Derek Offord - Using Russian - A Guide to Contemporary Usage

linguists have in recent years become more interested than they were in Soviet times in usage in non-standard registers.

On the other hand the post-Soviet Russian language is widely

perceived, particularly by educated speakers brought up in the Soviet period, as having undergone ‘barbarisation’ (вaрвaризa´ция). It has

come to be seen as a vehicle for mass culture. It has received numerous loanwords (зaи´мствовaния) of international currency. (Resistance to what linguistic conservatives perceive as inundation with foreign words was exemplified as early as 1995 by Solzhen´ıtsyn’s Pу´сский словa´рь

языково´го рaсширe´ния ( A Russian Dictionary of Linguistic Expansion ).) 27

1

Varieties of language and register

Numerous slang words (жaргони´змы) have come into common use,

many of them associated with youth culture (and often disseminated

through rock music) and others originating in the underworld. The

complaint is heard that whereas once people were encouraged to write or speak in a way that was comprehensible to the masses (что´бы бы´ло

поня´тно мa´ссaм) now the demand is that they write or speak in a way that is entertaining to the masses (что´бы бы´ло зaня´тно мa´ссaм). Thus the linguistic standard has been broadened and the average level of

speech in public contexts lowered. The point is not that mistakes were not made before, of course, for languages are always used loosely by many speakers. Rather it is that lax usage in Russian is now widely

disseminated in the mass media (CMи, i.e. срe´дствa мa´ссовой

информa´ции), television serials (тeлeсeриa´лы), talk shows (ток-шо´у), films, advertising (рeклa´мa), contemporary fiction and the public

speech of officials and politicians (whose parliamentary debates are broadcast).

We should add to these complaints the fact that there often occurs

what might be described as a sort of linguistic inflation. Certain words lose their original worth, because a meaning comes to be attached to them that is more trivial than their original meaning or simply because they are overused. The process applies even to vulgar language (see

5.6) when it becomes habitual. The lexical currency is thus devalued.

In response to the perceived debasement of the standard Russian

language, or литeрaту´рный язы´к, commentators now routinely discuss the ‘ecology’ of the language (лингвоэколо´гия), expressing concern

about the phenomena that have come to be tolerated in public

discourse and lamenting the alleged impoverishment of the language.

For example, the authors of two recent articles in the paper

литeрaту´рнaя гaзe´тa (Ivanóva and Khlebtsóva; see Sources)

complain about departures from the standard in the areas of

pronunciation, enunciation, stress, morphology, syntax, lexis and style that they have observed in the media, even in broadcasts that are not live and in which editors might therefore have been expected to ensure a higher linguistic standard. They criticise correspondents and

presenters for halting and stumbling delivery, for speaking inaudibly and with unclear diction, for speaking too quickly and omitting

syllables from words, and for pronouncing words in a colloquial or

demotic way. They disapprove of the appearance on central television and radio channels of presenters who have a regional accent. (This

practice has long since been accepted in British broadcasting; in some respects Russian purists are reacting to the shock of what to them is novel.) They point to examples of non-standard stress, e.g. взя´тa,

вклю´чaт, гaзопро´вод, новоро´ждeнный, облe´гчить instead of взятa´, taken , включa´т, they will include , гaзопрово´д, gas pipeline , новорождённый, new-born , облeгчи´ть, to facilitate , respectively.

In the field of grammar, one area of particular concern to such

purists is the incorrect or innovative combination of nouns and

prepositions, e.g. нa прaви´тeльствe, в Укрaи´нe, instead of в

28

1.6

Current debate about standard Russian

прaви´тeльствe, in the government , нa Укрaи´нe, in (the) Ukraine (see note 1 on нa in 10.1.6(c)). Another is the widespread incorrect declension of numerals, e.g. о двухсо´т, instead of о двухстa´х, about 200 ; к двухтысячeпe´рвому году instead of к двe ты´сячи пe´рвому

го´ду, by 2001 ; and двух ты´сячa трe´тий год, instead of двe ты´сячи

трe´тий год, 2003 . Khlebts óva points to the use of double subjects (a colloquial phenomenon sometimes known in English as ‘heads’),

e.g. сeго´дняшняя тe´мa, онa´ кaсaéтся интeрe´сной проблe´мы, today’s subject, it concerns an interesting problem . More pedantically, perhaps, Ivan óva notes that certain nouns are inflected that should not be, such as the names of settlements (посёлки) and large Cossack villages

(стaни´цы). Conversely, other proper nouns, such as the names of cities and villages, are not inflected when they are in apposition, although strictly speaking they should be, e.g. в го´родe Hовосиби´рск and в

го´родe Бa´срa, instead of в го´родe Hовосиби´рскe, in the city of Novosibirsk , and в го´родe Бa´срe, in the city of Basra , respectively.

As far as lexis is concerned, Ivan óva and Khlebts óva lament the

inundation of the language of the media with foreign, especially

English, vocabulary (see 5.1.2 below), slang (5.1.4) and professional jargon, especially computing terminology (5.1.5). Furthermore they bemoan the allegedly limited vocabulary of people who work in the

media and their consequent underemployment of synonyms and their

failure to distinguish between registers. They also complain of the

assignation of new meanings to words. For example, the verb

ощущa´ть, to feel , Khlebts óva believes, now does service for ду´мaть, полaгa´ть, понимa´ть and считa´ть ( to think, suppose, understand and consider , respectively), as in the question she has heard put to someone on television: Кaк вы ощущaéтe, бу´дeт ли Aмe´рикa рaтифици´ровaть

догово´ры о рaзоружe´нии? ( How do you feel/What do you think, will America ratify the disarmament treaties? ). (In this modish use ощущa´ть

may be an anglicism.) Similarly the verb озву´чивaть/озву´чить has

gained currency as a synonym for вырaжa´ть/вы´рaзить мнe´ниe,

произноси´ть/произнeстиánd скaзa´ть ( to express an opinion, utter and say , respectively). At the same time the volume of words that belong to a relatively high stratum of Russian lexis, Ivan óva believes, has

diminished.

On the stylistic level Ivan óva criticises pleonasm (e.g. бы´вший

экс-прeмьe´р, the former ex-premier , and мировa´я глобaлизa´ция, world globalisation ) and presenters’ continuing recourse to official clichés (e.g.

в нaстоя´щий момe´нт, at the present moment ; прeдприня´ть мe´ры, to undertake measures (an embellishment of the official phrase приня´ть