Formation of the Russian literary language. The history of the formation of the Russian literary language Who is considered the founder of the modern Russian literary language

The history of the Russian literary language is a section of Russian studies that studies the emergence, formation, historical transformations of the structure of the literary language, the correlative relationships of its constituent system components - styles, both linguistic and functional-speech and individual author's, etc., the development of writing, book and oral - colloquial forms of the literary language. The theoretical basis of the discipline is a complex and versatile (historical-cultural, historical-literary, historical-poetic and historical-linguistic) approach to the study of the structure of lit. language, its norms at different stages of historical development. The concept of the history of the Russian literary language as scientific discipline was developed by V. V. Vinogradov and adopted by modern Russian linguistics. She replaced the approach that previously existed in science, which was a commentary on Rus. lit. language 18-19 centuries. with a collection of heterogeneous phonetic-morphological and word-forming facts against the background of understanding the language as a tool of Russian. culture (works by E. F. Budde).

In Russian Philology of the 19th century there were four historical and linguistic concepts of the emergence and development of the ancient Russian literary language. 1. The Church Slavonic language and the Old Russian folk literary language are styles of the same “Slavonic”, or old Russian literary language (A.S. Shishkov, P.A. Katenin, etc.). 2. The Church Slavonic (or Old Slavonic) language (the language of church books) and the Old Russian language of business and secular writing are different, albeit closely related, languages ​​that were in close interaction and confusion until the end. 18 - beg. 19th centuries (A. Kh. Vostokov, partly K. F. Kalaidovich, M. T. Kachenovsky and others).

3. The Old Russian literary language is based on the Church Slavonic language (M. A. Maksimovich, K. S. Aksakov, partly N. I. Nadezhdin, and others). According to Maksimovich, “Church Slavonic not only gave rise to the written language of Russian... but, more than all other languages, had a part in the further formation of our national language” (“History of Ancient Russian Literature”, 1839). 4. The basis of other Russian. lit. language - a living East Slavic folk speech, close in its main structural features to the Old Slavic language. By adopting Christianity, the people “have already found all the books necessary for worship and for teaching in the faith, in a dialect that differed very little from its popular dialect”; “Not only in authentic works of Russian. scribes, but also in translations, the older they are, the more we see nationalities in the expression of thoughts and images ”(I. I. Sreznevsky,“ Thoughts on the history of the Russian language and other Slavic dialects ”, 1887). The separation of the bookish and folk language, caused by changes in the colloquial, dialectal speech of the Eastern Slavs, dates back to the 13th-14th centuries. This led to the fact that the development of the Old Russian literary language was determined by the ratio of two speech elements - the written common Slavic (Old Slavic, Old Slavonic) and the oral and written national Old Russian. The following periods are distinguished in the development of the Russian literary language: the literary language of Ancient Russia (from the 10th to the end of the 14th - beginning of the 15th centuries); the literary language of Muscovite Russia (from the late 14th - early 15th centuries to the 2nd half of the 17th century); literary language of the initial era of the formation of Russian. nations (from the middle of the 17th century to the 1880s and 1890s); the literary language of the era of the formation of the Russian nation and the formation of its national norms (from the end of the 18th century); Russian literary language of the modern era. The spread and development of writing and literature in Russia begins after the adoption of Christianity (988), i.e. with con. 10th c. The oldest of the written monuments are translations from the Greek language (Gospel, Apostle, Psalter ...) Ancient Russian authors created during this period original works in the genres of preaching literature (“Words” and “Teachings” of Metropolitan Hilarion, Kirill of Turov, Luke Zhidyata, Kliment Smolyatich), pilgrimage literature (“The Journey of Hegumen Daniel”), etc. The basis of the book-Slavonic type of language was the Old Slavonic language. Ancient Russian literature during this period of its history also cultivated narrative, historical and folk art genres, the emergence of which is associated with the development of the folk cultural or folk processed type of the ancient Russian literary language. These are The Tale of Bygone Years (12th century) - an ancient Russian chronicle, the epic work The Tale of Igor's Campaign (end of the 12th century), The Instruction of Vladimir Monomakh (12th century) - an example of "secular, hagiographic" genre, "The Prayer of Daniil the Sharpener" (12th century), "The Word of the Destruction of the Russian Land" (late 13th - early 14th centuries). A special group of the vocabulary of the Old Russian language is made up of Old Slavic words that have the same root as the corresponding Russian ones, differing in sound appearance: breg (cf. coast), vlas (cf. hair), gates (cf. gate), head (cf. head), tree (cf. tree), srachica (cf. shirt), keep (cf. bury), one (cf. one), etc. In the Old Russian language, a number of purely lexical parallels are also distinguished, for example, marriage and wedding; vyya and neck; muddy and go; speak, speak and say, speak; cheek and cheek; eyes and eyes; percy and chest; mouth and lips; forehead and forehead, etc. The presence of such lexical pairs enriched the literary language functionally, semantically and stylistically. The Old Russian literary language inherited from the Old Slavonic language the means of artistic representation: epithets, comparisons, metaphors, antitheses, gradations, etc. By the middle of the 12th century. Kievan Rus is in decline, the period begins feudal fragmentation, which contributed to the dialect fragmentation of the Old Russian language. From about the 14th century on the East Slavic territory, closely related East Slavic languages ​​\u200b\u200bare formed: Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian. The Russian language of the Muscovite era (14th-17th centuries) had a complex history. The main dialect zones took shape - the North Great Russian dialect (approximately north of the line Pskov - Tver - Moscow, south of Nizhny Novgorod) and the South Great Russian dialect (up to the borders with the Ukrainian zone in the south and the Belarusian one in the west). From the end of the 14th century in Moscow, glories and church books are being edited to bring them into their original form, corresponding to the Greek originals. This editing was carried out under the leadership of Metropolitan Cyprian and was supposed to bring Russian writing closer to South Slavic. In the 15th century Rus. The Orthodox Church leaves the tutelage of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and the patriarchate is established in it in 1589). The rise of Muscovite Rus begins, the authority of the grand duke's power and sinks, the church, grows, the idea of ​​Moscow's continuity in relation to Byzantium, which found its expression in the ideological formula "Moscow is the third Rome, and the fourth cannot be," becomes widespread, which receives theological, state-legal and historical and cultural understanding. In the book-Slavic type of the literary language, archaized spellings based on the South Slavic spelling norm are spreading, a special rhetorical manner of expression arises, flowery, lush, saturated with metaphors, called the “convolution of words” (“weaving of words”).

From the 17th century the language of Russian science and the national literary language are being formed. The tendency towards internal unity, towards rapprochement of lit. spoken language. In the 2nd floor. 16th century in the Muscovite state, book printing began, which was of great importance for the fate of the Russian. lit. language, literature, culture and education. The handwritten culture was replaced by a written culture. In 1708, the civil alphabet was introduced, in which secular literature was printed. The Church Slavonic alphabet (Cyrillic) is used only for confessional purposes. In the literary language of the end of the 17th-1st floor. 18th century book-Slavic, often even archaic, lexical and grammatical elements, words and turns of speech of a folk-colloquial and “order” (“business”) character, and Western European borrowings are closely intertwined and interact.

“The history of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline grows out of the living experience of the cultural development of Russian society. Initially, this is a collection of observations on the changing norms of literary spelling, literary phrases and word usage,” wrote V. V. Vinogradov 1 . Of course, such a course of research in the field of the history of the Russian literary language can be explained, first of all, by the essence of the literary language with its defining property of normalization. In the review “Russian Science of the Russian Literary Language”, Vinogradov, highlighting the history of the Russian literary language as an independent scientific discipline, reveals the relationship of various theories that offered an understanding of the literary and linguistic process, trends and patterns in the development of styles, with the evolution of the Russian literary language itself. He described in great detail the features of scientific observations on the Russian literary language in various cultural and historical periods.

V. V. Vinogradov noted the importance of dictionaries and grammars (for example, Lavrenty Zizania, Pamva Berynda) for understanding the role of the Church Slavonic language and reforming old grammatical constructions (the works of Melety Smotrytsky) until the 18th century. He reflected the content of the scientific activities of V. K. Trediakovsky, A. P. Sumarokov and especially M. V. Lomonosov, emphasizing the normative and stylistic orientation of his "Russian Grammar" (1755), which "predetermined the understanding and study of the grammatical system of the Russian literary language up to until the 20-30s of the XIX century. and influenced the nature of morphological studies in later periods. The role of A. A. Barsov’s grammatical investigations, the achievements of lexicographers of the second half of the 18th - first quarter of the 19th centuries, especially the compilers of the “Dictionary of the Russian Academy” (1789-1794), is recognized. An assessment is given to the concepts of the influence of the Old Church Slavonic language by A. S. Shishkov and A. Kh. Vostokov, Vostokov’s research in the field of interaction between the Russian literary and Old Church Slavonic languages. The principles of studying the Russian literary language in relation to the folk dialects and social group dialects of the founder of Russian scientific ethnography N. I. Nadezhdin are characterized. Vinogradov claims that "it was during this period that the scientific foundations of the history of the Old Russian literary language were laid."

The period of the 40-70s of the XIX century. Vinogradov considers it as a time of national-historical and philosophical searches, when among the main scientific trends were “the search for common historical patterns of the Russian literary and linguistic process; putting forward the problem of personality, the problem of individual creativity and its significance in the history of the literary language, the problem of the “language of the writer” (especially in relation to language reformers)” 1 . In this regard, the thesis of K. S. Aksakov “Lomonosov in the history of Russian literature and the Russian language” (1846) was noted.

As polemical in spirit and opposed to the works of Western philologists, philological views and V. I. Dahl’s Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language (1863-1866) are assessed. It is known that this lexicographer resolutely declared that "the time has come to value the people's language and develop an educated language out of it." Highly appreciating the means of the folk language as a source of renewal of literary speech, Dahl spoke about the need to free it from borrowings.

Among the Westernizers, Vinogradov singles out J. K. Grot, whose achievements in the field of studying the history of the Russian literary language include the study of the language of writers (G. R. Derzhavin, N. M. Karamzin), the development of historical-stylistic and normative-grammatical directions. Grot is the author of the first attempt at a dictionary of the writer's language. "The literary and aesthetic principle in Grot is combined with the principles of cultural and historical parallelism between the development of the Russian language and the ideological development of the tops of Russian society" .

It should be noted that in the middle of the XIX century. Russian linguists knew the concepts of Western European scientists, for example, J. Grimm, who argued that "our language is also our history." F. I. Buslaev emphasized the inseparability of the history of the people and the history of the language, which in his writings received a cultural and historical interpretation with the involvement of folklore facts, regional dialects and ancient literary monuments. In the "Historical Reader" compiled by Buslaev, numerous examples of various styles were collected and commented in notes.

The works of I. I. Sreznevsky, according to Vinogradov, belong to the “transitional period from the romantic-historical to the positive-historical” period, which was manifested in the evolution of Sreznevsky’s scientific views. Some views of the scientist Vinogradov considered obsolete, but emphasized that his most important work "Thoughts on the History of the Russian Language" determined the subject matter of the work of many generations of linguists. The merits of the linguist include the creation of a periodization of the history of the Russian language, the definition of its tasks, among which are “detailed lexical and grammatical descriptions of ancient monuments of the Russian language. Dictionaries should be compiled for them, explaining all the meanings and shades of words, indicating borrowings” 1 .

In his review of the stages in the development of the history of the Russian literary language as a science and the contribution of prominent scientists to its formation, Vinogradov writes about A. A. Potebnyo as a linguist-thinker who “lays a solid foundation for the history of the Russian language, by the way, and the literary language, as the history of verbal creativity of the Russian people.<...>In his understanding, the history of the Russian literary language is closely intertwined with the history of Russian thought.

Many of Vinogradov's works are devoted to the consideration of the concept of A. A. Shakhmatov: the work "History of the Russian literary language in the image of academician A. A. Shakhmatov", a section in the article "The problem of the literary language and the study of its history in the Russian linguistic tradition of the pre-Soviet period", etc. Shakhmatov created the concept of the evolution of the Russian literary language, supported by cultural, historical, literary research, and proposed a new understanding of the processes of its development. Vinogradov highlighted the content of Shakhmatov's historical and linguistic concept, showed the transformation of the scientist's views: from recognizing the Church Slavonic language as the basis of the written Russian language and pointing out the connection between the spread of Christian culture and the emergence of East Slavic writing, to the assertion that in Ancient Russia the language of the educated classes was Russified Church Slavonic. Valuable was Shakhmatov's recognition of the great importance for the development of the Russian literary language of the business written language and the "Moscow dialect".

Considering Shakhmatov an encyclopedic scientist, recognizing the novelty and breadth of the problems put forward by the scientist, Vinogradov, however, emphasized the inconsistency of chess theory, which was also reflected in its terminology. “So, in Shakhmatov’s view, the Russian literary language is a written language, however, initially sharply different from the “written-business” language, it is a bookish language, already from the 11th century. which became the colloquial language of book-educated strata of society, and in the 19th century. it is a spoken language that “acquired the rights of a bookish language”, and, finally, it is one of the Great Russian dialects, namely the Moscow dialect. At the same time, according to Shakhmatov's definition, “the bookish language of the 11th century. - this is the direct ancestor of our modern Great Russian bookish language.

Shakhmatov himself saw the weaknesses of his scientific constructions, which Vinogradov nevertheless called majestic, although he concluded that the scientist “did not reproduce in all the breadth and completeness of the processes of interaction and crossing of church-bookish and folk-literary languages ​​in the sphere of state and business , journalistic and literary and artistic in relation to the structure of the literary speech of the Moscow state of the XV-XVII centuries. one . The influence of chess theories was felt in the works of many Russian linguists.

Vinogradov compared Shakhmatov's understanding of the development of the Russian literary language with the vision of E.F. Buddha, with his historical and dialectological approach to the phenomena of language. According to the concept of Buddha, reflected in the "Essay on the history of the modern literary Russian language (XVII-XIX centuries)" (1908), the literary language merges in the XVIII century. with the language of fiction. And therefore, the stages of the history of the Russian literary language are described by scientists mainly on the material of the language of fiction, the language of individual authors, so that "the language of the writer is mechanically mixed with the literary language of a particular era."

At the end of XIX - beginning of XX century. issues of historical grammar included in the general history of the Russian literary language, historical lexicology are actively developed, dictionaries are published that reflect the richness of the collected material, including the Old Church Slavonic fund. These are “Materials for a Dictionary of the Old Russian Language” by A. L. Duvernoy (1894), and “Materials and Research in the Field of Slavic Philology and Archeology” by A. I. Sobolevsky (1910), who considered the language of writing to be a literary language, insisting on studying not only chronicles and novels, but also documents - bills of sale, mortgages.

In the middle of the XX century. the nature of the Russian literary language was studied by S. P. Obnorsky. Speaking against traditional views, he defended in his articles, among which “Russian Truth” as a monument of the Russian literary language (1934) is of fundamental importance, and in the monograph Essays on the History of the Russian Literary Language of the Older Period (1946) the hypothesis of East Slavic speech basis of the Russian literary language.

"Essays on the History of the Russian Literary Language" by V. V. Vinogradov (1934) was the first attempt to present a systematic and multi-level description of the vast material reflecting the period of the 17th-19th centuries. The name of Vinogradov is associated with the active and systematic development of various issues in the history of the Russian literary language, including the description of the language of fiction as a special phenomenon, and not "an equivalent and not a synonym for language in a poetic function" 1 , and as a consequence of this - the allocation of science about the language of fiction literature as a special area of ​​linguistic research.

In the XX century. significant progress was made in studying the language and style of individual authors, determining the role of prose writers, poets, publicists in reflecting (even shaping) the trends in the development of the Russian literary language. In 1958, at the IV International Congress of Slavists, V.V. Vinogradov presented the theory of the existence of two types of Old Russian literary language - book Slavonic and folk literary, and substantiated the need to distinguish between the literary language of the pre-national period and the national literary language in terms of their structure and functioning. Vinogradov's ideas and his conclusions, based on the wide use of the facts of writing, received deserved recognition.

