen that in the syntax is manifested in the conciseness and brevity designs selected by the author; unknown to him deployed periods, constructed according to the laws of high rhetorical speech. B. Gorbatov is all in the epic narrative, raised, emotive colors. Resent suffering along with the characters, the author evaluates the developments constantly accompanies and guides the reader. Upbeat, oratorical and solemn, epic tone of the whole work is due to welcome the favorite B. Gorbatov conjunctionless building complex syntactic unities periods combined edinonachatiem, repeating words and parallel structures. These complex whole usually consist of two parts, separated by intonation and logical turning point: the growing tension which is transmitted structurally and lexically related to each other proposals, interrupted by a sharp opposition, followed by a new rise — the second part of a complex whole, in turn severely and slim organized.

Only the Germans were able to fill the peaceful words of horror. Just-Germans know how to turn everything into a torture chamber. The dungeons, where torture childish soul, was a school. The dungeons, where the German doctors in the Russian wounded tried their poisons, was a hospital. Torture chambers was a POW camp. Torture chambers were theater, church, street. But in the working city, where he lived Taras, the most horrible torture chamber was labor exchange — the first stage of the slave route. This one did not come voluntarily. It dragged captured in the raid, izlovlennyh on the street, pulled out of cellars and basements. An hour ago, these people have a name, a family, a house of hope. An hour ago, this boy was playing with his friends, the girl clung to her mother’s lap warm. Now it’s all over for them. Instead of the name — tag, instead of the house — the car with bars instead of the family — a foreign land. Only hope remains a slave. Hope and hatred. (B. Gorbatov, Unconquered, I, 9, 23).

For them, there was not a high sky, no clouds of winged it, no green treetops. Shred the dusty road ahead — that’s all. And they cursed the road. They felt the sun only neck, merciless, evil sun — and they cursed the sun. Their shoulders were shaking and ezhilis a sudden rain — and they cursed the rain. Their bloody, worn hands could not push a wheelbarrow — and they cursed the hand. Nr of who was the sole culprit of their grief, could not curse out loud. And they tortured and expensive wheelbarrow, cursing the Germans every breath tired breasts every spit Neaten heat and dust of the mouth, every moan of the child. (II, 4, 43).

Rare page in the novel B. Gorbatova not give examples of such complex constructions, rhythmically organized based on a combination of similar structure and related common vocabulary parts.

As already mentioned, in the language of the novel V. Nekrasov such constructions are absent. Complex whole meet him very rarely, have a peculiar shape and perform specific tasks. On the part of their forms and methods of combining parts of a complex whole of V. Nekrasov it relies entirely on the spoken language. It does not have the rhythmic organization, the complex clutch parts, overlapping structures. Small-scale, complex whole pool funds drawn from the dialogic speech. This is, firstly, cited above, the isolation of separate intonation syntagmas relatively independent «incomplete» proposal and, secondly, as discussed above reception repeat creating lexical and grammatical cohesion of parts. These constructions are of V. Nekrasov peculiar means of expression hidden, hard and worked hard thought. For such complex unity of the reader it is always a «second plan» thoughts are not expressed by the author of findings resulting from the compressed, «objective» description. Such, for example, the role of a complex unity in describing the retreat of our troops in the first days of the war:

At the gate are women — silent, with arms along the body coarse heavy hands. Each house cost. Watch as we pass by. And children are watching. No one runs for us. All stand and stare. (Nekrasov in the trenches of Stalingrad, I, 4, 24).

Avg. as a complex whole, concludes the author’s thoughts about a deep patriotism, inner spiritual strength and steadfastness of the Russian soldier:

All moved, rattling pots. And they went. Let’s go slow, heavy soldier’s step. Let’s go to an unknown place that map their commander noted, should be a red cross. (I, 16, 85).