Of great importance for Russian linguistics was the publication of the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" edited by D. N. Ushakov (1935-1940), which was compiled by V. V. Vinogradov, G. O. Vinokur, B. A. Larin, S. I. Ozhegov and B. V. Tomashevsky. The dictionary reflected the vocabulary of fiction (from A. S. Pushkin to M. Gorky) and socio-political texts of the 30s of the XX century. The rich illustrative material used in the dictionary entries made it possible to show the specifics of the normative and stylistic system of the Russian literary language. This dictionary also reflects a system of grammatical, spelling and (which is very valuable) orthoepic norms- the so-called old Moscow pronunciation.

In the article "On the Tasks of the History of Language" (1941), G. O. Vinokur clarified a number of tasks facing the history of the Russian literary language as a science. In the work "Word and Verse in Pushkin's Eugene Onegin" (1940), he studied the lexical and semantic features of the "verse word". Thus, linguists are increasingly attracted to "various manners of speaking and writing, born from the ways of using the language that are part of the collective habit", i.e., the language and style of individual authors, having their own history. The study of their evolution is among the tasks of the history of the Russian literary language as a science.

In the book "Russian literary language of the first half of XIX v." (1952) L. A. Bulakhovsky highlights an important period in the history of the language for the formation of the main trends in the functioning and development of the modern Russian literary language, especially its dictionary.

The “stylistic” view of the problems that the study of the history of the Russian literary language involves is reflected in his works “On the Study of the Language works of art"(1952)," Stylistics of artistic speech "(1961) and" Stylistics of the Russian language "(1969) A. I. Efimov. He sees in style a historically developed variety of language, which has certain features of combining and using language units. The scientist shows a deep understanding of the important role played by the language of fiction (fictional style) in the development of the Russian literary language. Stylistics in his works appears as a science of verbal skill, the aesthetics of the word, the expressive means of the language as a whole.

A supporter of the inductive method, B. A. Larin, in studying the problems of the history of the Russian literary language, proceeded from private observations, from facts and demanded evidence in solving each issue, when putting forward any concept 1 . The most famous are his works on the language and style of N. A. Nekrasov, A. P. Chekhov, M. Gorky, M. A. Sholokhov. Larin investigated the state of the literary language reflected in the works of writers, advocated the study of the language of the city. In addition, "being an ardent defender of the study of living dialect speech, he simultaneously ... demanded to study it in connection with the literary language and study mixed forms of speech in songs, fairy tales, proverbs and riddles" . "Extremely valuable recommendation" called Vinogradov Larin's idea that the colloquial speech of Muscovite Russia "in its complex diversity and development from the 15th to the end of the 17th century. should be studied as a prerequisite and deep basis of the national language - more essential and defining than the traditions of the Book Slavonic language.

Institute of the Russian Language of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in the 50s of the XX century. begins publishing Materials and Research on the History of the Russian Literary Language. Each volume contains studies on the language and style of Russian writers: pre-Pushkin era, N. M. Karamzin (1st volume); M. V. Lomonosov, A. N. Radishchev, A. S. Pushkin, early N. V. Gogol (2nd volume); writers of the Pushkin era, M. Yu. Lermontov, V. G. Belinsky (3rd volume); writers of the second half of the 19th century. (4th volume).

It is impossible not to note the merits of S. A. Koporsky, who in the work “From the history of the development of the vocabulary of Russian fiction in the 60-70s. XIX century. (Vocabulary of the works of Uspensky, Sleptsov, Reshetnikov)" studied the vocabulary and its stylistic use in the works of Russian writers - democrats and populists.

Linguists have never lost interest in the most ancient period in the history of the Russian literary language. The meaning of the Old Slavic language is devoted to the article by N. I. Tolstoy “On the question of the Old Slavic language as a common literary language of the southern and eastern Slavs” (1961), the study of the sources of monuments - the article “On some sources of the “Izbornik of 1076” in connection with the question of their origin translations” (1976) by N. A. Meshchersky. One of the main tasks facing science, Meshchersky considers a demonstration of how the masters of the word "processed" the national language; he managed to convincingly show this in the book "The History of the Russian Literary Language" (1981). This point of view remains relevant for language historians who worked in the 1980s and 1990s.

Yu. S. Sorokin considers many important conditions for enrichment and qualitative renewal of the lexico-semantic system of the Russian language in his fundamental work “The Development of the Vocabulary of the Russian Literary Language. 30-90 years of the XIX century. (1965). First of all, he notes the development of polysemy in actively used native and borrowed words, including scientific terms, nomenclature belonging to the field of art, etc. Calling this direction in vocabulary the trend of “figurative and phraseological rethinking” of book words, he identified terminological systems, units of which more often acquired non-terminological, figurative meanings, replenished the composition of commonly used language means, and were used in the language of fiction. In addition, Sorokin noted the process of vocabulary terminology, due to such an extralinguistic factor as the intensive development of science, the increased political activity of society in the period under study, and the process of “moving” the words of colloquial, colloquial, professional vocabulary in the direction from the periphery to the center.

These trends in the development of the vocabulary are also studied in the works of Yu. A. Belchikov “Issues of the relationship between colloquial and book vocabulary in the Russian literary language of the second half of the 19th century” (1974) and “Russian literary language in the second half of the 19th century” (1974).

The collective monograph edited by F.P. Filin "The Vocabulary of the Russian Literary Language of the 19th - Early 20th Centuries" (1981) became another evidence of the scholars' close attention to the history of the Russian literary language.

D. S. Likhachev is known as an outstanding researcher of ancient Russian literature, a cultural historian, and a textual critic. His works are devoted to poetics, the study of the genre, style of Russian writers: "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", "Textology. On the material of Russian literature of the X-XVII centuries”, “Poetics of Old Russian literature”, “Dostoevsky’s “Neglect of the word”, “Features of the poetics of the works of N. S. Leskov”, etc. In the monograph “Man in the literature of Ancient Russia”, Likhachev showed how styles changed in ancient Russian literature. Historian and philologist, he could not but touch important question about the origin of the Russian literary language.

Many issues of the history of the Russian literary language are covered by A. N. Kozhin, a follower of V. V. Vinogradov. His contribution to the study of the role of folk speech for the formation and development of the literary language in various periods, to the description of the features of the language of fiction and specific idiostyles (primarily N. V. Gogol and L. N. Tolstoy), to the scientific reflection of the numerous facts of the movement of linguistic means as a centripetal movement that led to the democratization and enrichment of the literary language in different periods, in particular in the 19th-20th centuries. He tries to comprehend the complex processes that determine the "blurring of boundaries" of the style profile of a literary text, the socially and aesthetically stimulated influence of colloquial speech on the language of poetry and prose. Kozhin studied in detail the development of the Russian literary language during the Great Patriotic War.

The works of A. I. Gorshkov remain valuable for science. The scientist studied numerous written sources, considered the role of Russian writers, primarily A. S. Pushkin, in the formation of the stylistic system of the language, concretized the idea of ​​the subject of the history of the Russian literary language as a science. The books The History of the Russian Literary Language (1969) and Theory and History of the Russian Literary Language (1984) systematize the theoretical principles on which the modern science of the literary language (including the language of fiction), stylistics, and culture of speech is based. Gorshkov demonstrates the philological approach as synthesizing, methodologically necessary in describing the language in diachrony on the basis of written monuments. In his opinion, "the specifics of a language as a real-life phenomenon, as a phenomenon of national culture, is manifested primarily in the study of its use, i.e., in the study of the language at the levels of the text and the system of subsystems." For the scientist it is obvious that the history of the Russian literary language uses the findings of all disciplines that study both the use of the language and its system.

The history of the Russian literary language developed as a special scientific discipline that separated from the general history of the Russian language only in the post-October period, mainly in the 30-40s of our century. True, even before this, attempts were made to present the course of development of the Russian literary language in its entirety, and especially the development of the modern Russian literary language.

The first of the Russian linguists who developed the course "History of the Russian literary language" (starting with the language situation in Kievan Rus and ending with the language of modern Russian literature up to the poet Nadson) was prof. A. I. Sobolevsky. However, the course of lectures prepared for publication, apparently, was not read anywhere and remained in the manuscript. Now this manuscript is being prepared for publication by A. A. Alekseev, it dates back to 1889.

History of the Russian literary language of the 17th-19th centuries. at the beginning of this century, it was studied by Professor E. F. Budde, who focused exclusively on studying the language of the works of outstanding writers. Unfortunately, the named book is rightly criticized as a random set of linguistic facts, phonetic, morphological and sometimes lexical, which do not cover the development of the Russian literary language as a single stylistic system, and therefore, of course, cannot be recognized as fundamental in the development of the science of the Russian literary language.

If we understand the subject of the history of the Russian literary language as experiments on understanding the paths and results of the historical existence of the language of Russian writing - the language of literary monuments par excellence - then we can assume that this scientific discipline has more distant sources of development. An article by V. V. Vinogradov was once devoted to elucidating these sources.

However, a generalization of the heterogeneous knowledge accumulated by Russian philologists in the process of studying the language of written monuments and works of art of the word throughout the entire development of Russian literature was carried out by researchers only in the thirties of our century. The first attempt to put complex and diverse linguistic material related to the history of the Russian literary language of the 18th and 19th centuries into a system was V. V. Vinogradov’s monograph “Essays on the history of the Russian literary language of the 17th-19th centuries” (1st ed. ., 1934; 2nd ed. -M "1938).

At the same time, in the first half of the 1930s, the traditional idea was revised that the literary language for the entire Old Russian period, up to the 17th century. inclusive, was the Church Slavonic language. With the greatest certainty and clarity, this idea was formulated by Acad. A. A. Shakhmatov. The scientist believed that the Russian literary language is the Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian by origin) language transferred to Russian soil, which for centuries has been approaching the living folk language and gradually losing and losing its foreign appearance.

Comparing the functioning of the Church Slavonic language on Russian soil with the similar use of Latin as a literary language among the peoples of Western Europe in the Middle Ages, A. A. Shakhmatov argued that the situation with the Church Slavonic language in Russia was different: because of its proximity to Russian, he never was alien to the people, like medieval Latin, for example, to the Germans and Slavs. From the first years of its existence on Russian soil, the Church Slavonic language has been irresistibly assimilated into Russian folk speech - after all, the Russian people who spoke it could not distinguish either their pronunciation or their word usage from the pronunciation and word usage of the church language they had learned. As written monuments of the 11th century prove, even then the pronunciation of the Church Slavonic language became Russified, lost its character alien to Russian speech; even then, the Russian people treated the Church Slavonic language as their own property, without resorting to the help of foreign teachers for its assimilation and understanding.

Until the 1930s, the vast majority of Russian philologists, both historians of the language and historians of Russian literature, shared the traditional point of view on the formation of the Old Russian literary language from the Church Slavonic language that preceded it in time and in the social functioning. And only S. P. Obnorsky tried to oppose the traditional theory with the hypothesis of the original Russian, East Slavic character of the originally formed Old Russian literary language in the article “Russian Truth, as a Monument of the Russian Literary Language” (1934).

Having considered in this work the language of the oldest Russian legal monument, S. P. Obnorsky established in the phonetics and morphology of Russkaya Pravda according to the list of the Novgorod Pilot of 1282 the unconditional predominance of proper Russian speech features over Old Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) and made a generalizing conclusion about the nature Russian literary language of the older formation (his term). This ancient Russian literary language, according to the scientist, developed in the north and only later, in the process of its growth, experienced the influence of the Byzantine-Lolgar speech culture. The slandering of the Russian literary language, as S. P. Obnorsky believed, proceeded gradually with constant intensification.

In the conclusions of his article, S.P. Obnorsky showed a holistic perspective on the development of the Old Russian literary language with its gradual Slavization during the 13th-16th centuries and with a further approach to folk colloquial speech already in modern times.

The idea of ​​the original East Slavic speech basis of the Old Russian literary language of the older formation was consistently developed by S. P. Obnorsky in the articles that appeared in the 1930s: “The language of Russian treaties with the Greeks” and “The Tale of Igor's Campaign” as a monument of the Russian literary language ".

The hypothesis of S. P. Obnorsky has been criticized by a number of experts. So, these provisions were not supported by A. M. Selishchev. S. P. Obnorsky analyzed in detail the views of S. P. Obnorsky on the emergence of the Old Russian literary language in comparison with the ideas of A. A. Shakhmatov S. I. Bernshtein in his introductory article to the fourth edition of the “Outline of the Modern Russian Literary Language” S. I. Bernshtein pointed out that the hypothesis of S. So far, P. Obnorsky relies only on the analysis of two monuments and operates mainly on phonetics and morphology. S. P. Obnorsky, diametrically opposed to the traditional theory, was assessed as “no less plausible, but unable to refute it without further justification”

To a certain extent, S. P. Obnorsky took into account criticism in his later works, especially in the monograph “Essays on the History of the Russian Literary Language of the Older Period”. ), the works of Vladimir Monomakh, “The Prayer of Daniil the Sharpener” and “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” Along with the study of the features of phonetics and morphology, the author also draws attention to the syntax and vocabulary of the works. significance of the impact on the Old Russian literary language of the older period of the Old Slavonic language, S. P. Obnorsky in the preface to the monograph continues to insist on the hypothesis about the proper Russian basis of the Old Russian literary language. He believed that this hypothesis was of great methodological significance standing on the wrong path, in his opinion, scientists saw the origins of the Russian literary language in Church Slavonic, in the study of the language of monuments methodologically incorrectly raised the question of the framework of Russian elements in a particular monument. According to S.P. Obnorsky, it is necessary to equally cover the question of the share of Church Slavonicisms in the language of each monument. we have exaggerated Many Church Slavonicisms, evidenced by certain written monuments, had the meaning of conditional, isolated facts of the language, were not included in its system, and later completely dropped out of it, and relatively few layers of them firmly entered the everyday life of our literary language ”

The hypothesis put forward by S. P. Obnorsky was widely accepted in the works of the 1940s and early 1950s (see Ch. 3, p. 34).

Simultaneously with S. P. Obnorsky, L. P. Yakubinsky studied the language of the same written monuments and studied the problem of the Old Russian literary language, whose capital work was published posthumously in 1953. Unlike S. P. Obnorsky, L. P. Yakubinsky recognized the dominance of the Old Church Slavonic language as the state language of Kievan Rus until the end of the 11th century, when, especially during the reign of Vladimir Monomakh, the Old Church Slavonic language was supplanted from the mandatory state use by the Old Russian literary language proper. It is noteworthy that L.P. Yakubinsky built his conclusions mainly on the basis of an analysis of the language of the same monuments that were in the field of view of S.P. Obnorsky

In the prewar years, L. A. Bulakhovsky included in his research interests the problems of the history of the new Russian literary language. In 1936, he published Historical Commentary on the Literary Russian Language, which still serves as a valuable encyclopedic manual. The subject of special study for this scientist was Russian the literary language of the first half of the 19th century, the time of the most intensive development of the Russian literary language as the language of the Russian nation

The problem of the Russian literary language began to be developed with particular care in the early 1950s. During these years, B. A. Larin turned to the history of the Russian literary language (mainly of ancient times), who read a lecture course on the named discipline at the philological faculty of Leningrad University in 1949/50 and in the 1950/51 academic years. This work was recently published on the basis of student notes by a team of his students. The course of lectures by B. A. Larin is distinguished by depth, a peculiar interpretation of cardinal issues traditionally recognized as resolved, and the closeness of the linguistic analysis of the monuments of ancient Russian writing of various styles and types.

The language and style of the greatest realist writers of the 19th century. in the same years, A. I. Efimov and S. A. Koporsky devoted their monographic studies.

V. V. Vinogradov fruitfully develops many general problems in the history of the Russian literary language in his articles and monographs.

A general historical outline of the development of the Russian literary language is presented in the monograph by G. O. Vinokur. He also wrote research chapters devoted to the characteristics of individual periods in the development of the Russian literary language, in volumes of the academic History of Russian Literature.

In parallel with the research of the theoretical direction, the history of the Russian literary language developed in the same years as academic discipline at the philological faculties of universities and at the faculties of the Russian language and literature of pedagogical institutes. Let's name the textbooks of S. D. Nikiforov, A. I. Efimov, I. V. Ustinov.

In 1949, the Institute of the Russian Language of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR began to publish a regular scientific series of works under the general title “Materials and Research from the History of the Russian Literary Language”. The first volume was devoted to the study of the language of the writers of the pre-Pushkin era - Karamzin and his contemporaries. The second volume contained studies of the language and style of the most prominent writers of the 18th-first half of the 19th century - Lomonosov, Radishchev, Plavilshchikov, Pushkin, Lermontov, early Gogol, as well as works that introduced new materials into scientific circulation, extracted from lexicographical literature that had not been examined until then. sources. The third volume published works on the language of the writers of the Pushkin era - the Decembrist poets, Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov and Belinsky. The fourth volume covered the language and style of the writers of the middle and second half of the 19th century.

The late 1950s-1960s are characterized by a new approach to the problems of the history of the Russian literary language. At this time, new birch-bark sources were drawn into the orbit of study, which raises the question of how their language should be qualified.

The scientific methodology is being improved in the approach to the language of the traditionally studied written monuments. The concept of “history of the literary language” is delimited from those adjacent to it. The science of the language of fiction and, accordingly, the history of the language of fiction are separated from the history of the literary language as a new scientific discipline. These problems were reflected in the reports presented at the IV International Congress of Slavists in Moscow by Acad. V. V. Vinogradov.

Along with the history of the Russian literary language, similar scientific disciplines are developing on the basis of other old-written languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR, in particular the Ukrainian and Belarusian literary languages.

A certain positive moment in the development of the problems of the history of the Russian literary language in this chronological period, compared with previous years, we can name the liberation from one-sidedness in the interpretation of the most ancient type of Russian literary language - from recognizing it either only as Old Slavonic or as native Russian. Thus, V. V. Vinogradov at the IV International Congress of Slavists in 1958 spoke about two types of Old Russian literary language - book-Slavonic and folk-literary. Other scholars, such as E. G. Kovalevskaya, name three types of the literary and written language of the Kievan era, recognizing as the third type the variety that was entrenched in business and legal writing, which developed almost exclusively on the East Slavic basis.

An achievement can be considered the recognition of the need to distinguish, both in terms of social functioning and in terms of structure, the literary language of the period before the formation of the nation (literary and written language that served the needs of the people) and after the formation of the nation (national literary language). This thesis was developed on the material of various Slavic languages ​​in the report of Acad. V. V. Vinogradova at the V International Congress of Slavists in Sofia in 1963

As an important step in the study of the development of the norms of the Russian literary language of the XIX century. should be considered a collective work in five editions, published in 1964 under the general title "Essays on the historical grammar of the Russian literary language." This is the only study of its kind, because it shows the changes in the norms of the Russian literary language of the named era, regardless of the work of outstanding masters of the word and their works.

Let us also mention the work of Prof. Yu. S. Sorokin, dedicated to the development of the vocabulary of the Russian literary language in the 19th century. This work, undoubtedly, is of deep interest, considering the vocabulary of the language as an evolving system.

In the 60s.-. the works of individual foreign linguists-Russianists B., O. Unbegaun, G. Hütl-Worth, and others appear. The works of these authors are mainly negative in nature, they refute and reject the scientific understanding of the history of the Russian literary language, generally accepted in Soviet linguistics. A deeply substantiated rebuff to these attacks was given at one time in the articles by V. V. Vinogradov, L. P. Zhukovskaya, and E. T. Cherkasova.

In our opinion, the article by L.P. Zhukovskaya is of the greatest importance. This work is fundamentally important for historians of the Russian language of the most ancient period. L.P. Zhukovskaya, relying on her studies of one of the main traditional monuments of ancient Russian literature - the “Mstislav Gospel” (1115-1117), establishes in this monument a rich linguistic variability at the level of vocabulary, grammar, phonetics and spelling, thereby showing that the features of folk colloquial speech were introduced into the monuments of traditional literacy, which were included in the general process of the development of the Russian language. Consequently, these monuments can be recognized not only as monuments of Russian writing, but also of the Old Russian literary language, along with monuments of original origin. Russian-Church Slavonic bilingualism, according to the researcher, appears only later, in the XIV-XV centuries, when both of these languages ​​began to differ from each other to a large extent. These arguments are developed and set out in more detail in the monograph by L.P. Zhukovskaya.

The significance of the Old Slavonic literary and written language as a common literary language of the southern and eastern Slavs in the early stages of their historical existence is emphasized in a number of works by N. I. Tolstoy, M. M. Kopylenko and ours.

In the 60-70s, the works of I.F. Protchenko appeared on the development of vocabulary and word formation in the Russian language of the Soviet era.

During the same decades, textbooks on the history of the Russian literary language continued to be created and republished: in addition to the book by A. I. Efimov, named above, textbooks and manuals compiled by A. I. Gorshkov, A. V. Stepanov, A. N. Kozhin. Let us also mention the manuals of Yu. A. Belchikov, G. I. Shklyarevsky, E. G. Kovalevskaya.

During the very last years, the course "History of the Russian literary language" began to be studied at the universities of the socialist countries. According to this course, textbooks were compiled that met the methodological requirements of Marxist-Leninist theory in the German Democratic Republic, in Poland and in Bulgaria.

Of fundamental importance is the article by A. I. Gorshkov “On the Subject of the History of the Russian Literary Language”.

The content of the history of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline lies in the disclosure of the "external history" of the language (as opposed to the "internal history" considered in the courses of historical grammar and historical phonetics and lexicology of the Russian language). The history of the Russian literary language is called upon to trace all historical changes in the conditions of the social functioning of the literary language at all stages of the social development of a given speech community (ethnicity or nation). Since one of the signs of a developed literary language is its multifunctionality, one of the important tasks facing the historians of the literary language is to trace the emergence and development of its functional styles.

The history of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline is based on the Marxist thesis of the unity of language and consciousness and the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of nations and national languages. The development of the language is inextricably linked with the life of the people - the creator and native speaker. It is on the material of the history of literary languages ​​that this dialectical-materialist thesis is learned with particular clarity and force. The history of the literary language is closely connected with the history of a people or nation, with the history of its culture, literature, science and art. Changes in the conditions of the social functioning of literary languages ​​are ultimately and indirectly determined by the stages of the social development of society.

The modern Russian literary language, which has a great wealth of expressive and pictorial means, acts as the highest form of the language of the people and differs from the latter in that it is a language “processed by masters of the word”.

Delimiting the concept of "literary language" from the concept close to it "language of fiction", we at the same time realize that one of the distinguishing properties of artistry in language should be recognized as the aesthetic function of the word, inherent in every linguistic fact in the works of art of the word.

Thus, the history of the literary language should not be turned into a series of essays on the language of individual writers. But at the same time, we must not forget that, according to the definition of V. I. Lenin, “fixation in literature” should be considered the most important feature of the language of a nation. Also correct is the statement by V. G. Belinsky that the appearance of each new major writer creates conditions for the progressive development of the entire literary language as a whole.

One of the main tasks facing the history of the Russian literary language as a scientific discipline is to show which of the masters of the word and how “processed” the national Russian language so that it would become a “great and mighty” language, according to the unanimous opinion of Russian and foreign writers and scientists.

Literary language, being the highest stage of speech communication for a particular social group at a certain stage of social development, is opposed to various “lower”, non-codified speech means that are not usually reflected in writing. Written fixation is considered as an obligatory and most indicative feature of the literary language as such. However, at a certain historical stage, an oral-colloquial variety of the literary language is also created, which enters into continuous interaction with its higher, written form. The task of historians of the Russian literary language is to trace this interaction reflected in the work of the masters of the word. At the same time, there is a constant interaction of the literary language, subject to strictly ordered norms of word usage, with speech forms of uncodified communication between people. The study of this interaction should also be considered in the range of tasks assigned to researchers of the literary language.

The aim of our work is to give short essay history of the Russian literary language (in the traditional sense of the term) for the entire period of its development, from the 10th to the 20th centuries, in connection with the history of the Russian people, mainly with literature, using new ones that were not previously involved in the historical and linguistic study written monuments, mainly for the pre-national period of the development of the Russian language. Such works of ancient Russian literature, the language and style of which have not yet been studied, are Metropolitan Hilarion’s “Word of Law and Grace” (XI century), “The Tale of Boris and Gleb” (XI-XII centuries), “The Word of the Destruction of the Russian Land ”(XIII century), “Praise to Prince Ivan Kalita” (XIV century), “Another Word” and “The Tale of the Merchant Khariton Beloulin” (XVI century). A special section is devoted to studies of the language and style of birch-bark letters and newly discovered historical sources.

When studying the national period of the development of the Russian literary language, a separate chapter is devoted to the linguistic heritage of V. G. Belinsky and the elucidation of its role in the history of the Russian literary language.

For the first time, the language and style of the works of V. I. Lenin are included in the linguo-historical study. The language of the works of the great leader of the proletarian revolution is organically connected with the entire course of development of the Russian literary language of the previous era and opens up the development of the Russian literary language of the Soviet period.

In the final chapter of the book, we try to trace how the changes in the social functions of the Russian literary language that occurred after the Great October Socialist Revolution were reflected in its vocabulary and partly in its grammatical structure.

Thus, we bring to the attention of readers in a brief form the most complete sketch of the development, formation and historical destinies of the literary language of our people in close connection and in interaction with its history. How we managed to cope with the tasks set for ourselves, we will leave it to the readers to judge.

Chapter first. Periodization of the history of the Russian literary language

The history of the literary language reveals those organic relationships that exist at all stages of social development between the language and the history of the people. In the vocabulary of the literary language, in its functional styles, those events that marked certain turning points in the life of the people are most clearly and most noticeably reflected. The formation of the book literary tradition, its dependence on changes in social formations, on the vicissitudes of the class struggle, affects primarily the social functioning of the literary language and its stylistic offshoots. The development of the culture of the people, its statehood, its art, and first of all the art of the word-literature, leaves an indelible mark on the development of the literary language, manifesting itself in the improvement of its functional styles. Consequently, the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language can be built not only on the basis of those stages that the national language is going through as a result of objective processes of internal spontaneous development of its main structural elements - sound system, grammar and vocabulary - but also on the correspondences between the stages of the historical development of the language and development of society, culture and literature of the people.

The periodization of the history of the Russian literary language has so far almost not served as the subject of a special scientific research. Those historical stages that are fixed by university programs on the history of the Russian literary language are outlined in the article by V. V. Vinogradov “The main stages in the history of the Russian language”. In the course of lectures by A. I. Gorshkov, we find the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language in accordance with the university curricula in force in those years: 1. The literary language of the Old Russian (Old East Slavic) people ( X-beginning of XIV centuries); 2. Literary language of the Russian (Great Russian) people (XIV-mid-XVII centuries); 3. Literary language of the initial era of the formation of the Russian nation (mid-XVII-mid-XVIII centuries); 4. Literary language of the era of the formation of the Russian nation and national norms of the literary language (mid-18th-early 19th centuries); 5. Literary language of the Russian nation (mid-19th century to the present day).

Let us make some critical remarks about the proposed periodization of the history of the Russian literary language. First of all, it seems to us that this periodization does not sufficiently take into account the connection between the history of the language and the history of the people. The selected periods correspond, rather, to the immanent development of the structural elements of the national Russian language, than to the development of the actual literary language, which is unthinkable without an inextricable connection with the history of Russian statehood, culture, and, above all, the history of Russian literature. Secondly, the specified periodization suffers from excessive fragmentation and mechanism; it artificially breaks into separate isolated periods such stages of linguistic historical development that should have been considered in an inseparable unity.

Let us present our concept of periodization of the history of the Russian literary language in inseparable connection with the history of the Russian people, their culture and literature.

It seems to us most appropriate to divide the entire thousand-year history of our literary language not into five, but only into two main periods: the period of the pre-national development of the Russian literary and written language and the period of its development as a national language. It would be natural to recognize the boundary between the two planned periods around the middle of the 17th century, from where, according to the well-known definition of V. I. Lenin, the “new period of Russian history” begins.

The patterns of development of Slavic literary languages, due to which pre-national and national periods differ in them, are traced and substantiated in the report of V. V. Vinogradov, made by him at the V International Congress of Slavists in Sofia. These differences are quite noticeable and characteristic. Among the most significant should be attributed the appearance in the national period of the development of the literary language of its oral-colloquial form, which, as a means of oral popular communication between members of the language community, apparently was absent in the ancient era, when the written-literary form of the language was directly correlated with the dialect colloquial speech and contrasted with this latter.

In recent years, Corresponding Member has been proposed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR R. I. Avanesov special periodization of the most ancient stage in the development of the Russian literary language. In a report at the VII International Congress of Slavists in Warsaw (1973), bringing to the fore the relationship between the Old Russian (Old East Slavonic) bookish type of language, the proper literary language and the folk-dialect language, the named scientist proposed the following chronological division of the era: XI century - first half of the 12th century; the second half of the 12th century - the beginning of the 13th century; XIII-XIV centuries This division is based on more and more, according to R. I. Avanesov, the deepening divergence of the book-written and folk-dialect language, taking into account the genre varieties of written monuments, which are strictly delimited in functional terms.

The division of the history of the Russian literary language into pre-national and national periods of development is widely accepted by both Soviet and foreign historians of the Russian language.

As for the decisive delimitation of the era of development of the literary language of the Russian people (XIV-XVII centuries - usually called the Moscow period) from the previous time, proposed by the lectures of A. I. Gorshkov and the university program, we cannot agree with this, primarily based on the laws of development proper literary-written language of the given epoch. It is the literary language of the Moscow period that is inextricably linked with literary development throughout the previous period. After all, we know about the unity of literature reflected by this language, that is, that ancient Russian literature of the 11th-17th centuries, in which the same literary processes are observed, the existence and rewriting of the same texts that arose back in the 11th or 12th centuries . v ancient Kiev, and those who corresponded and lived in Muscovite Russia, in the north and northeast of Kiev, and in the XIV century. (“Laurentian Chronicle”), and in the 16th century (“The Tale of Igor's Campaign”) and even in the 17th century. (“The Prayer of Daniel the Sharpener”). The same applies to such translated works of the Kievan era as “History of the Jewish War” by Josephus Flavius, “Alexandria” or “Deed of Devgeniev”, which undoubtedly arose in the XII-XIII centuries, most of the lists date back to the XV-XVII centuries. . Thus, the unity of ancient Russian literature throughout the development from the 11th to the 17th centuries. ensured the unity of the tradition of the Old Russian literary and written language up to the middle of the 17th century.

Too fractional subdivision of the periods of development of the Russian literary language of the national period, proposed by A. I. Gorshkov, also cannot be considered sufficiently substantiated. So, we think, it is inappropriate to separate the language of the second half of the 19th century with a sharp line. from the previous Pushkin era, when, undoubtedly, the foundations for the development of the lexical-semantic and stylistic system of the Russian national literary language, which continues to exist today, are already being laid.

So, according to our conviction, it is most rational to single out only two, main and main periods of development of the Russian literary language: the period of the pre-national, or the period of development of the literary and written language of the people (in the beginning, the Old Russian, Common East Slavic peoples, and then, from the 14th century, the Great Russian peoples). ), otherwise the Old Russian literary and written language until the 17th century, and the national period, covering the development of the Russian literary language in the proper sense of the term, as the national language of the Russian nation, starting approximately from the middle of the 17th century. to our days.

Naturally, in each of the named main periods of the development of the Russian literary language, smaller sub-periods of development are distinguished. Thus, the pre-national period is divided into three sub-periods. The Kiev sub-period (from the 10th to the beginning of the 12th century) corresponds to the historical existence of a single East Slavic people and a relatively unified Old Russian (Kiev) state. The named sub-period is easily distinguished by such a noticeable structural feature as “the fall of deaf”, or a change in reduced vowels b and b into full vowels in strong positions and into zero sound in weak positions, which, as is known, leads to a decisive restructuring of the entire phonological system of the Old Russian national language.

The second sub-period falls on the time from the middle of the 12th to the middle of the 14th century, when dialect branches of a single East Slavic language are noticeably manifested in the literary and written language, which eventually led to the formation of zonal varieties of Old Russian literary language, differing from each other in terms of phonetics, morphology and vocabulary. written language in the era of feudal fragmentation.