The language of the novel Fedin complex syntactic unity presented very well, but have a very different character. They are a great shape for a complex analysis of copyright, multilateral and detailed descriptions of the psychological state of the hero. Therefore, the periods are built on complex rules logizirovannoy speech. The main means of communication are conjunctions and values ​​form the time. Proposal form inside such unity are varied and are not repeated; external rhythmic organization and lexical and syntactic repetitions no.

(Fedin, Neobykn. Summer, 27, 456-457).

The role of language in such a complex building special. There is no repetition" tions of the same words — not for the purpose of rhetorical edinonachatiya or with the aim of bringing all the norms of building us’tnoy speech. The author, in contrast, seeks to diversify dictionary. However, parts of a complex construction of connectedness is often created by means of synonyms; close in meaning of the word appears at the beginning of each part (realized clearly … clearly understood … felt) or in parts, performing the integrity and indivisibility of the entire construction; around a common word often built a number of unambiguous definitions (event somewhere in the Khvalynskoye doomed to obscurity … this event, doomed to obscurity … negligible for the vast majority of people in the event Repyevka …).

Such complex build widespread in the language of the novel Fedin. Where other writers oriented toward the norms of speech and seeks to maximize the «activation» of the hero, would have used double indirect discourse, Fedin gives a detailed, built by the standards of book speech complex whole. Avg. transmission «rapidly, with an incomprehensible speed-moving» Oznobishin thoughts on the upcoming trouble for him arrested Meshkov:

(31, 557-558).

It would seem that for the transmission of «rapidly speeding» thought form double indirect discourse would be more convenient and easier than building a complex syntactic form on behalf of the author. However, this construction helps the writer to dive deeper into the analysis of the experiences and thoughts of the hero, but only to give them a detailed description, and evaluation.

* * *

Language novels of Fedin, V. Nekrasov, B. Gorbatov, V. Panova — one common — Russian literary language of the Soviet era. But because of the language every writer chooses what corresponds to its subject, its copyright problems, his artistic tastes. Selected agents are combined are combined in accordance with these general goals of the work. This creates an «individual» in the language and style of the writer. We have given some examples of the «individual» from the field of double indirect speech, syntax. Rich and interesting materials can the study of vocabulary of the writer, his usage. Different selected, different uses multiple means of a nationwide vocabulary. For instance, Dictionary of the novel Fedin is different in that it is much wider than the other, presents various stylistic layers of the Russian literary language; Dictionary it is saturated, varied. In the area of ​​usage Fedin gives interesting examples of new combinations of words in a new «individual» phraseological units; Word expands its use, is filled with new shades of meaning. In this regard, a special interest is the «decomposition» of stable combinations — the use of non-free or in a combination of commonly consumed rare words in place a common, ordinary word-synonyms. For example: ringing razmolochennogo pianos (K. Fedin, Neobykn. Summer, 10, 131); … everything was well-nourished by the sun (16, 263); kindled the air (16, 263), and others. (Wed in normal use: a broken piano, hot air, penetrated by the sun).

In some cases, unusual, metaphorical use of the word gives a new color, it actually expands the range of lexical and stylistic use, disclose inherent in the word hidden opportunities: «… the earth to stone in tabes» (18, 302); «… He constantly heard the current gorklost boring life» (14, 209); «…

In the language of novels B. Gorbatov, V. Nekrasov, V. Panova, we find examples of this usage. The ability to select from a nationwide bright, colorful, expressive, new in its use and combination with each other to exercise «individual» in the language of the writer, in particular in its vocabulary and usage.