The third sub-period of the development of the literary and written language falls on the XIV-XVII centuries. For the northeast, this is the language of the Muscovite state, in other areas of the East Slavic settlement, these are the initial foundations of the subsequently developed independent national languages ​​\u200b\u200bof the East Slavic peoples (Belarusian and Ukrainian), speaking in the 15th-17th centuries. as the written language of the entire Lithuanian-Russian state, or “simple Russian language”, serving both future Belarusians and the ancestors of the Ukrainian people.

The national period of development of the Russian literary language can also be divided into three sub-periods. The first of them covers the middle, or the second half of the 17th century, until the beginning of the 19th century. (before the era of Pushkin). By this time, the phonetic and grammatical systems of the Russian national language were basically established, however, in the literary, written language, traces of the previously established tradition in the forms of Church Slavonic and business Russian speech continue to be felt with sufficient force. This is a transitional sub-period, a sub-period of gradual establishment and formation of comprehensive norms of the modern Russian literary language as the language of the nation.

The second sub-period could be called, using the successful definition that was outlined by V. I. Lenin, the time “from Pushkin to Gorky”. This time is from the 30s of the XIX century. until the beginning of the 20th century, more specifically, before the era of the proletarian revolution, which put an end to the rule of the landowners and the bourgeoisie, the time of the development of the Russian literary language as the language of the bourgeois nation. During these years, the vocabulary of the language, which developed on the basis of a broad democratic movement, was enriched with particular intensity, in connection with the flourishing of Russian literature and democratic journalism.

And, finally, a third sub-period is singled out in the history of the Russian literary language, beginning with the preparation and implementation of the proletarian revolution, the Soviet sub-period, which continues to this day.

Such, in general terms, is the periodization of the history of the Russian literary language, which seems to us the most acceptable.

Chapter two. The beginning of writing among the Eastern Slavs as the main prerequisite for the emergence of a literary language

The question of the beginning of writing among the ancestors of the Russian people - the ancient East Slavic tribes - is directly related to the history of the Russian literary language: writing is a necessary prerequisite for the emergence of a written literary language. Until recently, historical science, answering the question of when and in connection with what the Eastern Slavs had their own writing system, pointed to the relatively late emergence of their own writing in Russia, linking its beginning with the influence of the Christian religion and the church. According to this traditional view, East Slavic writing begins to develop only from the very end of the 10th century. on the basis of the Old Church Slavonic, or Old Church Slavonic, writing system, received by the Eastern Slavs in finished form during the period of the so-called baptism of Russia, which was timed on the basis of chronicle reports to 989. However, for a long time, historians began to accumulate facts that did not confirm this traditional view and suggested on the assumption of an earlier origin of writing among the Eastern Slavs. Over the past two decades, data of this kind have been increasing in number, and it is time to summarize and systematize them. Evidence of an earlier beginning of writing among the Eastern Slavs than what was assumed by scientific tradition can be reduced to three groups: data extracted from traditional written sources on the history of ancient Russian society; data obtained by the latest archaeological research; news of foreign contemporary writers who reported information about Ancient Russia. By traditional sources on the most ancient period of Russia, we mean, first of all, such a valuable historical monument as the “Initial Chronicle”, or “The Tale of Bygone Years”, created in Kiev at the end of the 11th-beginning of the 12th centuries. This complex monument included the texts of treaties concluded by the most ancient Kievan princes, who lived long before the baptism of Russia, with the Byzantine Empire.

Scientists who stood on the traditional point of view, for example, Acad. V. M. Istrin, believed that the texts of these treaties were originally created in Greek, and then, when compiling the Tale of Bygone Years, at the beginning of the 12th century, they could be extracted from the Kiev princely archives and only then translated into ancient Slavic-Russian literary language for their inclusion in the annals. In 1936, S. P. Obnorsky took up the issue of the language of the treaties of the Kiev princes with the Greeks preserved in the Primary Chronicle. He proved that the translation of the text of treaties into the Slavic language should be recognized as modern to their originals. At the very time of their drafting, treaties were drawn up simultaneously in two languages: in Greek for Byzantium and in Old Russian (Slavic-Russian) for the Kiev principality. The very possibility of the appearance of the Old Russian text of these treaties suggests that the Eastern Slavs had a developed written language at least in the first years of the 10th century, that is, almost a century before the traditional date for the baptism of Russia.

If we turn to the texts of the treaties that have come down to us, then we will find messages there that will not leave the slightest doubt that the then Eastern Slavs freely and fairly widely used their writing.

In agreement with the Greeks Kiev prince Oleg, placed in the “Tale of Bygone Years” under the summer of 6420 (912), we read: “And about those working in the Greeks of Russia with the Christian king. If someone dies, do not arrange your estate, do not have your own qi, but return the estate to small neighbors in Russia. Is it possible to create such an outfit, take it dressed up, who will be writing inherit his name, let him enjoy it.” The last words of the paragraph can be translated as follows: "If he makes a will, then let him take his property to whom he writes about it in his will."

In, the words of the treaty who will be writing(to whom he will write) - we can see a direct indication that wills were written by Russian merchants with their own hands. If we were talking about wills written by notaries in Greek (under the dictation of the testators), then the verbs would be used bequeathed or refused. Thus, those who lived at the beginning of the tenth century. in Constantinople, the Eastern Slavs could make written wills about their property, that is, they undoubtedly knew how to write in their native language, for it is even more difficult to assume that they were so educated that they could write in Greek.

In the agreement concluded between the prince of Kiev Igor and the Byzantine government and placed in the "Initial Chronicle" under the summer of 6453 (945), we read about the gold and silver seals that the ambassadors of the Kiev prince had with them. And the seal, of course, was provided with an inscription with the name of its owner! (All ancient Russian seals known to archaeologists until now always bear the name of the owner. Anonymous seals, marked only with some special sign or coat of arms, without a name, archeology does not know.)

In the text of the same treaty we find: “Now you see, your prince sends letters to our kingdom: even sent by them, the guest ate and brought a letter, writing shit: as if I had sent a ship seliko. The words in italics testify to the fact that in ancient Kiev at the time of Igor there was a princely chancellery that supplied ships of merchants heading to trade to Constantinople with certificates.

Let's turn to archeology. In 1949, during the excavation of a barrow near the village of Gnezdovo near Smolensk, the Soviet archaeologist D.A. Avdusin managed to find among other finds in layers dating back to the 20s of the 10th century, an inscription on the side surface of an earthen vessel - korchagi. The inscription was made in Slavic Cyrillic letters and was rightly recognized as the oldest Russian inscription. Reading it still cannot be recognized as indisputable. The first publishers suggested reading pea co mustard meaning. Then prof. P. Ya. Chernykh corrected this reading, clarifying it in accordance with the data of the historical phonetics of the Russian language. He suggested reading the cryptic word as pea(s) on, comparing it with the adjective known from the canonical Old Slavonic texts pea- mustard seed. Subsequently, other readings were put forward: Gorounya- possessive adjective on behalf of one's own Goroun (probable owner of the korchaga); the combination “Pea (psa)” - Pea was written (Pea is the owner of the vessel). However, no matter how we read this inscription, the fact remains that the Cyrillic letter was common among the Eastern Slavs already in the first decade of the 10th century. and was used not for religious, but for domestic purposes.

The second important archaeological discovery was made by Romanian scientists while digging the navigable canal Danube - Black Sea, not far from the city of Constanta. This is the so-called Dobrudzhanskaya inscription.

The stone slab on which the Dobrudzhan inscription was inscribed is poorly preserved, not everything in this inscription can be read, but the lines containing the date of the inscription 6451 (943) are clearly visible. According to the Romanian Slavist D.P. Bogdan, who published and studied the said monument in 1956, “The Dobrudzhan inscription of 943 is the oldest Cyrillic inscription carved on stone and provided with a date ... From a phonetic point of view, the Dobrudzhan inscription of 943 approaches the Old Slavic texts of the Russian edition (for example, the Ostromirov Gospel).

Archaeological excavations, which have discovered letters on birch bark in Novgorod and in some other ancient cities of North-Western Russia, have become most widely known over the past one and a half to two decades. The cultural and historical significance of these finds cannot be overestimated. However, to resolve the issue of the beginning of East Slavic writing, they can only be used as indirect evidence. No texts of charters dating back to before the 11th century have yet been found. Most of the birch bark letters belong to the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries, i.e., to an era in which the presence of a developed and widespread East Slavic writing was beyond doubt (see more on this on p. 56 and on). Birch bark documents prove the mass distribution of writing at least in the 11th century, which would be absolutely impossible if we proceed from the traditional dating of the beginning of writing in Russia by the end of the 10th century. Archaeologists do not lose hope of finding birch bark letters in the layers of the 10th century. ancient Novgorod, since writing tools are found in these oldest archaeological layers, “wrote”, with which letters were applied to birch bark.

Thus, the archaeological discoveries of recent decades leave no room for doubt about the early origin of writing among our distant ancestors, the East Slavic tribes of the 9th-10th centuries.

Let us turn to the analysis of information reported about Russian writing by foreign authors.

The works of writers of the neighboring peoples of Ancient Russia tell about the life and way of life of the East Slavic tribes at the dawn of their state existence. Of particular interest to us are the testimonies left by travelers, geographers and historians who wrote in Arabic. The culture of the Arab people in the early Middle Ages was higher in comparison with European countries, since the Arabs largely preserved the scientific heritage of antiquity. There is a well-known story of the Arab writer Ahmed Ibn-Fadlan, who traveled from ancient Khorezm to the Volga, to the capital of the then Bulgar state, the city of Bulgar, in 921-922. In his book, he reports, among other things, about his meetings with Russian merchants, about their customs and rituals. Ahmet Ibn-Fadlan witnessed the burial of a rich Rus who traded in Bulgar and died there. The burial was performed according to an ancient pagan rite, accompanied by the burning of the young wife of the deceased and his property. There is no doubt that the deceased Russian merchant was still a pagan. After completing all the funeral rites, as Ibn-Fadlan writes, “they built ... something like a round hill and erected a large log of a hadang (white tree) in the middle of it, wrote on it the name of (this) husband and the name of the king of the Rus and left” .

So, according to Ibn Fadlan, in 921-922. pagan Russians could write and used their writing to inscribe names on graves. Unfortunately, the Arabic author does not say anything about what exactly the letter of the ancient Rus he saw was.

Details about the nature of the writing used by the Rus in the 10th century can be found in another Arabic writer of the same time, in Abul-Faraj Muhammad Ibn-abi-Yakub, known under the nickname Ibn-an-Nadim. His work, written in 987-988. under the title “Book of painting news about scientists and the names of the books they composed”, contains a section “Russian letters”, which says: “I was told by one, on the veracity of which I rely, that one of the kings of Mount Kabk (Caucasian Mountains) sent him to the king of the Russians; he claimed that they had writing carved into wood. He also showed (literally: he took out) to me a piece of white wood, on which there were images; I don't know if they were words or individual letters like that." And further, in the Arabic manuscripts of Ibn-an-Nadim, written characters should be drawn in one line, on the decoding of which many scientists worked in vain. Obviously, later scribes distorted the inscription so much that there is no hope for a more accurate reading of it now. However, in the above message, some details attract attention (the signs are carved on a piece of white wood), which allow us to conclude that, apparently, the interlocutor of the Arab author showed him nothing more than an ancient letter on birch bark.

Finally, we have one of the most interesting evidence in favor of the great antiquity of Russian (East Slavonic) writing in the lists of the Pannonian Life, i.e., the biography of the founder of Old Slavic writing, Konstantin (Cyril) the Philosopher. This monument reports that during his missionary journey to Khazaria (about 860), Constantine visited Korsun and “they wrote back that gospel and the psalter of Russian writing, and to find a person speaking with that conversation, and talking with him and receiving the power of speech, when applying their own, the writing is different, voice and voice, and soon begin to clean and say ”In translation, these words can be conveyed as follows: Konstantin the Philosopher found in Korsun the gospel and the psalter, written in Russian writing. There he met a man who spoke Russian, talked with him, and from him learned to read in his language, comparing this language with his own, that is, with the ancient Macedonian Slavic dialect well known to him. Evidence from the "Pannonian Life" is one of the "cursed" issues of early Slavic writing. A lot of very different and opposing opinions have been expressed regarding the interpretation of this evidence.

With the current state of Russian and foreign historical sources, reporting only random and fragmentary information about the writing of the ancient Rus in the initial period of their state, one can hardly hope for a quick and definitely clear solution to the problem. However, the very fact of evidence cannot be indifferent to solving the issue of writing of the Eastern Slavs. If you believe the “Pannonian Life” literally, then it should be recognized that Konstantin the Philosopher, a few years before he invented the Slavic alphabet, could see and study the writing of the ancient Rus.

So, a review of the main domestic and foreign sources, testifying to the relatively early beginning of writing among the Eastern Slavs, allows us to draw the only correct conclusion that writing among our ancestors arose, firstly, long before the official baptism of Russia, at least in beginning of the 10th century, and perhaps even earlier. And, secondly, the emergence of East Slavic writing, although it is undoubtedly connected with the common cultural heritage of all Slavic peoples, Old Slavic, Cyrillic writing, should be explained not by external influence, but primarily by the internal needs of the developing social order ancient Eastern Slavs, passing to the tenth century. from primitive communities to early forms of statehood and the feudal system. We can express our full agreement with Acad. D.S. Likhachev, who wrote back in 1952: “Thus, the question of the beginning of Russian writing should be approached historically as a necessary stage in the internal development of the Eastern Slavs.” At the same time, it should be emphasized once again that the beginning of writing does not at all mean the emergence of a literary language, but is only the first and most necessary prerequisite for its formation.

Chapter three. Problems of the formation of the Old Russian literary and written language

Under the Old Russian literary and written language, it is customary to understand the language that has come down to us in written monuments, both preserved directly in the most ancient manuscripts of the 11th-12th centuries, and in later lists. The written language of ancient times served multilateral social needs Kiev state: he served the needs of public administration and the court; official documents were drawn up on it, it was used in private correspondence; Chronicles and other works of Russian authors were created in the Old Russian literary language

The Old Russian written language was used both by the main East Slavic population of the Kievan state, and by representatives of other, non-Slavic tribes that were part of it: Finnish in the north and east, Turkic in the south, Baltic in the northwest. It is very likely that the distribution of the Old Russian written language crossed the borders of the state borders and it was in use among the Pechenegs, and among the ancient Kabardians in the foothills of the Caucasus, and among the Moldavians in the Carpathian region.

The literary and written language was called upon to serve all the needs of ancient Russian society. Therefore, we have neither sociological nor linguistic grounds to oppose the literary language with the language of business written monuments of the ancient era, such as, for example, Russkaya Pravda or letters, whether they are on parchment or on birch bark.

We find the same literary and written language in its internal structure in written monuments created on the territory of Ancient Russia, both of original and translated origin.

Even with the most superficial acquaintance with the language of the written monuments of the Old Russian era, its mixed character is revealed. In all its types and genres, elements are co-present, both East Slavic, folk, and Old Slavonic, bookish. The works of Russian scientists of the 19th century A. Kh. Vostokov, K. F. Kalaidovich, I. I. Sreznevsky, I. V. Yagich, A. I. Sobolevsky and others firmly established only that Russian writing and literature before Lomonosov used language, which was a conglomeration of folk, East Slavic, with Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian in origin. It was determined that the ratio of proper Russian and Old Slavonic speech elements in various monuments of Old Russian writing varies depending on the genre of the work and on the degree of education of the author, and partly the scribe of one or another manuscripts. It was found that, in addition to writing in this mixed language (the Old Church Slavonic Russian version), in Ancient Russia there was such a writing that was created in purely Russian. Finally, it was proved that the Old Slavonic (Old Bulgarian) elements of the Russian literary language over time and more are forced out and give way to elements of Russian folk speech, which finds its final completion by the first decades of the 19th century, approximately by the era of Pushkin. Everything else about these issues continued to be controversial until the Soviet era.

First of all, the question of the primacy or secondary nature of one or another speech element in the composition of the Slavic Russian literary language, which Kievan Rus began to use already in the 10th century, remained open.

The first of the Russian philologists who wrote in Soviet times, A. A. Shakhmatov, clearly and fully expounded the concept of the nature and origin of the Old Russian literary language. he coherent theory of the origin of the Russian literary language can be considered as a synthesis of everything that was done by researchers during the 19th century. It is natural to call this concept the traditional theory of the origin of the Russian literary language.

More decisively than his predecessors, A. A. Shakhmatov erected the Old Russian, and thus the modern Russian literary language, to the Old Church Slavonic language as a direct source. literary language.

Comparing the history of the Russian literary language with the history of Western European languages ​​that developed in the medieval period under the strong influence of Latin, A.A. Shakhmatov came to the conclusion that, unlike the West, where the Latin language was never assimilated with the spoken languages ​​of the people, Church Slavonic “from the very first years of its existence on Russian soil began to assimilate to the national language, for the Russian people who spoke it could not distinguish in their speech either their pronunciation or their word usage from the church language they had learned. Obviously, A.A. Shakhmatov admitted that the Old Church Slavonic language in Kievan Rus was used not only as a language of worship and writing, but also served as a spoken language for some educated part of the population. Continuing this idea, he argued that already the monuments of the XI century. prove that the pronunciation of the Church Slavonic language in the mouths of Russian people has lost its character, alien to Russian hearing.

Thus, A. A. Shakhmatov recognized the composition of the modern Russian literary language as mixed, considering the inherent folk, East Slavic in origin, speech elements as the latest, introduced into it in the course of its gradual “assimilation of living Russian speech”, while the elements are Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian in ethnolinguistic origin , including the original basis of the literary and written language, transferred from the southern Slavs to Kievan Rus in the tenth century.

This point of view, precisely and definitely formulated in the works of A. A. Shakhmatov, was shared until about the mid-1930s by the vast majority of Soviet philologists, linguists and literary critics. For example, V. M. Istrin, A. S. Orlov, L. A Bulakhovsky, G. O. Vinokur.

A new scientific theory, emphasizing the importance of the East Slavic folk speech basis in the process of the formation of the Old Russian literary language, was put forward by prof. With P. Obnorsky in 1934, the scientist analyzed in detail the language of the oldest legal monument of Kievan Rus, which developed in the 11th century. and which has come down to us in the senior Synodal list of the “Novgorod Pilot”, dated 1282. As S. P. Obnorsky’s careful analysis of the language of this monument, mainly phonetics and morphology, shows, it is almost completely devoid of any speech elements of Old Slavonic origin and, on the contrary, features of the East Slavic character are extremely widely represented in it. This observation allowed S. P. Obnorsky to finish his research with conclusions related to the problem of the formation of the Old Russian literary language.

The scientist wrote then: “So, Russian Truth, as a monument of the Russian literary language, as its oldest witness, provides threads for judging the very formation of our literary language. The Russian literary language of the oldest epoch was in the proper sense Russian in its entire core. This Russian literary language of the older formation was alien to any kind of influence from the Bulgarian-Byzantine culture, but, on the other hand, other influences were not alien to it - influences coming from the Germanic and West Slavic worlds This Russian literary language, apparently, originally brought up in the north, later the southern, Bulgarian-Byzantine culture had a strong influence. The slandering of the Russian literary language should be presented as a long process that went on crescendo over the centuries. It is not for nothing that the Russian-Bulgarian monuments of the older period contain even more Russian elements in the known lines than there are in our modern language. Obviously, along these lines, the blasphemy of our literary language followed later in the very process of its growth.

The point of view adopted by S. P. Obnorsky in 1934 allowed him to enrich the history of the Russian language with a number of interesting studies in subsequent years. Thus, in 1936 his article was published said above (p. 22) L In 1939, an article appeared about the "Tale of Igor's Campaign". In both of these works, the thoughts expressed in the article about the language of Russkaya Pravda found further development and clarification. In particular, the assumption about the original northern origin of the Russian literary language did not stand the test of time. Igor's Campaign" as a monument of ancient poetic creativity, made it possible to speak of Kievan Rus as the true cradle of the Russian literary language. The assumption of the ancient influence of the German or West Slavic speech element on the Russian literary language has also disappeared. Certain historical and grammatical provisions proper, expressed by S. P. Obnorsky in the article about Russkaya Pravda, did not stand up to scrutiny, namely, the provisions that the verbal form of the aorist allegedly was not the original affiliation of the Russian language and was introduced into it later under Old Church Slavonic. (Bulgarian) influence. The predominance of this expressive form of the past tense of the verb in the language of “The Tale of Igor's Campaign” forced us to abandon the hypothesis of its foreign origin and recognize its original belonging to the Russian literary language.

As for the main thing in the views of S. P. Obnorsky on the origin of the Russian literary language, the position about the originality of the Russian speech basis in the literary language of the older formation continued to sound with even greater confidence in his subsequent works.

The hypothesis put forward by S. P. Obnorsky was met with a number of critical speeches. Firstly, the well-known Soviet Slavist prof. A. M. Selishchev, whose critical article saw the light only in 1957.

A detailed analysis of the views of S. P. Obnorsky on the origin of the Russian literary language was also given by prof. S. I. Bernstein in the introductory article to the fourth edition of A. A. Shakhmatov’s book “Essay on the Modern Russian Literary Language” (1941). S. I. Bernshtein recognizes the indisputable value of the works of S. P. Obnorsky in that the hypothesis of the Russian basis of the Old Russian literary language, put forward by previous researchers only abstractly, these works transfer to the soil of a concrete study of the language of monuments. However, S. I. Bernshtein noted as a methodological flaw S. P. Obnorsky’s works is that they pay too much attention to phonetic and morphological criteria and too little vocabulary and phraseological criteria, which are of the greatest importance in deciding the question of the original basis of the literary language. S. I. Bernshtein also recognized the negative side of the works of S. P. Obnorsky that they have studied only two linguistic monuments so far. He pointed out the need to involve such works of Russian authors that were created in the XI-XIII centuries and have come down to us in relatively early lists, for example, “The Life of Theodosius of the Caves” and “The Tale of Boris and Gleb”, preserved in the list of the “Assumption Collection” XII in “The possibility is not ruled out,” wrote S. I. Bernstein, “that the examination of other monuments, and above all the examination of lexico-phraseological on a broad comparative basis, will lead to the need for further amendments, perhaps even to the replacement of the chronological difference postulated by Academician Obnorsky between the purely Russian literary language of the most ancient era and the later “bulgarized language”, the idea of ​​the difference between genres of literature and styles of language that developed simultaneously”.

Fair and impartial scientific criticism did not stop the research aspirations of S. P. Obnorsky, and he continued to develop his hypothesis about the East Slavic speech basis of the Old Russian literary language of the older formation. During the Great Patriotic War, he wrote a new large work, awarded the State Prize of the 1st degree. In this study, S. P. Obnorsky significantly expands the range of monuments of the most ancient period of the Russian literary language that he analyzes. The book contains four essays: 1. "Russian Truth" (short edition); 2. Works by Vladimir Monomakh; 3 “The Prayer of Daniel the Sharpener” and 4. “The Tale of Igor's Campaign”. The expansion of the research base naturally contributes to the greater persuasiveness of the conclusions that can be drawn by the researcher from his observations.

In contrast to the early articles by S. P. Obnorsky, in “Essays...” enough attention is paid not only to the sound and morphological structure of the language of the monuments under study, but also to syntax and vocabulary. In the course of a more in-depth study of the problem, the hypothesis of the original Russian speech basis of the Russian literary language of the older formation received many clarifications and corrections in comparison with its original interpretation. cautious assumptions, it was necessary to modify and clarify. “But one of the conclusions,” he continues, “the main one, must be considered unconditionally and unconditionally correct. This is the position about the Russian basis of our literary language, and, accordingly, about the later collision of the Church Slavonic language with it and the secondary nature of the process of penetration of Church Slavonic elements into it, that is, the position that reveals the falsity of the general concept that existed before that on the issue of the origin of the Russian literary language.

The analysis of the language of all the monuments he studied by S.P. Obnorsky shows that the language in them is the same - “this is the common Russian literary language of the older pores”. It is necessary to set off as an outstanding merit of S. P. Obnorsky in the field of methodology of historical and linguistic research of monuments that he did not stop before studying the language of those works that have survived only in later lists. Historians of the language before Obnorsky, as well as, unfortunately, many of our contemporaries, did not dare and do not dare to reveal the original linguistic nature of such written monuments, recognizing it as hopelessly lost under the influence of subsequent linguistic stratifications. S.P. Obnorsky, having a deep knowledge of the history of the Russian language and mastering the methodology of historical and linguistic analysis, boldly revealed the original language basis of the written monuments of antiquity he studied, gradually, layer by layer, removing from them the later neoplasms reflected by the lists that have come down to us. We can compare the work of S. P. Obnorsky with the work of a painter-restorer who removes later underpaintings from ancient works of Russian painting and makes these wonderful works of art “shine anew” with their original colors.

And one more, as it seems to us, methodologically extremely important position was expressed by S. P. Obnorsky in the preface to his “Essays ..”. It is sometimes believed that this scholar called for a nihilistic underestimation of the Old Church Slavonic language in the history of the Russian literary language. This is far from true. Concerning the method of linguistic analysis of ancient Russian written monuments, S. P. Obnorsky wrote: “The provision on the origin of the Russian literary language on the Russian basis is of great methodological importance in the further study of the Russian language. Standing on the wrong path, seeing the origins of our literary language in the Church Slavonic alien language, we methodologically incorrectly raised the question of the limits of Russian elements in the evidence of this or that monument. It is necessary to elucidate equally another question - the share of Church Slavonic elements belonging to each given monument or series of monuments. Then the general problem of the history of Church Slavonicisms in the Russian language, of the fate of the Church Slavonic language, will be put on the objective basis of the study. This study should show an objective measure of Church Slavonicisms in our language, or our idea of ​​them is exaggerated. Many Church Slavonicisms, evidenced by certain written monuments, had the meaning of conditional, isolated facts of the language, did not enter into its system, and later fell out of it altogether, and relatively few layers of them firmly entered the everyday life of our literary language.

Unfortunately, the wish of S. P. Obnorsky, which is so significant from a methodological point of view, was not implemented either in his own historical and linguistic research, or in subsequent works on the history of the Russian literary language written by other researchers.

The theory of S. P. Obnorsky about the Russian basis of the Old Russian literary and written language was recognized in the late 40s and early 50s by the majority of scientists who were then involved in the history of the Russian language, and was widely used in textbooks. So, the theory of S.P. Obnorsky was supported by Acad. V. V. Vinogradov, prof. P. Ya. Chernykh, prof. P. S. Kuznetsov and others.

In the same years as S. P. Obnorsky, but completely independently of him, he developed problems related to the history of the Old Russian literary language, prof. L.P. Yakubinsky, who died in Leningrad in 1945. His book The History of the Old Russian Language, completed in 1941, was published after his death. Answering the question about the origin of the Old Russian literary language, L.P. Yakubinsky relied on the linguistic analysis of the same main monuments of Old Russian literature as S.P. Obnorsky. His essays on the language of the works of Vladimir Monomakh and The Tale of Igor's Campaign were printed on the pages of periodicals even before the publication of the named book.

In his historical and linguistic constructions, L.P. Yakubinsky proceeded from the self-evident fact of the coexistence in ancient Russian written monuments of Old Slavonic and Old Russian linguistic phenomena proper. He assumed that this could be explained by the successive change of two literary languages ​​in the process of the historical development of the Kievan state. According to L.P. Yakubinsky, in the most ancient time of the existence of the Kiev principality, after the baptism of Russia, in the tenth century. and in the first decades of the eleventh century. Undoubtedly, the Old Slavonic literary language prevailed. It was the official state language of the ancient Kiev state. According to L.P. Yakubinsky, the oldest pages of the Primary Chronicle were written in the Old Slavonic language. The same state Old Slavonic language was used for his sermon by the first Russian by origin, Metropolitan Hilarion of Kiev, the author of the famous “Sermon on Law and Grace”.

Since the second half of the 11th century, in direct connection with those social upheavals (uprisings of smerds led by sorcerers, unrest of the urban lower classes) that the Old Russian feudal society is experiencing during this period, there has been an increase in the influence of the Old Russian written language proper, which is recognized as the state language Kievan Rus at the beginning of the XII century. during the reign of Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh, who came to power as the Grand Duke of Kiev in 1113 after the suppression of the uprising of the urban poor.

The historical concept of L.P. Yakubinsky was subjected to not entirely justified criticism by V.V. Vinogradov and did not receive recognition in the further development of the science of the Old Russian literary language, although, undoubtedly, this concept has its own rational grain and it cannot be completely rejected.

Starting from the second half of the 1950s, the attitude towards the theory of S. P. Obnorsky changed, and his views on the formation of the Old Russian literary language were criticized and revised. The first to criticize the theory of S. P. Obnorsky was Acad. V. V. Vinogradov. In 1956, this author, outlining the main concepts of Soviet scientists on the origin of the Old Russian literary language, named the names of A. A. Shakhmatov, S. P. Obnorsky and L. P. Yakubinsky, without giving preference to any of the scientific hypotheses expressed by them.

In 1958, V. V. Vinogradov spoke at the IV International Congress of Slavists in Moscow with a report on the topic: “Main Problems of Studying the Education and Development of the Old Russian Literary Language”. Having outlined all the scientific concepts on this problem in the report, V.V. Vinogradov puts forward his theory about two types of the Old Russian literary language: book-Slavonic and folk-literary, which interacted widely and diversified with each other in the process of historical development. At the same time, V. V. Vinogradov does not consider it possible to recognize as belonging to the Old Russian literary language monuments of a business content, the language of which, in his opinion, is devoid of any signs of literary processing and normalized.

In 1961 N. I. Tolstoy took a completely special position when considering the question of the origin of the Old Russian literary language. According to the views of this scientist, in Ancient Russia, as in other countries of the South and East Slavic world, up to the 18th century. as a literary language, the Old Slavonic literary and written language with its local branches was used.

The point of view of N. I. Tolstoy was supported, developed and partially clarified in the works of some other scientists, for example, M. M. Kopylenko, and in our article.

In the articles of V. V. Vinogradov, published in the last year of his life, new thoughts were expressed on the problem of the formation of the Old Russian literary language. Defending in general the position about its original character, disputed by such foreign scientists as B. Unbegaun and G. Hütl-Worth, V. V. Vinogradov admitted that the Old Russian literary language was complex in nature and that four different component: a) Old Slavonic literary language; b) business language and diplomatic speech, developed on the basis of the East Slavic; c) the language of oral creativity; d) actually folk dialectal elements of speech.

A new point of view on the relationship between the Old Slavonic and Old Russian literary language in the initial periods of their social functioning was expressed in 1972 by L.P. Zhukovskaya. Studying the language of traditional translated monuments of Old Russian literature, in particular the language of the “Mstislav Gospel” of 1115-1117, this researcher found many cases of variation, lexical and grammatical, in the texts of the gospel readings that are identical in content, introducing Old Russian into these texts during their editing and correspondence scribes of a wide range of words and grammatical forms, both common Slavic and Russian proper. This testifies, according to L.P. Zhukovskaya, that monuments of traditional content, i.e., church books, can and should be considered among the monuments of the Russian literary language; from the point of view of L.P. Zhukovskaya, one can talk about the Church Slavonic language, which differs from Russian, only starting from the 15th century, after the second South Slavic influence on the Old Russian literary language. As we think, this point of view also suffers from a certain one-sidedness and is not without polemical intensity, which does not contribute to the objective revelation of the truth.

In 1975, Lectures on the History of the Russian Literary Language (X-middle of the 18th century) were published posthumously, read by B. A. Larin back in 1949-1951. Concerning the problems of the formation of the Old Russian literary language, B. A. Larin argues not only with scientists who adhered to traditional views on this issue; not limited only to the presentation of the views of A. A. Shakhmatov, he also criticizes the works of S. P. Obnorsky, considering his position in many respects narrow and one-sided. B. A. Larin admits that it is possible to talk about the folk-speech basis of the Old Russian literary language, while at the same time referring its beginning to a much earlier historical period than S. P. Obnorsky. B. A. Larin found the first manifestations of the proper Russian literary language already in the oldest agreements between the Kievan princes and the Greeks, in particular, in the agreement between Prince Oleg and Byzantium in 907, seeing in Russkaya Pravda a reflection of the same business literary and written language in East Slavic speech basis. At the same time, B. A. Larin did not deny the strong progressive impact on the Old Russian language of the Church Slavonic language, recognizing the latter as “foreign” in relation to the speech of the ancient Eastern Slavs.

Turning to the scientific views on the formation of the Old Russian literary language, expressed by S. P. Obnorsky and his critics, we must still give preference to the works of S. P. Obnorsky. Undoubtedly, much in them was born of polemical hobbies, much needs to be improved and further in-depth research. However, his conclusions are always based on a deep linguistic and stylistic analysis of specific written monuments, and this is their strength!

Let us express our preliminary considerations about the origin of the Old Russian literary language.

From our point of view, in the process of formation of the Old Russian literary and written language, the folk colloquial speech of the East Slavic tribes, the ancient East Slavic folk dialects, should be recognized as primary; we recognize them as primary in the sense that they undoubtedly approached the historical moment of the emergence of writing already internally prepared, reflecting the relatively high level of social development of their carriers.

Quite widely branched in genre and stylistic terms, business writing, which arose among the Eastern Slavs at the time of their transition from the primitive communal system to a class society, reflected the many-sided and diverse needs of this society. We find here written wills, and international treaties, and inscriptions on household items and products, and commemorative inscriptions on stones and tombstones. and private correspondence. The consolidation of the spoken language in various areas of business writing was not yet, of course, a literary language, but to a large extent paved the way for its emergence.

The folk dialects of the East Slavic written speech developed and polished in the process of the emergence and formation of original speech art in its original oral existence. There is no doubt that the East Slavic tribes in the 9th-10th centuries. possessed a rich and developed oral folk art, epic and lyrical poetry, tales and legends, proverbs and sayings. This oral-poetic wealth undoubtedly preceded the emergence of written literature and literary language and to a large extent prepared their further development.

As the discoveries made by researchers of ancient Russian literature, and in particular Acad. D. S. Likhachev, the emergence and development of the written form of chronicle writing was preceded by the so-called “oral annals” - stories and legends that were passed down from century to century, from generation to generation, very often within a single clan and family. As the works of the same researcher show, initially embassy speeches also existed in oral form, only later fixed in writing.

However, the development of oral folk poetry in itself, no matter how intense it may be, cannot lead to the formation of a literary language, although, of course, it contributes to the improvement in polishing colloquial speech, the appearance of figurative means of expression in its bowels.

The conditions for the emergence of a literary language among the Eastern Slavs are specific. They are expressed in that one and only combination of rich and expressive folk speech with a well-developed, harmonious and inexhaustible word-formation common literary and written language of the Slavs - the ancient Church Slavonic written language. Other literary languages ​​of the peoples of Europe did not have similar conditions for development. Unlike Latin, which served as the official written and literary language of the peoples of Western Europe during the Middle Ages, the ancient Church Slavonic language, close to the common Slavic forms of speech communication and itself created as a result of the joint speech creativity of various branches of the Slavs, has always been accessible to the speech consciousness of the Eastern Slavs. The ancient Church Slavonic language did not suppress the linguistic development of the Eastern Slavs, but, on the contrary, gave a powerful impetus to the development of their natural language, entering into an organic unity with the Eastern Slavic folk dialects. This is the great cultural and historical significance of the Old Slavic language for the East Slavic peoples.

It is necessary to emphasize once again the high level of lexical and grammatical development of the Old Slavonic literary and written language. Formed mainly as a language of translated church writing, the Old Slavonic literary and written language organically absorbed all the achievements of the high speech culture of medieval Byzantine society. The Greek language of the Byzantine era served as a direct model in the formation of the literary and written language of the ancient Slavs, primarily in the field of vocabulary and word formation, phraseology and syntax. At the same time, it must be remembered that the Greek language of the Byzantine era itself is not only a direct heir to ancient speech values, but also a language that has absorbed the richness of the ancient languages ​​​​of the East - Egyptian, Syriac, Hebrew. And all this incalculable speech wealth was transferred by the Greek language to its direct heir, as if adopted by him, the ancient Slavic literary language. And the Eastern Slavs, having perceived in the tenth century. church literacy in the Old Slavonic language from their older brothers in culture, the southern and partly western, Moravian Slavs, thereby became the owners of this Slavic-Hellenic speech treasure. Thanks to the organic fusion with the Old Slavonic written language, the literary language of Kievan Rus, the Slavic-Russian literary language immediately became one of the richest and most developed languages ​​not only of Europe at that time, but of the whole world.

Thus, the process of formation of the Old Russian literary and written language in the X-XI centuries. can be likened to grafting a fruit tree. A wild, rootstock, by itself, could never develop into a fruit-bearing noble plant. But an experienced gardener, having made an incision in the rootstock trunk, inserts a sprig of a noble apple tree, a scion, into it. It fuses with the wild in a single organism, and the tree becomes capable of producing precious fruits. In the history of the Russian literary language, we can call the East Slavic folk speech a kind of “stock”, while the ancient Slavic written language served as a noble “graft” for it, enriching it and organically merging with it in a single structure.

Chapter Four. Old Russian literary and written language of the Kiev period. Monuments of the literary language - “The Word of Law and Grace”, “The Tale of Boris and Gleb”

In the previous chapter, we made a conclusion about the origin of the Old Russian literary and written language as a result of the organic fusion of the East Slavic folk speech and the written Old Slavic language. In monuments dating back to the period of the 11th-12th centuries, the Old Russian literary and written language manifests itself in different ways, depending on the target orientation and content of those works that it served. It is natural, therefore, to speak of several genre-stylistic offshoots of the literary-written language, or, in other words, of the types of the literary language of the most ancient era.

The question of the classification of such varieties, or types, of language in scientific works and teaching aids is interpreted differently and can be recognized as one of the most difficult issues of Russian studies. It seems to us that the main difficulty of the problem lies in the inaccurate use and underdevelopment of the terms used by philologists involved in the history of the Russian language. The very complex and confusing problem of the relationship between the Old Slavonic language of the Russian edition and the Old Russian literary and written language proper in the most ancient period of its existence has not been resolved either. The issue of bilingualism in the Kievan state is unclear. However, despite the difficulties encountered in the way of the researcher, this problem should receive a positive solution, at least in the order of a working hypothesis.

As already mentioned, V. V. Vinogradov spoke about two types of Old Russian literary language: church-book, Slavonic, and folk literary, simultaneously deducing the language of Old Russian business writing beyond the limits of the literary language. A similar interpretation of this problem is also available in the course of lectures by A. I. Gorshkov. G. O. Vinokur, however conditionally, considers it possible to recognize three stylistic varieties of the literary and written language in the Kievan era: business language, church-book language, or church-literary, and secular-literary language.

We find a different interpretation of the question of the stylistic varieties of the Old Russian literary language in the works of A. I. Efimov. This scientist in all editions of his “History of the Russian Literary Language” distinguishes two groups of styles in the literary language of Ancient Russia: secular and clerical. Among the former, he includes: 1) the written business style, reflected in such legal monuments as Russkaya Pravda, as well as contractual, commended and other letters; 2) the style of literary and artistic narration, captured in the "Tale of Igor's Campaign"; 3) chronicle-chronicle style, which, according to A. I. Efimov, took shape and changed in connection with the development of chronicle writing; and, finally, 4) epistolary, represented by private letters not only on parchment, but also on birch bark. These secular styles, according to A. I. Efimov, were formed and developed in unity and interaction with those styles that he calls church service: 1) liturgical styles (gospels, psalms); 2) hagiographical style, in which, according to his opinion, speech means of both church-book and colloquial origin were combined; finally, 3) the preaching style, which is reflected in the works of Cyril of Turov, Hilarion and other authors.

The interpretation of the problem of styles of the Old Russian literary language, proposed by A. I. Efimov, seems to us the least acceptable. First of all, his system of styles mixes proper Russian written monuments, i.e., which are the works of Russian authors, and translated Old Slavonic ones, such as, for example, the gospels and psalters, classified as “liturgical styles”, the texts of which came to Russia from the southern Slavs and, copied by Russian scribes, underwent linguistic editing, bringing the Church Slavonic language of the original lists closer to the East Slavic speech practice. Then A. I. Efimov does not take into account all varieties of written monuments, in particular, he completely ignores the works of rich translated literature, which in many respects contributed to the stylistic enrichment of the Old Russian literary language. Finally, A. I. Efimov refers these or those monuments to any one of the “styles” too straightforwardly, without taking into account the stylistic complexity of the monument. This primarily concerns such a diverse work as The Tale of Bygone Years.

However, AI Efimov, in our opinion, is right when he talks about the unity and integrity of the Old Russian literary language, which arose as a result of the interaction of two different linguistic elements.

Some researchers, both linguists (R.I. Avanesov) and literary critics (D.S. Likhachev), tend to consider the language situation in the Kievan state as an ancient Slavic-Old Russian bilingualism. Firstly, broadly understood bilingualism implies that all works of church content, as well as all translated works, should be considered as monuments of the Old Slavonic language, and only secular works and monuments of business writing, including records and postscripts on church manuscripts, are given the right to be considered monuments of the Russian language. . This is the position of the compilers of the “Dictionary of the Old Russian language of the XI-XIV centuries.” Secondly, supporters of the theory of Old Russian bilingualism are forced to admit that even within the limits of one work, one or another Old Russian author could switch from Old Russian to Old Slavonic and vice versa, depending on the subject covered in the work or in its individual parts.

In our opinion, it is still advisable to proceed from the understanding of the Old Russian literary and written language, at least for the Kievan era, as a single and integral, albeit complex, language system, which directly follows from our concept of the formation of the Old Russian literary language, outlined in the third chapter. It is natural to single out separate genre-stylistic varieties, or stylistic types, of the language within this single literary and written language. Of all the proposed classifications of such stylistic offshoots of the Old Russian literary language for the original Kievan era, it seems the most rational is the one in which three main genre-stylistic varieties are distinguished, namely: church-book, as its polar opposite in stylistic terms - business (properly Russian) and as a result the interaction of both stylistic systems - the actual literary (secular-literary). Naturally, such a three-part division also implies intermediate links in the classification - monuments in which various linguistic features are combined.

The listed stylistic varieties of the Old Russian literary and written language differed from each other mainly in the proportion of the Book Slavonic and East Slavic speech elements that formed them. In the first of them, with the unconditional predominance of the book-Slavic speech element, there are more or less significant numbers of individual East Slavic speech elements, mainly as lexical reflections of Russian realities, as well as individual grammatical East Slavicisms. The language of business monuments, being mainly Russian, is, however, not devoid of individual Old Slavonic, book contributions in the field of both vocabulary and phraseology, and grammar. Finally, the actual literary language, as already mentioned, was formed as a result of the interaction and organic combination of both stylistically colored elements with the predominance of one or the other, depending on the subject and content of the corresponding work or part of it.

To the ecclesiastical stylistic variety, we include monuments of ecclesiastical and religious content, created in Kievan Rus by Russian authors by birth. These are works of ecclesiastical and political eloquence: the “Words” of Hilarion, Luka Zhidyata, Kirill of Turov, Kliment Smolyatich and other, often anonymous, authors. These are works of life: . “The Life of Theodosius”, “Paterik of the Kiev-Pechersk”, “The Tale and Reading about Boris and Gleb”, here also adjoins the canonical church-legal writing: “Rules”, “Charters”, etc. Obviously, to the same group works of the liturgical and hymnographic genre can also be attributed, for example, various kinds of prayers and services (to Boris and Gleb, the feast of the Intercession, etc.), created in Russia in ancient times. In practice, the language of this kind of monuments almost does not differ from that which is presented in translated works, of South or West Slavic origin, copied in Russia by Russian scribes. In both groups of monuments, we find those common features of the mixture of speech elements that are inherent in the Old Slavonic language of the Russian version.

To the texts in which the actual Russian written language of that time stands out, we rank all, without exception, works of a business or legal content, regardless of the use of one or another writing material in their compilation. To this group we include both “Russian Truth”, and the texts of ancient treaties, and numerous letters, both parchment and copies of them on paper, made later, and, finally, in this group we also include letters on birch bark, for with the exception of those that could be called examples of "illiterate spellings."

Among the monuments of the proper literary stylistic variety of the Old Russian language, we include such works of secular content as chronicles, although one has to take into account the diversity of their composition and the possibility of inclusions of other styles in their text. On the one hand, these are digressions of church-book content and style, such as, for example, the well-known “Teaching on the executions of God” in the “Tale of Bygone Years” under 1093 or the hagiographic stories about tonsurers of the Pechersk Monastery in the same monument. On the other hand, these are documentary additions to the text, such as, for example, a list of treaties between the ancient Kiev princes and the Byzantine government under 907, 912, 945, 971. and others. In addition to the annals, we include the works of Vladimir Monomakh (with the same reservations as for the annals) and such works as “The Tale of Igor's Campaign” or “Daniil Zatochnik's Prayer” to the group of literary monuments proper. The works of the “Journey” genre also adjoin here, starting with “The Journey of Hegumen Daniel” and others. Undoubtedly, monuments of Old Russian translated literature, obviously or with a high degree of probability, translated into Russia, adjoin the same genre-stylistic variety of the literary language. especially works of a secular nature, such as “Alexandria”, “History of the Jewish War” by Josephus Flavius, “The Tale of Akira”, “Deed of Devgeniev”, etc. These translated monuments provide a particularly wide scope for historical and stylistic observations and, in their relatively large in volume in comparison with the original literature, and in the diversity of content and intonation coloring.

Let us note once again that we do not reject the texts of certain literary works, original and translated, if they have come down to us not in the originals, but in more or less late copies. Naturally, in the historical-linguistic and stylistic analysis of texts of this kind, special care is required, however, the lexical-phraseological and stylistic nature of the text can undoubtedly be recognized as more stable over time than its spelling, phonetic and grammatical linguistic features.

Further, in this chapter and in the following ones, we give experiments on the linguo-stylistic analysis of individual monuments of ancient Russian literature and writing of the Kiev era, starting with church-book monuments in content and style.

Let us turn to the language of Metropolitan Hilarion's "Words on Law and Grace" - the most valuable work of the middle of the 11th century.

The “Sermon on Law and Grace” is attributed to Hilarion, a well-known ecclesiastical and political figure of Yaroslav’s epoch, who was appointed by him to the Kiev Metropolitanate against the will of Byzantium, a native of Russia, an experienced master of ecclesiastical ornate work in the 11th century. An outstanding monument of the art of the word testifies to the great stylistic skill of its creator, the high level of speech culture in the Kievan state of that time. The "Word of Law and Grace" has not yet been studied in the linguo-stylistic plan. It, unfortunately, did not reach us in the original, and for study we must refer to the lists, the oldest of which date back to the time not earlier than the turn of the XIII-XIV centuries, i.e., they are two or two seconds from the moment the monument was created. half a century.

We find a few separate remarks about the language and style of the named monument only in a number of popular works and textbooks, and these remarks are of a general and superficial nature. So, G. O. Vinokur in his book “The Russian Language” (1945) characterizes the “Word about Law and Grace” as a monument of the Old Slavonic language. This scholar wrote: “The Old Church Slavonic language of Hilarion, as far as can be judged from the later lists in which his “Word” is preserved, ... is impeccable.” L. P. Yakubinsky in the “History of the Old Russian Language” assigned a special chapter to “The Word ...” by Hilarion. However, it contains mainly general historical information about the life and work of Hilarion, and also outlines the content of the monument. This chapter in the book by L.P. Yakubinsky is intended to serve as an illustration of the position on the primacy of the Old Slavonic language as the state language in the most ancient period of the existence of the Kiev state. Recognizing Hilarion's language as "free... from Old Russian elements", he asserted that "Hilarion clearly distinguished... his spoken language from the literary Church Slavonic language".

A special position in covering the issue of the language of Hilarion's works was taken by the compilers of the textbook on the history of the Russian literary language, published in Lvov, V. V. Brodskaya and S. S. Tsalenchuk. In this book, the East Slavic speech base is recognized for Hilarion’s language, the authors find in Hilarion’s “Word ...” traces of his acquaintance with such ancient Russian legal monuments as “Russkaya Pravda”, and among the supposedly East Slavic vocabulary found in his work, include such words, such as girl or daughter-in-law, are common Slavic.

One of the reasons for the fact that contradictory and unfounded statements appeared about the language of the “Words about Law and Grace” could be that scientists did not turn to manuscripts that preserved the text of the work, but limited themselves to editions that were far from perfect in terms of textual terms. The “Word about Law and Grace” was first published in 1844 by A.V. Gorsky according to the only list of the first edition of the monument (Synodal No. 59I). The named edition was used by researchers who judged the language of “Words ...”. The same edition was reproduced in his monograph by the West German Slavist Ludolf Müller.

As shown by N. N. Rozov, the publication “Words...”, prepared by A. V. Gorsky, is linguistically inaccurate. A. V. Gorsky was forced to meet the wishes of the then church authorities, adapting the language of the monument to the standard of the Church Slavonic language that was taught in theological educational institutions of the 19th century.

For a linguistic study of the "Lay of Law and Grace" it is therefore necessary to turn directly to the manuscripts of the monument. The text of the so-called Finnish passages can be recognized as the oldest in time from the lists that have come down to us of the "Words on Law and Grace". True, in the named manuscript it was preserved only in the form of one relatively small fragment. This fragment, consisting of one sheet, written in two columns on both sides, 33 lines in each column, contains the central part of Hilarion's speech (the manuscript is stored in the BAN under the cipher Finl. No. 37)."

The text of the passage was fully published in 1906 by F.I. Pokrovsky, who identified the passage with the work of Hilarion. Following I. I. Sreznevsky, who first drew attention to the manuscript, F. I. Pokrovsky dated it to the XII-XIII centuries. A closer paleographic study of the passage allowed O.P. Likhacheva to clarify the dating of the manuscript and attribute it to the last quarter of the 13th century. The indications of this list should be recognized as especially valuable in terms of textual criticism, since it undoubtedly dates back to the era before the second South Slavic influence and therefore is free from the artificial Slavicization of the language, which was reflected in later lists.

A comparison of the F list with the editions of Gorsky and Muller shows that it retains more reliable and original readings in terms of language.

From the grammatical side, the F list reveals, as one would expect, a greater archaism in the use of word forms than other lists and editions. So, if in later texts the supine forms are usually successively replaced by similar forms of the infinitive, then in the list F the use of supine as a function of the circumstance of the goal with verbs-predicates denoting movement is systematically maintained: “Come to earth visit ih' (F, 3, 21-22); "don't die ruin law n perform”(F, 2, 19-21).

The presence in the list of Phlexics with a full-voiced combination of sounds seems very indicative to us, however, for this passage there is a single example: “the Romans came, polonisha Yerslem” (F, 4, 20-21). In all other lists and editions in this place, the non-vowel variant of the verb: plnisha .

The change of the vowel a to o in the root of the word is characteristic dawn:“and the law according to seven is like eternal (e) rnAya dawn extinguished” (F, 4, 24-25). In other lists and publications - dawn or dawn(im. p. pl.).

Since list F, no doubt, was copied on the territory of the ancient Novgorod land, phonetic Novgorodism is noted in it: “къ ovcham perished” (F, 2, 18). In other texts, it is natural sheep.

Thus, drawing on data from the oldest list of “Words...”, despite its fragmentary nature, allows us to clarify to some extent our ideas about the original linguistic basis of the monument.

Let's turn to the main list of the first edition of Hilarion's "Words ...", which was the basis for the editions of Gorsky and Muller. This list was reproduced with sufficient accuracy by N. N. Rozov in 1963. On the basis of paleographic data, this researcher managed to correct the generally accepted dating of the list by the Synod. No. 591 and attribute it not to the 16th century, as has been customary until now, but to the 15th century. The textually most valuable list thus turned out to be a whole century older, which greatly increases the authority of its linguistic evidence.

List C contains the text of the monument, subjected to the second South Slavic influence. This is evidenced by the systematic use of the letter “us big” in it, not only in place of the etymological nasal vowel, but in general instead of the grapheme su, as well as the spelling of the vowel a without iotation after other vowels: “any way and the planet” (S, 1946, 19). Let us also cite such a purely Slavicized spelling: “we do not raise up our hands to God Vtzh (d) him” (from 198a, 4-5).

Obviously, under the influence of the same second South Slavic influence, the form polonisha, which we noted in the F list, was replaced in C with the usual Church Slavonic plnisha(C, 179a, 18). However, it is all the more indicative for the original linguistic basis of the monument, preserved in defiance of the Slavicizing fashion by the text C, such a feature as the spelling of the name of the Kiev prince with a full-vowel combination: Volodimer. In the text C we read: “Let us also praise, according to our strength, with small praises, the great and marvelous creation of our teacher-body and mentor of the great kagan of our land Volodimer"(S, 1846, 12-18). In the editions of Gorsky and Muller in this place, the usual Church Slavonic form of this name is: "Vladimera"(M, 38, 11-12). There is no doubt that it was the spelling with full consent that stood in the protograph of the "Words ...". This is all the more obvious since a little lower in the C list, another peculiar spelling of the same name is preserved with the vowel o after the letter l in the first root: “noble from the noble ones, our kagan Vlodimer"(C, 185a, 9-10). Wed a similar spelling with a clear trace of the full agreement earlier in the text: “consisting in work in capture”(C, 199a, 7-8). In the editions in both cases, instead of the marked spellings, there are the usual Church Slavonic ones with dissonance: "Vladimer"(M, 38, 20), “in capture”(M, 51, 15-16).

Typical for word usage in our monument are such lexemes as which(meaning dispute, quarrel) and robichich(son of a slave). Note: “and there were many strife and which”(S, 1726, 3-4); “and there were many strife among them, and which”(M, 26, 21-22).

Word which occasionally found in the Old Slavonic monuments proper, for example, in the Suprasl Manuscript, it is very common for the East Slavic writing of the older pores.

Noun robichich appears in list C of the "Words of Law and Grace" in several spellings, variously reflected in editions. See, for example: “beget Hagar a servant, from Abraham a servant robichist”(S, 1706, 19-20); “forced V on Christians, rabichishti on the sons of the free” (S, 1726, 1-3). In the publications of Gorsky and Muller: “beget Hagar, a servant from Abraham robichishch”(M, 25, 7); “rape on Christians, robicichi on the sons of the free” (M, 26, 20-21). It is characteristic that even Gorsky and Muller preserved the East Slavic variants of this word. The lexeme itself is common for early East Slavic speech use.

We note in the monument the peculiar semantics of the word dawn (dawn). While in the Old Slavonic monuments proper, this word has the meaning of radiance, light, a glimpse, and also a daylight, in the “Word of Law and Grace”, as the above example testifies, the meaning of this noun coincides with modern Russian: bright illumination of the horizon before sunrise and after sunset. Wed discrepancies in text C and edition M: “and the law is like the evening dawn extinguished” (zary - local oversingular; p. 179a, 19-20); “And the law is seven, like the evening dawn has gone out” (dawn- them. pad. units hours; M, 33, 4-5).

For the morphology of list C, the systematic use of the East Slavic inflection b in the genus is typical. pad. units hours in them. and wine. pad. pl. h. declension n. from the main on the -ia and vin pad pl. h. noun declension into -io “from dVvits”(C, 176 a, 15), “from trinity”(C, 176a, 19), "p "shadow"(C, 179a, 12), “for sheep”(S, 1956, 11), “wives and baby” spsi ”(S, 199a. 6), etc. In publications, all inflections of this type are replaced by ordinary Church Slavonic -i, -a However, see- "baby"(M, 51, 15).

No less frequent in the text C are inflections of feminine pronouns with b in gender. fall: “from him”(C, 1706, 10), “to work eb” (C, 1706, 16). In editions, these inflections are also changed to Church Slavonic “from not me"(M, 25, 1), “to slave in her”(M, 25, 5).

The preservation of East Slavic inflections in list C, despite the second South Slavic influence, makes it possible for us to attribute writings of this kind to the protographer of the "Words ...". Similar inflections are abundant in other East Slavic writings of the 11th century, for example, in the Izbornik of 1076: "noble"(win. falling. pl. h), “shit”(vin. pad pl.), "cache"(vin. pad pl.) and pl. others

Considering the use of the East Slavic inflection -b in the text of list C, one should dwell on the word form strife, which has given rise to conflicting interpretations in the literature. So, if we read in C: “there were many among them strife and which” (S, 1726, 3-4), then in the edition of M- “and there were strife many and which” (M, 26, 21-22). Muller comments on this passage as follows: “Mistake, the scribe perceived strife as a form of unities, numbers, and therefore had to refer the word “many” to “which”” (M, p. 68, note) Contrary to Muller’s opinion, the word spread- this is undoubtedly a lot. the number of them. fall - Old Slavic distribution, which in the Russian version of the Church Slavonic language naturally turns into discord. All Muller's arguments on this subject would have been redundant if he had looked directly at manuscript C, bypassing Gorsky's edition!

We can recognize as Eastern Slavisms, characteristic of the monuments of the 11th-12th centuries, the facts of the absence of the second palatalization, which are repeatedly encountered in the text C To before -b in dat (local) pad. units number of wives. kind of noun. and adj. with a base on -a. So we read in the manuscript: nb rVskb”(C, 185a, 4-5) and further: Greek”(S, 1856, 11). In editions, such a discrepancy between the text and the norms of the standard Church Slavonic language is eliminated, and we read in them: “but in Russian”(M, 38, 17) and “about the blessed land Grechsti”(M, 39, 4). However, in the future, text C contains a similar spelling: “our lord threatens countries” (C, 199a, 1-2). And this deviation from the standard was kept in editions: “lord our threats to the countries” (M, 51, 12). Muller believes To an obvious typo (M, p. 139). He also draws attention to the extremely rare burial of the title lord in relation to the Russian princes.

The spellings noted in text C, it seems to us, can either go back to the protographer of the "Lay and Grace" or to one of the oldest intermediate lists of the first ancient edition of the monument. Observations on the language of the lists should be systematically continued with further textual study of the monument, fruitfully begun by N. N. Rozov.

However, even now some preliminary final conclusions could be drawn. Firstly, the linguistic and textological study of the monument should be carried out not on the basis of its imperfect editions, but directly on the manuscript. Secondly, even a selective reference to these sources obliges us to abandon the superficial and language "impeccably Old Church Slavonic".

Undoubtedly, in the “language of the Word.” Old Slavonicisms occupy a prominent place and perform significant stylistic functions.It is no coincidence that the author of the monument himself addresses the audience as connoisseurs and connoisseurs of book eloquence: “we write neither to the ignorant, nor to saturate the sweetness of the book” (C, 1696, 18-19). the orator himself “saturated” his “Word.” with excerpts from ancient Slavic church books: quotes from the books of the Old and New Testaments, from works of patristics and hymnology are literally in every line of the monument. late lists of "Words ..." are quite stable and tangible. These Eastern Slavicisms in the language of Hilarion's works cannot be recognized, in our opinion, either involuntary or accidental. They are not accidental for Hilarion's word usage as the son of his people and his time. They are not involuntary, because each of the East Slavic elements of the language used by him has its own irreplaceable and inalienable meanings th and stylistic function. Let them be used in a clerical, solemn style, but in the style of the literary Slavic-Russian language, mixed in nature and origin of the written language of Kievan Rus.

Another literary monument, created at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries, is dedicated to the glorification of the first Russian martyr princes. This is one of the outstanding works of ancient Russian literature. Kiev period- “The Tale of Boris and Gleb”, which differs from other monuments of the same subject both in volume and in stylistic originality.

In Ancient Russia, “The Tale of Boris and Gleb” existed and was copied in parallel with another great work - “Reading about Boris and Gleb”, the author of which is recognized as a well-known writer of the late 11th century. Nestor, a monk of the Caves Monastery.

The question of the relative antiquity of both of these works still cannot be considered definitively resolved. We are inclined to the opinion expressed by N. N. Voronin, who recognized the “Tale” as having arisen later than the “Readings” and finally formed in the first decades of the 12th century. (after 1115), when previously created sources were included in it. The origin of the “Tale”, apparently, is connected with the activities of the clergy who served at the church in Vyshgorod, where the relics of the princes were solemnly transferred during their canonization.

The value of The Tale of Boris and Gleb for the history of the Russian literary language is determined not only by the early time of its creation, but also by the fact that this work has come down to us in the oldest list in the Assumption Collection, rewritten no later than the turn of the 12th-13th centuries. Thus, the distance between the time of the final composition of the monument and the date of the list that has come down to us does not exceed one hundred years.

“The Tale of Boris and Gleb” is one of the earliest examples of the ancient Russian hagiographic genre and is therefore inextricably linked with church tradition. The author of the Tale himself indirectly points to those works of hagiographic writing that were in circulation in the then Kievan Rus and could serve as an example for him to follow. So, the author, talking about the last hours of the hero of his “Tale ...”, Prince Boris, reports that he “thinks of the torment and passion of the holy martyr Nikita and saint Vyacheslav: like this former murder (murdered)” (p. 33 , lines 10-12). Here are named: the first is the life of the martyr Nikita translated from Greek (apocryphal), the second is the Czech life of Prince Vyacheslav, who was put to death in 929 on the slander of his brother Boleslav. Vyacheslav (Vaclav), canonized as a saint, was recognized as the patron of the Czech Republic.

But, adjoining the hagiographic tradition, the works about Boris and Gleb at the same time fell out of it, since the very circumstances of the life and death of the princes did not fit into the traditional schemes. Martyrs usually suffered and perished for the confession of Christ, being prompted by their tormentors to renounce him. Nobody forced Boris and Gleb to abdicate. Prince Svyatopolk, who killed them, was formally listed as the same Christian as they were. Victims of a political assassination, Boris and Gleb were declared saints not for their profession of faith, but for their obedience to their elder brother, for their manifestation of brotherly love, for meekness and humility. Therefore, to convince the church authorities of the holiness of the princes was not a simple or easy task, especially to defend the need for their canonization before the Byzantine churchmen. It is no coincidence that, according to the “Tale ...”, the Metropolitan of Kiev Georgiy himself, a Greek by birth and upbringing, “before ... not firmly lying to the saints” (p. 56, line 21). To prove the holiness of Boris and Gleb and the need for their glorification, the entire “Tale ...” is directed.

In terms of content and style, “The Tale of Boris and Gleb” is a very complex and diverse work. In the panegyric sections, it approaches the hymnographic and liturgical pattern, in the narrative parts it adjoins the annalistic and chronicle messages. The artistic side of stylistics in the works about Boris and Gleb is thoroughly and penetratingly revealed in the works of I.P. The language in which the “Legend...” is written is also not uniform. Revealing the dual nature of the then accepted literary and written language, we note the predominant use of ancient Slavic elements of speech in those places in the text where the goal is to prove the sanctity of the princes or glorify their merits. So, Boris, having learned about the death of his father, Prince Vladimir of Kiev, “begin to lose darkness and his face is completely filled with tears, and overflowing with tears, and unable to speak, in his heart to start a sitz vshchati: “Alas, I think, shine with my eyes, radiance and the dawn of my face, the speed of my joy, the punishment of my misunderstanding! Alas, my father and my lord! "” (p. 29, lines 6-11).

In the above passage, we do not find East Slavic speech elements, with the exception of the phrase my ness, designed according to the norms of phonetics and morphology of the Old Russian, and not the Old Slavonic language. And the same solemn bookish, ancient Slavic language is found further on those pages where the fate of young princes is lamented and their virtues are glorified for a long time.

However, when facts and events are reported, traces of an annalistic source clearly appear, apparently, the most ancient “Initial Chronicle Code”, which preceded the appearance of the “Tale of Bygone Years”. So, we see there a systematically expressed East Slavic phonetic and morphological design of proper personal names and geographical names: Volodimer, Volodimer, Peredslava, Novgorod, Rostov etc. On the very first pages of the “Tale” in its annalistic part we meet verbs with the East Slavic prefix ros- (“rostrig yu beauty for her face ”-p. 27, line 12; With. 28, line 1). Further, characteristic East Slavism pink(vm. different). It should be noted that this linguistic fact was not correctly understood even by the copyist of the Assumption Collection, who did not recognize the word alien to literary traditions: “And planting all rosnam lands in the principality ... ”Instead of an adjective rosnam, obviously originally read different. Discrepancies in this place show that the rest of the scribes did not perceive this word. Among the options we find: various L; razdnam-S; By the dawn(?!) -M; holidays - R; different A. Some scribes correctly understood the meaning, but conveyed it in forms more familiar to the later periods of the development of the literary language, while others completely distorted what was written.

The portrait description of Prince Boris in the chapter “Tales ...” “Oh Boris how to take it” is given in a diverse and diverse style, with a predominance of Old Slavonicisms, when it comes to the features of moral character: blessed Boris, good rooted, obedient to his father” (p. 51, lines 21-22), but with characteristic Eastern Slavisms when it comes to the appearance of the prince or his fighting temperament: “cheerful face, beard small and us” (line 24), “v ratkh khabar” (obviously, spoiled horobr-s. 52, line 1). Stylistically, the use of non-vociferous and full-vowel forms is very revealing. city ​​- town in "Praise to Vyshegorod". Let us quote this place in full: “Blessed is truly and exalted above all hail Russian and higher hail, imaginary, in itself such a treasure, he does not have the whole world! By truth Vyshegorod adverb: higher and higher city ​​all, the second Selun appeared in the Russian land, having in itself a merciless medicine ”(p. 50, lines 11-14). Of the phenomena of morphology, we note in this passage the absence of the second palatalization To front -b, which we observe both in the initial part of the “Tale ...”, and in such monuments as “The Word about the Law and Grace”, in the “Izbornik of 1076”.

The final part of the “Tale...” tells about the posthumous miracles of Boris and Gleb, about the discovery and transfer of their relics. And here the Old Slavic speech element is interspersed with Russian. We note a striking example of the introduction of colloquial speech into the text. The article “On the Offering to the Holy Martyr” tells how, at the opening of the relics of Boris, the metropolitan, taking the saint’s hand, blessed the princes with it: hurt on the shii, and to the eye, and to the crown of the head, and put your hand into the coffin by seven” (p. 56, lines 17-19). And when they began to sing the liturgy, “Svyatoslav said to Birnovi: “No one should butt me on the head.” And taking off Birn's hood from the prince, and see saint, and take off chapters and let Svyatoslav too” (ibid., lines 20-21). In the words of the prince, reflected in the story, undoubtedly, lies the seal of speech authenticity: so these words were remembered by everyone around.

We see in this ancient monument the same written literary language of the older period, a mixed language, Slavic-Russian, a language in which the East Slavic speech element sometimes makes itself felt even stronger and brighter than in our modern Russian literary word usage.

1. Struggle and interaction of different literary and linguistic trends in the post-Pushkin era (1830-1850s). The development of the Russian literary language within the framework of a stable norm. Codification of this norm (works of N. I. Grech). The general process of democratization of the literary language (the spread of the literary language in different social groups due to the spread of education and the increase in reader demand). The dynamics of styles and the periodic activation of Church Slavonic language means in this process. Struggle between noble and raznochinny parties in the linguistic controversy of this period. The instability of literary styles in the language of various non-elitist groups in Russian society; saturation of the literary language with elements of urban vernacular and professionalism. Development of scientific-philosophical and journalistic speech, enrichment of the vocabulary of the Russian literary language. Nadezhdin's linguistic positions and the influence of the seminary language on the language of raznochin literature. The value of V. G. Belinsky in the history of Russian journalism and journalistic style.

Fluctuations in the grammatical norm in the 1830-1850s, their limited nature. Changing the pronunciation norm of the literary language. Competition between Moscow and St. Petersburg orthoepy; orientation of literary pronunciation to stage pronunciation; loss of the old book pronunciation.

1. The process of formation of the system of styles of the Russian literary language (second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries). Differentiation of functional styles. Growth of influence of newspaper-journalistic and scientific prose. Activation of Slavicisms in the Formation of Scientific Terminology: Scientific Style as a Conductor of Church Slavonic Influence on the Literary Language. Judicial eloquence and its significance in the formation of the stylistic system of the literary language. Strengthening and dissemination of artificial literary methods of presentation in the Russian literary language of the second half of the 19th century. Distribution of foreign words and borrowed terms in the literary language of the second half of the 19th century; composition and functions of borrowings. Ethnographic element in the Russian literary process of the second half of the 19th century. and the involvement of dialectisms and vernacular in the repertoire of literary stylistic means. Partial changes in the grammatical system and pronunciation norm. The growth of literacy among different segments of the population and the strengthening of the role of the literary standard.

New phenomena associated with social and literary development at the beginning of the 20th century. Modernism and language experimentation as a rejection of the literary norm. Understanding the literary language as an elitist one (the language of the ruling class) in radical and populist journalism; political jargon and urban vernacular as elements opposed to the norm of the literary language. Dictionary of the Academy of Sciences edited by Ya. K. Grot (1895) as the last experience of pre-revolutionary normative lexicography.

1. Russian literary language under the communist regime. Revolutionary language. Language struggle in the context of the cultural revolution. Spelling reform 1917-1918 and its cultural and historical significance. Foreign language elements, neologisms, development of word-formation models with affixes -izm, -ist, -abable-, archi-. Functions of Slavicisms; clericalisms and archaisms. Compound words as signs of cultural orientation, features of their formation. The fight against illiteracy, the change of local elites and the elimination of the literary norm. Aestheticization of the language of the revolutionary era in the literature of the avant-garde. Language experiments by A. Platonov and M. Zoshchenko.

Restoration of imperial statehood in the 1930s and a return to the literary norm. Synthesis of old and new linguistic traditions in the literary language of the 1930s-1940s. Restoring the study of classical literature at school and giving it the role of a model of the correct language. Rejection of linguistic experiments in the literature of socialist realism, linguistic conservatism as an element of the communist state cultural policy since the 1930s. "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language" ed. D. N. Ushakova as an experience of normative codification of a new language standard. Appeal to the national tradition and purist tendencies in the language policy of the 1940s-1950s. Changes in orthoepic norms as a result of the expansion of the sphere of functioning of the literary language and the spread of literacy (the influence of spelling on pronunciation). The role of the media in the dissemination of the norms of the Russian language.
The decline of the role of the language standard with the reduction of state monopoly in cultural policy (since the late 1950s). Perception of the literary standard as a means of state control over creativity and attempts to update the literary language ("village literature", modernism in the 1960s-1980s, language experiments
A. I. Solzhenitsyn). Erosion of the literary norm and the resulting instability of the modern Russian literary language.

The state of the Russian literary language is currently an acute problem for the state, for the whole society. This is explained by the fact that the entire historical experience of the people is concentrated and represented in the language: the state of the language indicates the state of society, its culture, its mentality. Disorder and - vacillation in society, the decline of morality, the loss of characteristic national features - all this affects the language, leads to its decline.

The preservation of the language, concern for its further development and enrichment is a guarantee of the preservation and development of Russian culture. Therefore, every citizen of the Russian Federation, no matter who he works, no matter what position he holds, is responsible for the state of the language of his country, his people.

Of greatest interest for understanding the formation and development of the literary language is the 18th century, when progressive-minded circles of society tried to raise the authority of the Russian language, to prove its viability as the language of science and art.

A special role in the formation of the literary language during this period was played by M.V. Lomonosov. Possessing talent, vast knowledge, passionately desiring to change the attitude towards the Russian language not only of foreigners, but also of Russians, he creates the first in Russian "Russian Grammar", in which for the first time he presents the scientific system of the Russian language, draws up a set of grammatical rules, shows how to take advantage of its rich potential.

During this period, the concentration of national language elements is planned due to the selection of the most common features of the South Russian and North Russian dialects. At the same time, the democratization of the language also begins: its lexical composition, grammatical structure in a significant amount includes elements of the lively oral speech of the urban merchants, service people, lower clergy, and literate peasants.

Along with democratization, the language begins to gradually free itself from the influence of the Church Slavonic language.

In the 17th century, the Russian language was updated and enriched with Western European languages: Polish, French, Dutch, German, Italian. This was especially evident in the formation of the scientific language, its terminology: philosophical, economic, legal, scientific and technical.

At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries, representatives of the democratically minded Russian intelligentsia, expressing their attitude to the reform of the literary language and its styles, emphasized that the question of the literary language should not be resolved without determining the role of living folk speech in the structure of the national language. In this regard, the work of the great writers of the first half of the 19th century, Griboedov and Krylov, is indicative, they proved what inexhaustible possibilities live folk speech has, how original, original, rich the language of folklore is.

The creator of the modern Russian literary language is rightfully considered A.S. Pushkin. His contemporaries wrote about the reformatory nature of the poet's work. So, N.V. Gogol rightly asserted: “It, as if in a lexicon, contains all the richness, strength and flexibility of our language. He is more than all, he further than all pushed the boundaries for him and more showed all his space.

19th century - " silver Age» Russian literature and the Russian language. At this time, there is an unprecedented flowering of Russian literature. The work of Gogol, Lermontov, Goncharov, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Ostrovsky, Chekhov and others is gaining universal appreciation. Russian journalism reaches extraordinary heights: articles by Belinsky, Pisarev, Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky. Achievements of Russian scientists Dokuchaev, Mendeleev, Pirogov, Lobachevsky, Mozhaisky, Kovalevsky, Klyuchevsky and others are receiving worldwide recognition.

The development of literature, journalism, science contributes to the further development and enrichment of the Russian language. The vocabulary is replenished with new socio-political, philosophical, economic, technical terminology: worldview, integrity, self-determination, proletariat, humanity, education, reality, and many others. etc. Phraseology is enriched: center of gravity, bring to one denominator, negative value, reach apogee, etc.

Scientific and journalistic literature increases the stock of international terminology: agitation, intelligentsia, intellectual, conservative, maximum, etc.

The rapid development of science, the steady growth of magazine and newspaper production contributed to the formation of functional styles of the literary language - scientific and journalistic.

One of the most important features of the literary language as the highest form of the national language is its normativity. Throughout the 19th century, the process of processing the national language was going on in order to create unified grammatical, lexical, spelling, orthoepic norms. These norms are theoretically substantiated in the works of Vostokov, Buslaev, Fortunatov, Shakhmatov; are described and approved in the grammars of Vostokov, Grech, Kalaidovich, Grot, etc.

The richness and diversity of the vocabulary of the Russian language is reflected in dictionaries (historical, etymological, synonymous, foreign words) that appear in the 19th century.

Well-known philologists of that time publish articles in which they determine the principles of the lexicographic description of words, the principles of vocabulary selection, taking into account the goals and objectives of the dictionary. Thus, questions of lexicography are being developed for the first time.

The largest event was the publication in 1863-1866. the four-volume "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" by V.I. Dahl. The dictionary was highly appreciated by contemporaries. Its author in 1863 received the Lomonosov Prize of the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences and the title of honorary academician.

So, by the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian literary language was formed, its norms were defined, the morphological and syntactic structures were described, dictionaries were compiled and published, fixing and legitimizing its spelling, lexical, morphological features.

When characterizing the literary language of the 20th century, two chronological periods should be distinguished: I - from October 1917 to April 1985 and II - from April 1985 to the present. What happens to the Russian literary language during these periods?

After the formation of the Soviet Union, its development and enrichment continued. The vocabulary of the literary language is most clearly increasing. The volume of scientific terminology, for example, related to cosmology and astronautics, is growing especially intensively. A large number of words are created denoting new phenomena and concepts that reflect fundamental changes in the state, political, economic structure of the country, for example, Komsomol member, regional committee, virgin lands, collective farm, socialist competition, kindergarten, etc. Artistic, journalistic, popular science literature has replenished an arsenal of expressive and visual means of the literary language. In morphology, syntax, the number of synonymous variants increases, differing from each other in shades of meaning or stylistic coloring.

Researchers of the Russian language since the 20s. XX century paid special attention to the theory of literary language. As a result, they determined and characterized the system-structural division of the literary language. Firstly, the literary language has two types: book-written and oral-colloquial; secondly, each type is realized in speech. The literary and written language is represented in special speech (written scientific speech and written official business speech) and in artistic and visual speech (written journalistic speech and written artistic speech). The oral-colloquial type is presented in public speech (scientific speech and oral radio and television speech) and in colloquial speech (oral colloquial everyday speech).

In the 20th century, the formation of the Russian letter language ended, which began to be a complex dark structural organization.

The second period - the period of perestroika and post-perestroika - attached particular importance to the processes that accompany the functioning of the language at all stages of its existence, made them more significant, more clearly expressed, brighter, more clearly presented. First of all, we should talk about a significant replenishment of the vocabulary of the Russian language with new words (government structure, barter, foreign currency, Internet, cartridge, case, kiwi, adidas, hamburger, etc.), about updating a large number of words found; previously in the passive. In addition to new words, many words have been brought back to life that seemed to have gone out of use forever - gymnasium, lyceum, guild, governess, corporation, trust, department, communion, blessing, carnival, etc.

Speaking about the replenishment of the vocabulary of the literary language, it should be noted: a striking feature of our current language development is the clogging of speech with borrowings. The "foreignization" of the Russian language is a concern for linguists, literary critics, writers, many people; the Russian language is dear to those who are concerned about its future fate.

Throughout its history, the Russian language has been enriched not only at the expense of internal resources, but also at the expense of other languages. But in some periods this influence, especially the borrowing of words, was excessive, and then there is an opinion that foreign words do not add anything new, since there are Russian words that are identical to them, that many Russian words cannot compete with fashionable borrowings and are forced out them.

The history of the Russian literary language shows: borrowing without measure clogs speech, makes it not understandable to everyone; reasonable borrowing enriches speech, gives it greater accuracy.

In connection with significant changes in the conditions for the functioning of the language, another problem is currently becoming relevant, the problem of language as a means of communication, language in its implementation, the problem of speech.

What features characterize the functioning of the literary language at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century?

First, the composition of participants in mass communication has never been so numerous and diverse (by age, education, official position, political, religious, social views, party orientation).

Secondly, official censorship has almost disappeared, so people express their thoughts more freely, their speech becomes more open, confidential, and relaxed.

Thirdly, speech begins to dominate spontaneous, spontaneous, not prepared in advance.

Fourth, the diversity of communication situations leads to a change in the nature of communication. It is freed from rigid formality, it becomes more relaxed.

New conditions for the functioning of the language, the emergence of a large number of unprepared public speeches lead not only to the democratization of speech, but also to a sharp decline in its culture.

How is it shown? Firstly, in violation of the orthoepic (pronunciation), grammatical norms of the Russian language. Scientists, journalists, poets, ordinary citizens write about it. Especially a lot of criticism is caused by the speech of deputies, television and radio workers. Secondly, at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, the democratization of the language reached such proportions that it would be more correct to call the process liberalization, or, more precisely, vulgarization.

On the pages of the periodical press, in the speech of educated people, jargon, colloquial elements and other non-literary means poured in a stream: grandmas, piece, piece, stolnik, baldness, pump out, launder, unfasten, scroll and many more. etc. Common even in official speech became the words: party, disassembly, lawlessness and much more.

There are quite a few people who declare that swearing and swearing are considered a characteristic, distinguishing feature of the Russian people. If we turn to oral folk art, proverbs and sayings, it turns out that it is not entirely legitimate to say that the Russian people consider swearing an integral part of their lives. Yes, people are trying to somehow justify it, to emphasize that scolding is a common thing: Scolding is not a reserve, and without it not for an hour; Swearing is not smoke - the eye will not eat out; Hard words break no bones. It seems to even help in the work, you can’t do without it: You won’t swear, you won’t do the job; Without swearing, you can't unlock the lock in the cage.

But something else is more important: Arguing, arguing, but scolding is a sin; Do not scold: what comes out of a person, then he will be filthy; Swearing is not resin, but akin to soot: it doesn’t cling, it stains like that; With abuse people dry, and with praise they get fat; You won’t take it with your throat, you won’t beg with abuse.

This is not only a warning, this is already a condemnation, this is a ban.

The Russian literary language is our wealth, our heritage. He embodied the cultural and historical traditions of the people. We are responsible for his condition, for his fate.

Fair and relevant (especially at the present time!) are the words of I.S. Turgenev: “In the days of doubt, in the days of painful reflections on the fate of my homeland - you are my only support and support, O great, powerful, truthful and free Russian language! Without you - how not to fall into despair at the sight of everything that happens at home? But it is impossible to believe that such a language was not given to a great people!”