The selection of linguistic means in individual cases can be made not only to the writer of the living system of the modern language, but also obsolete now uncommon. This occurs mainly in the area of ​​vocabulary. Possibility of «resurrection» of the old word, departed from the vocabulary of the contemporary language, is remarkable. It shows the stability of a nationwide vocabulary of organic continuity communication vocabulary of modern literary language with the vocabulary of the previous era. This does not mean that the national language is a vast «ocean», a single for all eras and periods. System language is gradually changing and replaced; but the stability of the dictionary provides clarity obsolete, departed from the use of speech and the ability to use it in certain stylistic purposes. Usually, if the words are not involved outdated writer to create a «color era» (in this case the role of their particular), they create a high style of narration. For example, describing the views of the First Cavalry Army, Fedin uses sophisticated now quite uncommon adjectives Gromokipyaschy, belokipenny:

(Fedin, Neobykn. Summer, 38, 699). … (Ibid).

In general, the broad context rife with books and the archaic vocabulary, these words carry a certain stylistic problem, their appearance is no accident.

If the obsolete words entered the language writer in the fabric of the narrative without any stylistic study, in stark contrast to the common language means that narrative, it is the use of the game turns into a pretentious archaisms. Wed., for example, is stylistically outdated unjustified use of conjunctions and words in the language of the novel A. Yugova «Immortality»:

Andrew gently put his bandaged hand on top of the blankets and stood up in order to check the pupils of the patient (P, 13, 98). He lived here for three days, deported from the taiga towards dredging machines, koi from day to day, we were to arrive on the arrow and that still was not. (1.6, 15).

Also obsolete words, the writer can select from popular language, and language to include in his work the words of professional speech of the jargon of regional dialects.

During the XVIII-XX centuries. many writers — both large and secondary — to a greater or lesser extent, are introduced into the language of his works of words and phrases from their native dialects. Many of these words are logged in the literary lexicon. In the early years of the revolution trend in literary dialect make it especially active. F. Panferov, L. Seyfulina, Sun. Ivanov, Mikhail Kolosov and many other writers opened a dialect widely available in the language of literature. This caused a sharp and just condemnation from Gorky, who fought for the purity and comprehensible language.

It is well known that from the pen of a great writer, past master of carefully selected dialect make language artwork bright and colorful, giving it the «individuality», as discussed above. Suffice it to recall in this regard, «Cossack» Tolstoy, «Notes of a Hunter» Turgenev’s novels by Mikhail Sholokhov. If the local dialect made «unnecessarily» and without selection, they clog up the language of art, make it incomprehensible. It should be back to work on the language of F. Gladkov’s novel «Cement». In the first edition of the novel dialect often ‘sacrificed’ obscheliteraturnogo vocabulary hinder understanding. In the later reissue the author frees the language of his novel from the local «sayings.» Here are some typical comparison: Edition 1927

Gleb grated in the slide (F, 2, 43). Stirred up the people in the queue, we zashebutili Gleb (VI, 1, 96). And when it came to Gleb not zabulkotil, as always, and was holding the rifle firmly between the toes obutok (XI, 1, 123). … Her head, thrown back, unscrewed motylyalas on his shoulders, like a blind man. He timidly called her, his voice muffled bumknul a night void corridor (XVI, 2, 281).

Edition 1950

Gleb grated in the jaws (II, 2, 145). People were worried and growled at Gleb (VI, 1, 188). When Gleb went up to him, he firmly held the rifle (XI, 1, 253).

…her head, thrown back, shook her shoulders, like a blind man. He timidly called her, his voice muffled gasp at night void corridor (XVI, 2, 339).

* * *

The issue of nation-wide and individual in the language of the writer — a question difficult, interesting and poorly studied. He is waiting for new research in the light of the teachings of Stalin on the nation-wide character of the language. These studies will be new and in their methodology, and their materials. They show an endless variety of techniques and methods of using a nationwide speech wealth in the language of each individual writer and a separate work of art. Soviet historians of literary language to be done for the study and definition of different types of «individual in the language of the writer, the relationship of the» individual «to nationwide and to obscheliteraturnogo. The newly arises the problem itself «the language of the writer.» This language should be studied not as an isolated, closed system, as well as one of the manifestations of language obscheliteraturnogo era, reflects the current status and the development of the language in his individual creative breaking.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: